Remastered and stabilised film of Apollo 16 Lunar Rover.

dobbiedabill
hey the chinese thing leaves tracks ??

Yes, why wouldn't it?

The moon buggies and the astronauts left tracks too.

Fearthedarkforiaminit

Hey Monkey,
Only the first link is remotely relevant. The 2nd has no mention of Vidicon tubes and the third link says just what I said in my previous post. The vidicon tube was in a camera mounted on the command module which never made it down to the moon. It goes on to say that westinghouse cameras were used on the surface. So, not real sure where you were going with it? However the discussion in the first link is marginally relevant but it is discussing lens flares which is a completely different phenomenon that happens with almost any camera. Again, I've read what others are offering as "proof", but I don't see anything remotely connected to the subject. And I'll say again, if these cameras had this issue as so many claim, why don't we see evidence of it in TV shows or news broadcasts from the period? Surely anything shot with these cameras would have the same defects/anomolies as this footage. Why isn't all footage shot with these cameras "ghosted" in this manner. Occam's Razor. Think for yourself.

You're trying too hard to convince me of your world view - this makes me suspicious.

I suggest you read them again, and have a look at how the signal was broadcast from the lunar surface and what they had to do to it to get it on to TV. Issues with broadcast quality were less to do with the camera and more to do with how that signal was sent back and the treatment on the ground, as can be seen by the differences in the TV signal, Honeysuckle Creek's footage, and the 8mm recording direct from the screen at Honeysuckle.

The next TV broadcast from the moon (of any significance) was Apollo 14, by which time they were using colour. Apollo 14 had issues with automatic gain control in high brightness situations, so that camera also had issues.

www.youtube.com... gmLxHjI4CnDB2rm2GjmnxLc8G1o_&index=7

I'm more than happy with my own independent thinking thanks.

wildespace

dobbiedabill
hey the chinese thing leaves tracks ??

Yes, why wouldn't it?

The moon buggies and the astronauts left tracks too.

but as stated in some replys the buggy did not leave tracks which has me thinking conn .

just look at the way the thing is being driven it would dig in and leave tracks yet in some photos it has no tracks under or around it which looks like it was lowered onto set .

onebigmonkey

Fearthedarkforiaminit

Hey Monkey,
Only the first link is remotely relevant. The 2nd has no mention of Vidicon tubes and the third link says just what I said in my previous post. The vidicon tube was in a camera mounted on the command module which never made it down to the moon. It goes on to say that westinghouse cameras were used on the surface. So, not real sure where you were going with it? However the discussion in the first link is marginally relevant but it is discussing lens flares which is a completely different phenomenon that happens with almost any camera. Again, I've read what others are offering as "proof", but I don't see anything remotely connected to the subject. And I'll say again, if these cameras had this issue as so many claim, why don't we see evidence of it in TV shows or news broadcasts from the period? Surely anything shot with these cameras would have the same defects/anomolies as this footage. Why isn't all footage shot with these cameras "ghosted" in this manner. Occam's Razor. Think for yourself.

You're trying too hard to convince me of your world view - this makes me suspicious.

I suggest you read them again, and have a look at how the signal was broadcast from the lunar surface and what they had to do to it to get it on to TV. Issues with broadcast quality were less to do with the camera and more to do with how that signal was sent back and the treatment on the ground, as can be seen by the differences in the TV signal, Honeysuckle Creek's footage, and the 8mm recording direct from the screen at Honeysuckle.

The next TV broadcast from the moon (of any significance) was Apollo 14, by which time they were using colour. Apollo 14 had issues with automatic gain control in high brightness situations, so that camera also had issues.

www.youtube.com... gmLxHjI4CnDB2rm2GjmnxLc8G1o_&index=7

I'm more than happy with my own independent thinking thanks.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just saying think for yourself. Which apparently you do and kudos for that. The discussion which you inserted yourself into was regarding the tubes and their ghosting effect. True the vidicon tube did have that issue, but as I've stated and as it clearly states in the third link you sent, westinghouse cameras and tubes were used for lunar surface cameras. These tubes were designed to eliminate the ghosting effect.Thanks for the link. Illustrates what I was saying the whole time.

dobbiedabill


but as stated in some replys the buggy did not leave tracks which has me thinking conn .

just look at the way the thing is being driven it would dig in and leave tracks yet in some photos it has no tracks under or around it which looks like it was lowered onto set .

