Ian R 06.02.2006 15:35 |
John S Stuart wrote: It only takes one bullet to kill, so below I link you to that bullet. link If you do not see what is wrong here – I will explain in full later. Watch carefully, as this proves beyond doubt, man did not land on the moon. ... Even the images are flawed. If the camera and tripod were unmanned, (unless again, the poor unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!) how is the camera able to zoom and tilt, and follow the moving LEM with such precision – especially when no such equipment was carried on board?This footage shows the Apollo 17 Lunar Module ascent stage lifting off from the Moon. First of all, the camera was not mounted on a tripod - instead, it was mounted on the astronaut's rover, which was left behind on the moon. The camera was remotely operated from Earth by a fellow called Ed Fendell (the astronauts affectionately called him "Captain Video"!). The Clavius website (link agrees with me on this point: Ed Fendell, the camera operator at Mission Control, by remote conrol. It's fairly common knowledge that the television cameras on Apollos 15, 16, and 17 were operated by remote control from Houston. And the video footage from those missions is rife with pans, tilts, and zooms with both astronauts away from the camera (indeed, in the frame).link Bill Wood's essay explains in more detail the exact operation of the cameras on all Apollo missions: link |
Maz 06.02.2006 15:38 |
Begin with the LEM clip that John provides. He offers a set of circumstances that sound possible. How did that camera pan? |
Ian R 06.02.2006 15:39 |
Will do Zeni. Keep your eye on the first post. |
John S Stuart 06.02.2006 15:44 |
Hey guys - I am NOT a fanatic. Nor am I an expert. These are questions in my own mind. NOT some conspiracy theory. Doubting something until it can be proven otherwise does not make one unintelligent, quite the reverse actually. Infact, that is the best way to learn. Trial and error. The guitarist who never played a bum note - never played a guitar! I accept I could be wrong, and if I am - it would not blow my world apart. The thing is you really need to read up on satellite TV broadcasts. The point is not the signal that has been broadcast around the globe, but the signal from the moon to the earth in the first place. REMEMBER: We are dealing with 1969 analogue transmissions - NOT modern digital broadcasts. We need to stay on the moon, and see how it was possible to do this with 1969 equipment (not 2006 equipment). Not blinding with science, but physically how was it done. If you are familar with both the cameras and the technology of the day, you will see this is impossible. |
Bohardy 06.02.2006 15:51 |
Unfortunately, you will be proven wrong John. Hi Ian...;) |
John S Stuart 06.02.2006 15:53 |
Bohardy-har-har wrote: Unfortunately, you will be proven wrong John. Hi Ian...;)Good! This is not something I have studied in great depth and cling my sanity to! It is just something which has fascinated me for some time. How it was technically possible. That does not make me some kind of nut. But can anyone answer the make and model of the video camera? As we know that it cannot be a cartridge (it could not have been a film) or umbilical. That is the first question which needs to be answered - ignore all the other gobbledegook. |
Maz 06.02.2006 15:58 |
Ian R wrote: This footage shows the Apollo 17 Lunar Module ascent stage lifting off from the Moon.This is what I wondered. The clip is not explicit enough, and someone with my rudimentary knowledge could not tell what moon landing it refered to. I knew that once that was pointed out, an answer would quickly follow. |
John S Stuart 06.02.2006 16:01 |
link |
Ian R 06.02.2006 16:17 |
Here's a better quality clip of the Apollo 17 lunar-liftoff: link The lack of any 'flame' from the base of the ascent stage is due to the hypergolic propellants used, although the plume is visible briefly just after ignition. The multi-colour 'confetti' effect is due to the rotating colour wheel inside the camera, which meant that colour TV could be return from the moon using a single vidicon tube, therefore reducing the weight of the unit significantly. Here's a clip taken after the ascent stage had flown out of view: link And here is the equivalent shot from Apollo 16. Because of the transmission delay, Fendell had to pan the camera upwards about 3 seconds before the planned time of engine ignition. Unfortunately, in this instance, he got his timing off slightly, and the LM moved out of the field of view: link For Apollo 15, the motor controling the vertical movement of the camera failed, so only a static shot of lunar liftoff was achievable: link |
Ian R 06.02.2006 16:18 |
Hi Bohardy! Same old story with me, eh?! Like a dog with a bone... :) |
John S Stuart 06.02.2006 16:22 |
