ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: nickrulercreator on January 19, 2018, 03:29:18 PM
-
Note: I know Apollo happened, I'm just curious if this is verifiable.
Hoaxers will commonly claim that the footage is slowed by 50%, 67%, etc, to simulate 1/6-Earth gravity. Of course, this isn't actually what happened, because if you double the speed, or increase it by 246% as some calculations can get you, then the movements of the astronauts' arms, legs, their bounces and hops, etc are all sporadic, jumpy, and unnatural.
Of course, just "it looks unnatural" or "it looks..." isn't enough proof, as it's largely just an opinion. What I'm wondering is if there's some mathematical way we can prove it isn't slowed down, or not even mathematical, just scientific.
If not, how credible is the "it looks unnatural" or "it doesn't look right when sped up" argument? I know hoaxers who seem to be so blind that they find those movements to be natural, so I don't know. Thanks in advance.
-
Match the footage to the audio? That's all time-stamped
-
Match the footage to the audio? That's all time-stamped
I've attempted this. I got hit with the "well it was dubbed over with the audio after the footage was filmed" excuse.
-
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4dmrFX76Oc)is a good one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc) If you speed it up so the pendulum's swing matches what it would be in Earth's gravity, the astronauts move like Speed Gonzales on cartoonish amounts of caffeine. Moreover, the length of time it swings is consistent with it being a vacuum. So there's no way all they did was slow down normal footage.
-
I got hit with the "well it was dubbed over with the audio after the footage was filmed" excuse.
I'm not sure how that would be possible since it was transmitted live and anyone could (and some did) listen in.
-
I got hit with the "well it was dubbed over with the audio after the footage was filmed" excuse.
I'm not sure how that would be possible since it was transmitted live and anyone could (and some did) listen in.
Essentially, they claim that it was all done pre-streaming, and what was aired wasn't live. Preposterous, I know.
-
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4dmrFX76Oc)is a good one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc) If you speed it up so the pendulum's swing matches what it would be in Earth's gravity, the astronauts move like Speed Gonzales on cartoonish amounts of caffeine. Moreover, the length of time it swings is consistent with it being a vacuum. So there's no way all they did was slow down normal footage.
This is great. Thank you.
-
Essentially, they claim that it was all done pre-streaming, and what was aired wasn't live. Preposterous, I know.
[/quote]
There's a great segment from Apollo 17 where Gene Cernan asks CAPCOM what the score is in the Monday night football game. You can x-ref the time of the transmission with the time of the game, and see that the score CAPCOM gave Gene is exactly right. Not possible if was pre-recorded, unless the hoaxtards claim that NASA had the power to fix live football games.
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
Another good one is the All Star Game being mentioned as being rained out in this Apollo 11 transcript (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html) (see 06 12 09 25 CC). Yeesh, it seems NASA can do just about anything except land people on the moon! ::)
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
Another good one is the All Star Game being mentioned as being rained out in this Apollo 11 transcript (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html) (see 06 12 09 25 CC). Yeesh, it seems NASA can do just about anything except land people on the moon! ::)
Actually, I think this took place after they had already lifted off of the moon. Thanks anyways though, still very good information
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
Here's the clip: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1203905.mpg
I found the football reference by accident. The reason I was interested in this piece of TV coverage is that it includes a 360 pan by the TV camera. Hoaxnuts are fond of claiming that there are no pans from the moon. Where's the film crew, lighting rig. door, etc?
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
Here's the clip: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1203905.mpg
I found the football reference by accident. The reason I was interested in this piece of TV coverage is that it includes a 360 pan by the TV camera. Hoaxnuts are fond of claiming that there are no pans from the moon. Where's the film crew, lighting rig. door, etc?
Not to mention that a 360 pan (or much of a pan at all) would also reveal front projection, which is commonly claimed to be what was used for the backgrounds. (As would astronauts in mirrored visors and white suits for that matter.)
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
Here's the clip: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1203905.mpg
I found the football reference by accident. The reason I was interested in this piece of TV coverage is that it includes a 360 pan by the TV camera. Hoaxnuts are fond of claiming that there are no pans from the moon. Where's the film crew, lighting rig. door, etc?
Precisely, but that won't stop them unfortunately.
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
Another good one is the All Star Game being mentioned as being rained out in this Apollo 11 transcript (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html) (see 06 12 09 25 CC). Yeesh, it seems NASA can do just about anything except land people on the moon! ::)
IIR, during Apollo 16, around the time Young and Duke were saluting the flag, CAPCOM read them the news about the Congressional vote approving the newest NASA budget including the Space Shuttle. (I think Duke responded with something like: "It's a great day to be an American".)