Why would a relatively low weight vehicle be lowered on to a set? if you want to fake something like that for a still picture, you just pull it with a rope, and indeed make a track no bother, then take a picture along with a few footies here and there, job done. However that is not what you see in those still pictures, what you see is a rover at rest, no pilot/driver and no tracks in the immediate focus. So, all the information has been given in previous posts in explanation, and it behoves you to work it out.

smurfy

dobbiedabill


but as stated in some replys the buggy did not leave tracks which has me thinking conn .

just look at the way the thing is being driven it would dig in and leave tracks yet in some photos it has no tracks under or around it which looks like it was lowered onto set .

that is one light rover heavy on the pocket of the publis at $ 32.000.000

Why would a relatively low weight vehicle be lowered on to a set? if you want to fake something like that for a still picture, you just pull it with a rope, and indeed make a track no bother, then take a picture along with a few footies here and there, job done. However that is not what you see in those still pictures, what you see is a rover at rest, no pilot/driver and no tracks in the immediate focus. So, all the information has been given in previous posts in explanation, and it behoves you to work it out.

dobbiedabill

wildespace

dobbiedabill
hey the chinese thing leaves tracks ??

Yes, why wouldn't it?

The moon buggies and the astronauts left tracks too.

but as stated in some replys the buggy did not leave tracks which has me thinking conn .

just look at the way the thing is being driven it would dig in and leave tracks yet in some photos it has no tracks under or around it which looks like it was lowered onto set .

As has been stated already, the topography varies a great deal and is not as consistent as was first thought. At one point it was thought that the LM would sink below the surface into the regolith. It has been found that the dust on the Moon varies in depth a great deal. So it is not surprising to not see boot or rover prints/tracks in some places.

However, can you please demonstrate this with a specific instance or photo. Please give references also, so that everyone can look at the same thing. Most pictures that are posted on the hoax websites are cherry picked because they support what the HB wants to truly believe, that it was all faked. However, every picture that was taken by can be explained by either simple understanding of the context, or by scientific process.

Gibborium

dobbiedabill

wildespace

dobbiedabill
hey the chinese thing leaves tracks ??

Yes, why wouldn't it?

The moon buggies and the astronauts left tracks too.

but as stated in some replys the buggy did not leave tracks which has me thinking conn .

just look at the way the thing is being driven it would dig in and leave tracks yet in some photos it has no tracks under or around it which looks like it was lowered onto set .

As has been stated already, the topography varies a great deal and is not as consistent as was first thought. At one point it was thought that the LM would sink below the surface into the regolith. It has been found that the dust on the Moon varies in depth a great deal. So it is not surprising to not see boot or rover prints/tracks in some places.

However, can you please demonstrate this with a specific instance or photo. Please give references also, so that everyone can look at the same thing. Most pictures that are posted on the hoax websites are cherry picked because they support what the HB wants to truly believe, that it was all faked. However, every picture that was taken by can be explained by either simple understanding of the context, or by scientific process.

got some kool aid on your chin there

This is a small cleaned-up clip of Apollo 11, with a small montage of scenes from the EVA, as restored by Lowry studios.
The tapes are those *broadcast after a slow scan, so mostly what people saw on the day, the UK pictures may have been slightly degraded, or perhaps not, as they needed to be converted to the UK system, plus being redirected through networks. Still, (and this is a work in progress) there are better views here than some of the examples on the 'net. Armstrong and Aldrin when reading the plaque, is very clear.
For those who seek a good explanation about the quality or lack of in the pictures, this link is the one,

www.studiodaily.com...

* It is not clear if the super 8 monitor footage is included in the montage, maybe someone can spot any signs that it might be there.