Stick to the questions set: 1: What was the 'movie' camera used to take the film in the first place? We know that it could not be either a cartridge (it could not have been a film) or umbilical type. (See previous thread). So what exactly was it? |
Ian R 06.02.2006 16:22 |
John S Stuart wrote: But can anyone answer the make and model of the video camera? As we know that it cannot be a cartridge (it could not have been a film) or umbilical.John, PLEASE read the PDF article on this page - it should answer all of your questions reagrding the camera, and how the signal was returned from the Moon: link In summary, all voice, telemetry and television was transmitted over a single frequency system, called Unified S-Band (USB). |
John S Stuart 06.02.2006 16:26 |
Ian R wrote:John S Stuart wrote: But can anyone answer the make and model of the video camera? As we know that it cannot be a cartridge (it could not have been a film) or umbilical.John, PLEASE read the PDF article on this page - it should answer all of your questions reagrding the camera, and how the signal was returned from the Moon. In summary, all voice, telemetry and television was transmitted over a single frequency system, called Unified S-Band (USB).What PDF article - set me a link. |
Ian R 06.02.2006 16:30 |
Right here John: link ...and here is the "Everything You Wanted To Know About Apollo TV Cameras, But Were Afraid To Ask" page: link |
Ian R 06.02.2006 16:35 |
This article is by someone who worked on developing the J-mission TV cameras:
link
The Apollo RCA Camera, with SEC Target & Color Wheel: Color wheel? Yes! Within the camera, a wheel with red, green and blue filter segments was rotating in front of the sensor tube at exactly one third the field rate, to expose the sensor to red, then green, and then blue light in successive fields. Here on Earth, a scan converter would store these fields on analog disk drives, and then generate NTSC video. Why use that old system? It allowed a simple and reliable camera design. At the time, CCD's were hardly more than laboratory curios and the prospect of shrinking a three-tube, broadcast quality camera to shoebox size and keeping it in registration through the trans-lunar voyage was unthinkable. The field sequential system offered excellent color quality and keeping the filter wheel rotating in the vacuum of space was the only risky part. A sensor tube under development at RCA at the time, known as a Silicon Intensifier Target tube, had just the characteristics NASA needed for the mission. It was highly sensitive, so it could see into deeply shadowed areas, yet it could withstand direct exposure to the sun without being damaged. It had low lag, or image carryover from field to field, and its sensitivity was electrically controllable over a 1000 to 1 range.(The J-missions were Apollos 15, 16 and 17). |
Ian R 06.02.2006 16:45 |
John S Stuart wrote:linkThanks for the link, John (that's my local uni)! However, it doesn't discuss the Unified S-Band system that was utilized during Apollo. For a very thorough treatment of USB, you can't beat this: link Or, a more concise description of the system: link |
Togg 07.02.2006 04:29 |
Very interesting I always wondered how that worked, I have to say it's a nice theory that we never went to the moon, but really John I am amazed that you are a part believer! All this stuff about registration marks on the photos and no stars in the shots plus the people that say why is there no flame? just make me laugh they have no understanding of science at all. The video camera was interesting to me as it was one I could never explain until now, Thanks Ian good job |
Fairy 07.02.2006 07:50 |
Great, Ian!! Thanks for this. I find it so strange we have to spend time proving such things. It's like proving that 2 + 2 is 4...But since hoaxes seem to be fashonable....It's great someone knowledgeable can explain the truth. Sometimes people presenting hoaxes can be so convincing that it is easy to fall in their traps...Strange though how some people will use so much of their time to make up such stories.....Your analysis in the other thread is very enlightening. Smiles Fairy |
Togg 07.02.2006 08:47 |
Now if you want a conspiracy theory how about this... Two computers have been stolen from the police officers investigating Princess Diana's death, the police claim nothing sensitive was on the machines, however two seperate burglers took the machines and some cash! Hmmmmm. cover up from on high? or coincidence! |
Fenderek 07.02.2006 08:54 |
