Remastered and stabilised film of Apollo 16 Lunar Rover.

smurfy

geobro

[pic]mc52b1e447.jpg[/pic and no wheel prints

edit on 18/12/13 by geobro because: (no reason given)

It's been queried before. The wheels are open mesh, AKA see through, any material simply falls to the ground, and covers the tracks.

edit on 18-12-2013 by smurfy because: Picture.

It would still make tracks. Not as clean and pristine as a normal tire, but take these tires or something similar and roll it down the beach. You will have tracks. Just sayin'......think for yourself people.

The only question you need to ask when discussing the Moon Hoax is a very simple one. Why haven't we went back? Even for a couple orbits in the Shuttle? In over 40 years and many space flights, we don't "slingshot" one of our ships around the moon for ole times sake? The payload is already up there, that's the hard part, why not fire the booster rockets for a few and take another look?

It's obvious to me we haven't gone back because we never went in the first place. Too many problems with environmental controls, radiation and the like, keeping humans alive etc.

Just my opinion, that's all. I believed it for along time too. But it's funny, as I recall watching the horrendous black and white footage on that summers night as a boy, I can remember the odd feeling I had, that gnawing instinctual feeling you get when something aint right. And I can remember seeing those "toys on strings" that they tried to pass off as the lunar module's miraculous take off from the Moons surface. And I remember thinking they aren't telling us the truth about some of this. Well they weren't.

But it's ok, don't be mad, the hoax served it's purpose, it made us feel good. Now it's time for the truth.

smurfy

geobro

reply to post by smurfy

 

like the see through neil

I don't see your point, do you mean the capsule is real, but the astronaut isn't, or vice versa? If you are going to fake something, it would be a good idea to have all the relevant components in one place. kinda silly otherwise. Or it could just be that the picture is secondhand, taken by a camera viewing a monitor, hence the ghosting and various double image effects.
It's also funny how you can joke about a transluscent Neil Armstrong, he should have been dead at least twice testing stuff on Earth and in LEO some time before the Moonshot, I suppose then, that was all rigged too, a real Machiavellian plot then?

I'm sorry but...what? You ever shoot film where people are transparent? If so, please let me know. I have worked with film, video and animation for 20 years and the only way I can create that effect is to layer or composite video and adjust the transparency. This video is clearly "produced" it was not shot that way. Period. Like Obama's birth certificate, a cheap fabrication. So easily debunked that you have to wonder what the real purpose is. Any and I mean ANY videographer who has any experience at all can see this is a fabrication. Why did they do it? Who knows. But this is about as real as Unicorn Poo.

wulff

geobro

reply to post by smurfy

 

like the see through neil

Please learn a little elementary scientific logic before looking foolish! the camera taking that footage was a lower quality vidicon tube that is VERY slow (a lot like the moon hoaxers) and it was 'absorbing' the image of the horizon before Neil came down the ladder, therefore the image of the horizon was still on the vidicon screen. After he stood there for a few seconds the light stabilized and he looked solid again!
This camera was subjected to the landing and all the dust sticking to it as well, they knew it wouldn't be clear but they wanted the first step to be recorded hence the camera mounted on the strut!
I hate having to explain stuff a child should understand but you are probably too young to remember all early "TV" cameras did that!

I'm not too young to remember, but yet I don't remember seeing any other video/film with this happening. If it was commonplace, then there should be all kinds of footage for you to point to where that happened right? Since it happened all the time, care to point out another instance of TV cameras creating transparencies on the fly? I'd love to see that. I have been working in the film/video industry for 20 years and it seems like I missed this, so I am anxiously awaiting your response. This could save me so much time. Who needs a green-screen? All I need is an old TV camera. Please share. Thanks!

Stackpot
The only question you need to ask when discussing the Moon Hoax is a very simple one. Why haven't we went back? Even for a couple orbits in the Shuttle? In over 40 years and many space flights, we don't "slingshot" one of our ships around the moon for ole times sake? The payload is already up there, that's the hard part, why not fire the booster rockets for a few and take another look?

It's obvious to me we haven't gone back because we never went in the first place. Too many problems with environmental controls, radiation and the like, keeping humans alive etc.

Just my opinion, that's all. I believed it for along time too. But it's funny, as I recall watching the horrendous black and white footage on that summers night as a boy, I can remember the odd feeling I had, that gnawing instinctual feeling you get when something aint right. And I can remember seeing those "toys on strings" that they tried to pass off as the lunar module's miraculous take off from the Moons surface. And I remember thinking they aren't telling us the truth about some of this. Well they weren't.

But it's ok, don't be mad, the hoax served it's purpose, it made us feel good. Now it's time for the truth.

We went back a few times Apollo 11,12,14,15,16, & 17 the Shuttle was NEVER design to go to the Moon.

Fearthedarkforiaminit

wulff

geobro

reply to post by smurfy

 

like the see through neil

Please learn a little elementary scientific logic before looking foolish! the camera taking that footage was a lower quality vidicon tube that is VERY slow (a lot like the moon hoaxers) and it was 'absorbing' the image of the horizon before Neil came down the ladder, therefore the image of the horizon was still on the vidicon screen. After he stood there for a few seconds the light stabilized and he looked solid again!
This camera was subjected to the landing and all the dust sticking to it as well, they knew it wouldn't be clear but they wanted the first step to be recorded hence the camera mounted on the strut!
I hate having to explain stuff a child should understand but you are probably too young to remember all early "TV" cameras did that!

I'm not too young to remember, but yet I don't remember seeing any other video/film with this happening. If it was commonplace, then there should be all kinds of footage for you to point to where that happened right? Since it happened all the time, care to point out another instance of TV cameras creating transparencies on the fly? I'd love to see that. I have been working in the film/video industry for 20 years and it seems like I missed this, so I am anxiously awaiting your response. This could save me so much time. Who needs a green-screen? All I need is an old TV camera. Please share. Thanks!

It's ghosting as described the horizon on the images has such a high light level the camera takes a second or two for the image to settle.

Watch this video from about 4:00 look what happens with the cooker and the pots on it.

This thread is turning into another battleground with Moon hoaxers? Bleugh.

Fearthedarkforiaminit
It would still make tracks. Not as clean and pristine as a normal tire, but take these tires or something similar and roll it down the beach. You will have tracks. Just sayin'......think for yourself people.

The buggy did leave tracks, just not everywhere. Lunar soil is harder or thinner in some places than others. Looks at a LROC image strips with an Apollo 15/16/17 landing sites, you can see rover tracks gradually fading from view as they reach firmer ground.

Click

There are places where the tracks reappear and then disappear again: Click

Stackpot
The only question you need to ask when discussing the Moon Hoax is a very simple one. Why haven't we went back?

Lack of financial backing and public support. Money and resources were needed for the developing Skylab and Shuttle programs.

Even for a couple orbits in the Shuttle?

The Shuttle was never designed to get to the Moon, it's for low-earth orbit only.

In over 40 years and many space flights, we don't "slingshot" one of our ships around the moon for ole times sake?

Plenty of unmanned spacecraft got to the Moon and beyond in those 40 years. Designing and running a manned mission is a whole different business. It could have been done, but politicians prefer to spend our money on wars and global domination.

While Chinese study the Moon with a real rover, NASA releases a scratch-free saturated version of their old footage. Impressive. But why remastering? I vote for a full remake of Apollo landings with George Clooney as Louis Armstrong.

wmd_2008

Fearthedarkforiaminit

wulff

geobro

reply to post by smurfy

 

like the see through neil

Please learn a little elementary scientific logic before looking foolish! the camera taking that footage was a lower quality vidicon tube that is VERY slow (a lot like the moon hoaxers) and it was 'absorbing' the image of the horizon before Neil came down the ladder, therefore the image of the horizon was still on the vidicon screen. After he stood there for a few seconds the light stabilized and he looked solid again!
This camera was subjected to the landing and all the dust sticking to it as well, they knew it wouldn't be clear but they wanted the first step to be recorded hence the camera mounted on the strut!
I hate having to explain stuff a child should understand but you are probably too young to remember all early "TV" cameras did that!