Fairy wrote: Great, Ian!! Thanks for this. I find it so strange we have to spend time proving such things. It's like proving that 2 + 2 is 4...it's better than all those Q+PR should they / shouldn't they discussions... ;) I personally don't really care whether they landed there or not. I am / was sceptical and am not ashamed of that. I can find even on this board people more ignorant than me- there are more obvious things than this moon landing people can't grasp... and I don't mind reading about it. At the end of the day- I couldn't really care less whethet someone did land on th emoon or not. Therefore I don't have a problem with discussion like that. It's not going to harm anybody, that's for sure. And... well, ;let's read few threads from the top in other sections, shall we? "Why didn't Freddie ever get a double chin" "You Take My Breath Away: it isn't about a love for a person" "Brian and Roger are ruining PAUL RODGERS" "Paul Weller slags off Freddie Mercury" "Want to see Dackys balls?" I dunno- for me proving that 2+2 isn't such a bad thread to read afterall... Especially as I am at work and EXTREMELY bored... |
Lisser 07.02.2006 09:15 |
Fenderek wrote:I'm at work and bored as well. I've got tons I can do but I don't want to!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHH!!!Fairy wrote: Great, Ian!! Thanks for this. I find it so strange we have to spend time proving such things. It's like proving that 2 + 2 is 4...it's better than all those Q+PR should they / shouldn't they discussions... ;) I personally don't really care whether they landed there or not. I am / was sceptical and am not ashamed of that. I can find even on this board people more ignorant than me- there are more obvious things than this moon landing people can't grasp... and I don't mind reading about it. At the end of the day- I couldn't really care less whethet someone did land on th emoon or not. Therefore I don't have a problem with discussion like that. It's not going to harm anybody, that's for sure. And... well, ;let's read few threads from the top in other sections, shall we? "Why didn't Freddie ever get a double chin" "You Take My Breath Away: it isn't about a love for a person" "Brian and Roger are ruining PAUL RODGERS" "Paul Weller slags off Freddie Mercury" "Want to see Dackys balls?" I dunno- for me proving that 2+2 isn't such a bad thread to read afterall... Especially as I am at work and EXTREMELY bored... |
Fairy 07.02.2006 09:41 |
Fenderek wrote:Well Fenderek, considering that it was basically me who started this discussion, by comparing the idea behind Farenheit 911 with the moon landings, you're addressing your post to the wrong person!Fairy wrote: Great, Ian!! Thanks for this. I find it so strange we have to spend time proving such things. It's like proving that 2 + 2 is 4...it's better than all those Q+PR should they / shouldn't they discussions... ;) I personally don't really care whether they landed there or not. I am / was sceptical and am not ashamed of that. I can find even on this board people more ignorant than me- there are more obvious things than this moon landing people can't grasp... and I don't mind reading about it. At the end of the day- I couldn't really care less whethet someone did land on th emoon or not. Therefore I don't have a problem with discussion like that. It's not going to harm anybody, that's for sure. And... well, ;let's read few threads from the top in other sections, shall we? "Why didn't Freddie ever get a double chin" "You Take My Breath Away: it isn't about a love for a person" "Brian and Roger are ruining PAUL RODGERS" "Paul Weller slags off Freddie Mercury" "Want to see Dackys balls?" I dunno- for me proving that 2+2 isn't such a bad thread to read afterall... Especially as I am at work and EXTREMELY bored... I thanked Ian for his clarifications because he's helping clear things up. I just meant it's weird so many strange theories are spread...But I like these threads, so that the obvious can be revealed.... I don't know why you don't care if we landed on the moon or not...but I do care! So thanks again to Ian for the evidence. |
Fairy 07.02.2006 09:43 |
BTW what's so wrong with those threads on Queen and PR? I'd think it's a perfect topic for a Queen forum. |
Fairy 07.02.2006 09:46 |
Togg wrote: Now if you want a conspiracy theory how about this... Two computers have been stolen from the police officers investigating Princess Diana's death, the police claim nothing sensitive was on the machines, however two seperate burglers took the machines and some cash! Hmmmmm. cover up from on high? or coincidence!I think Bush was behind it....LOL |
Fenderek 07.02.2006 09:48 |
Fairy wrote: BTW what's so wrong with those threads on Queen and PR? I'd think it's a perfect topic for a Queen forum.One is perfect 135678 of them, all with people like BPP and mr4thofjuly- thank you, I'll count my rice or watch the grass grow ;) |
Fairy 07.02.2006 09:52 |
Fenderek wrote:LOLFairy wrote: BTW what's so wrong with those threads on Queen and PR? I'd think it's a perfect topic for a Queen forum.One is perfect 135678 of them, all with people like BPP and mr4thofjuly- thank you, I'll count my rice or watch the grass grow ;) |