I'm not too young to remember, but yet I don't remember seeing any other video/film with this happening. If it was commonplace, then there should be all kinds of footage for you to point to where that happened right? Since it happened all the time, care to point out another instance of TV cameras creating transparencies on the fly? I'd love to see that. I have been working in the film/video industry for 20 years and it seems like I missed this, so I am anxiously awaiting your response. This could save me so much time. Who needs a green-screen? All I need is an old TV camera. Please share. Thanks!

It's ghosting as described the horizon on the images has such a high light level the camera takes a second or two for the image to settle.

Watch this video from about 4:00 look what happens with the cooker and the pots on it.

edit on 21-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Problem with that is that whole frame will ghost, not just portions. In the kitchen video you offered, yo can plainly see that the entire frame is "ghosted" as you would expect. In the clip of the lunar landing only the astronaut is supposedly ghosting. In addition, the ghosting never once affects the horizon or bleeds into the sky. You can see on the kitchen video that the ghosting overlays the entire frame, as it should. If the same happened in the lunar sequence, problem solved, but it does not. Watch them both side by side and think for yourself. Maybe I'll do a comparison video if folks are interested.

Fearthedarkforiaminit

smurfy

geobro

[pic]mc52b1e447.jpg[/pic and no wheel prints

edit on 18/12/13 by geobro because: (no reason given)

It's been queried before. The wheels are open mesh, AKA see through, any material simply falls to the ground, and covers the tracks.

edit on 18-12-2013 by smurfy because: Picture.

It would still make tracks. Not as clean and pristine as a normal tire, but take these tires or something similar and roll it down the beach. You will have tracks. Just sayin'......think for yourself people.

I've addressed that already. That post refers to a rover coming to rest. Of course it will leave tracks where the dust is deep and soft enough, I said that too.

reply to post by Fearthedarkforiaminit


It doesn't have a distinct bright/dark boundary but it is a similar process the image is not clearing quick enough is that a simple enough explanation for you now?

Fearthedarkforiaminit

 

Problem with that is that whole frame will ghost, not just portions. In the kitchen video you offered, yo can plainly see that the entire frame is "ghosted" as you would expect. In the clip of the lunar landing only the astronaut is supposedly ghosting. In addition, the ghosting never once affects the horizon or bleeds into the sky. You can see on the kitchen video that the ghosting overlays the entire frame, as it should. If the same happened in the lunar sequence, problem solved, but it does not. Watch them both side by side and think for yourself. Maybe I'll do a comparison video if folks are interested.

Yes you are correct that the whole frame ghosts in wmd_2008's video. However, your conclusion is faulty. In wmd_2008's video example the camera is being moved (panned) and the subject matter is static. This causes the ghosting of the subject matter to move across the screen.

However, in the Apollo TV video, the camera is static and the astronaut is moving. This causes the astronaut to move into the ghosting area. The ghosting remains stationary and makes it appear the astronaut is transparent.

Conclusion, wmd_2008 is correct in his analysis and ghosting is the culprit.

LDragonFire
funny how the dust kicked up looks just like it does on earth

Funny how the video just below your reply there clearly disproves this.

The dust shoots up strong, far and high.

The "funny" thing is that the moon rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph (13 km/h)...and THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH that a vehicle going as slow as under 10mph would create, let alone push up and behind such amounts of dusts.

mrkeen
While Chinese study the Moon with a real rover, NASA releases a scratch-free saturated version of their old footage. Impressive. But why remastering? I vote for a full remake of Apollo landings with George Clooney as Louis Armstrong.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


Of course you know that because you have driven a lunar rover in a vacuum with dust particles the same as the Moon in 1/6 th of the GRAVITY important words in bold!!!

wmd_2008
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

Of course you know that because you have driven a lunar rover in a vacuum with dust particles the same as the Moon in 1/6 th of the GRAVITY important words in bold!!!