Fenderek 07.02.2006 09:54 |
Fairy wrote: I don't know why you don't care if we landed on the moon or not...but I do care! So thanks again to Ian for the evidence.I don't care because... either way it's not going to have ANY difference on my life. whether they landed or not... Does it change anything in my life? Not really... If it was a hoax- would it change anyting? Not really? It's far, faaaar on the list of things to care about for me... Landed? Fine. Hoax? No difference really... |
Togg 07.02.2006 10:13 |
Yes it would have an impact, if they didn't land on the moon, then nations would never have invested millions into space research, and the vast majority of that money would have gone elsewhere. Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way. 1969 changed all our lives, whether we were born at that point or not. |
Fairy 07.02.2006 10:22 |
Togg wrote: Yes it would have an impact, if they didn't land on the moon, then nations would never have invested millions into space research, and the vast majority of that money would have gone elsewhere. Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way. 1969 changed all our lives, whether we were born at that point or not.I agree. Also, for me it has a very important emotional impact. I'm a big fan of space exploration, astronomy and all that goes with it. And I love to think that those missions have prepared for future explorations of other planets, and who knows where science will take us. |
Serry... 07.02.2006 11:14 |
Togg wrote: . Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way.Have you ever heard of the guy named Yuri Gagarin, the world's first artificial satellite "Sputnik", of the woman Valentina Tereshkova, of space station "Mir"? Or studying of space exists only inside problem "Who was first on the Moon"? |
Fenderek 07.02.2006 12:17 |
Serry... wrote:I secon dthat.Togg wrote: . Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way.Have you ever heard of the guy named Yuri Gagarin, the world's first artificial satellite "Sputnik", of the woman Valentina Tereshkova, of space station "Mir"? Or studying of space exists only inside problem "Who was first on the Moon"? PLUS- yes of course the moon landing changed our lives regardless of whether we were born or not- BUT what I meant it wouldn't change my life if now they found out that no-one landed on the moon back than and it was only a hoax. |
Togg 09.02.2006 06:57 |
Serry... wrote:Yes of course I have, that's what I was refering to, the USSR was the first in space, the first with a man in space and the first to have a viable space staion, however in the 1960's the focus was on the Moon, until America just pipped them to the post, after that point the USSR switched it's attention to understanding how man could 'Live' in space for long periods.Togg wrote: . Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way.Have you ever heard of the guy named Yuri Gagarin, the world's first artificial satellite "Sputnik", of the woman Valentina Tereshkova, of space station "Mir"? Or studying of space exists only inside problem "Who was first on the Moon"? |
john bodega 09.02.2006 08:04 |
Can I say, there isn't really a discussion when it comes to whether or not the lunar landings were hoaxed. To this day, the odd scientific experiment is still carried out by shooting out a laser signal at mirrors at one of the landing sites, the scientists observe some characteristic of the way the signal returns... tell me, if they didn't land on the moon, how did the mirrors get there?? Let's not talk about the way dirt gets thrown up from the wheels of the lunar rover - the way the dirt behaved in the vacuum environment, we were able to observe the parabola of fine lunar soil in a frictionless atmosphere and 1/8th earth gravity environment! Isn't this shit fun??? There is some marvellous literature out there, by the wayside... I think even the initial question posed about the camera has been answered before. I'll have a look, I enjoy reading this stuff quite a bit. |
john bodega 09.02.2006 08:09 |
I'm glad to hear you have an open mind on this by the way, but I don't quite understand the following: "If you are familar with both the cameras and the technology of the day, you will see this is impossible." What was impossible about it? The remote control part? I don't see the problem with that; remote controls are very simple things really. Point a remote control at a DV camera and make sure you're taping while you start pushing buttons. You can actually see the light flash heaps - that's all this digital bunk is, just lots of on and offs. As for the camera mechanism - it surely can't have been *that* far beyond 1969 technology for them to build a thing that could tilt the camera a little. And the returning signal? You can thank Canberra for that one! |