I think you misread my post, I was trying to show that the one who claimed that "the dust kicked up looks like on earth" is wrong. My point was there is no way that a vehicle going at 7mph through dust on Earth would produce this footage, therefore the footage (the amount of dust kicked up) proves that it happens in 1/6th gravity, on the moon.

Something seems wrong with editing posts...

Anyway..for all doubters...look at 0:44 - 0:50..for example, how MASSIVE amounts of dust get kicked up and thrown back....from a vehicle which goes at 7mph. Better even, you can actually see the dust getting pushed back sort-of "in waves" and you can see those waves/shapes in the "air" standing for fractions of a second. (Check 0:45 - 0:50 in particular).

Now tell me how someone can see this and seriously state "the dust kicked up looks like on Earth"...better evidence for the authenticity I cannot even think of.

smurfy

wildespace

Cameras used by the Apollo astronauts are well-documented. Still images come from Hasselblad cameras that were adapted to space and simplified for astronauts' use. Film footage comes from 16mm cameras.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
www.myspacemuseum.com...

Just to add to that, if you haven't mentioned it already, all the landings were 'daylight' landings, and the cameras were set for daylight exposures.

Just to add... the Apollonauts dumped ALL the Hasselblad cameras on the "moon". All of them, except one. You know the one? It was Jim Irwin's Hasselblad that malfunctioned at Dune Crater, he brought it back to Earth for analysis, nobody ever saw that camera again and nobody has claimed to have it. It just disappeared.

And that, my friends, is how you cover up a fake "moon" landing... by destroying the forensic evidence. You see, if the Hasselblad cameras had been brought back from the "moon", a real, honest scientist might get the idea to examine it and take pictures with it... which would reveal that "moon" images were made from studio shots.

wildespace
This thread is turning into another battleground with Moon hoaxers? Bleugh.

The youtube video in the OP was " Uploaded on Aug 27, 2010
Apollo 16's LRV rolling about the surface of the moon."

This thread strikes me as a "feel good" thread for defenders. I understand that Apollo Defenders are in a period of low morale right now because of the recent Chinese accomplishments.

What's so fascinating about this video is the misty-eyed magical appeal it has for certain Apollo Believers. Someone in this thread said it was "mesmerizing" Well I can totally agree with that because I watched it dozens of times!

However I was not convinced by the short drive to and back from the LM. Is there any footage of the astronaut actually getting into the driver's position seat of the LRV? On the return from the LM the astronaut is getting a bumpy ride but his left arm seems perfectly rigid. I don't see the astronaut do anything he sits in the LRV like a stuffed suit. It's possible that there isn't a man inside that costume.

SayonaraJupiter

wildespace
This thread is turning into another battleground with Moon hoaxers? Bleugh.

However I was not convinced by the short drive to and back from the LM. Is there any footage of the astronaut actually getting into the driver's position seat of the LRV? On the return from the LM the astronaut is getting a bumpy ride but his left arm seems perfectly rigid. I don't see the astronaut do anything he sits in the LRV like a stuffed suit. It's possible that there isn't a man inside that costume.

ever drive by a field of cows who are unmoving and rigid? yes, it's the opposite motion, but the effect is the same, you have a field full of stuffed cows. Anyway the premise is flawed, if you have a rover in an American desert and whizzing about, doing its thing, the sensible idea is to put someone in the bloody thing, not a stuffed dummy...which BTW, is implying that the rover is in fact on the Moon, but no Astronauts, and whoever is taking the pictures, (in shadow) is also stuffed.
Considering that, why would you want pictures of anything getting into the seat of the rover?