-
I hadn't observed the question about a Monday night football game, but this is an excellent point Bertie.
Thanks
Another good one is the All Star Game being mentioned as being rained out in this Apollo 11 transcript (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html) (see 06 12 09 25 CC). Yeesh, it seems NASA can do just about anything except land people on the moon! ::)
IIR, during Apollo 16, around the time Young and Duke were saluting the flag, CAPCOM read them the news about the Congressional vote approving the newest NASA budget including the Space Shuttle. (I think Duke responded with something like: "It's a great day to be an American".)
I do remember that comment, although I don't remember when it was transmitted, CRS at my end.
-
The proper factor by which the video should be sped up is closer to 2.47X. Basically what it comes down to is the square root of the factor by which the acceleration is greater/lesser. For the moon, gravity is 1/6th that of Earth's, so if the footage was filmed in Earth gravity, you would need to play that back at √1/6 or 40.8% speed to be consistent with lunar gravity. If you want to go the other direction, since Earth's gravity is 6 times stronger, you'd speed up lunar footage by a factor of √6 (or 2.47X) to be consistent with Earth gravity.
There is no "mathematical formula" that I know of that definitively "proves" that the footage could not have been slowed down, but fortunately, math is not required. Just speed up the footage the proper amount (2.47X) and then watch EVERYTHING. What these hoaxers fail to realize is that the ONLY thing that changes is the downward acceleration of gravity. Any other motion should be unchanged. When you speed up the footage to what hoaxers will say is the "original recording speed", all motion that gravity is not responsible for looks way too fast, jerky and unnatural. Any hoaxers who view this footage and claim it looks natural are simply lying to themselves, and if they refuse to acknowledge this, then there isn't anything that will convince them anyway; certainly no math will.
-
There is also the fact that the color wheel artefcats are most definitely single frame. That suggests to me the video is the stock standard. I am using analogue video as a reference, not MPEG2 as that introduces a heap of errors on its own.
-
There is also the fact that the color wheel artefcats are most definitely single frame. That suggests to me the video is the stock standard. I am using analogue video as a reference, not MPEG2 as that introduces a heap of errors on its own.
This sounds interesting. Can we get a little more information?
-
There should be another way to check this out too.
Dress a man in a Lunar EVA suit, and film him walking normally on the Earth... get him to kick up some soil as he does so, then slow the footage down by the calculated amount in an attempt to simulate walking in the lunar surface environment.
I'll bet a dollar against a dog-turd that the resulting slow-motion footage will look nothing like what we saw from the Lunar footage. The motion of the man in the suit will look completely different, and the particles of kicked up soil will not follow ballistic arcs.
-
Or just watch the first episode of "Space, 1999."
Won't help with the hoax believers, of course. Their sense of spacial relationships, kinetics, and timing are far into the knee of mssr's Dunning and Kruger's little graph. They'd say your film looked identical in all the important aspects. (Or they'd take the same attitude they did with "Mythbusters" -- that you intentionally did it wrong to make the attempt fail.)
-
Even modern films, with their maker's access to all sorts of digital enhancements and effects, still get it wrong.
^^Clouds of billowing dust that could only happen in an atmosphere^^
-
Even modern films, with their maker's access to all sorts of digital enhancements and effects, still get it wrong.
^^Clouds of billowing dust that could only happen in an atmosphere^^
... and on top of that, the EVA walking didn't look like the Apollo astonauts, and the wiggling curly cords on the control panel as the astronaut drove away did not act like they were in 1/6 G.
Some time ago I watched an interview between Astrophysicist Dr. Andy Howell (http://www.dahowell.com/) and director Ridley Scott about shooting the movie "The Martian". They more or less concluded that it was simply too hard to shoot to mimic the 38% Martian gravity, so they took some artistic licence and decided to make no attempt to do so.
Now, with all the modern high power computers and masses of CGI production expertise available to them, 38% G was too hard to shoot, and yet the Stupidati thinks that shooting to fake the Lunar 16% G on film stock 50 years ago would have been a breeze?
-
Some time ago I watched an interview between Astrophysicist Dr. Andy Howell (http://www.dahowell.com/) and director Ridley Scott about shooting the movie "The Martian". They more or less concluded that it was simply too hard to shoot to mimic the 38% Martian gravity, so they took some artistic licence and decided to make no attempt to do so.
But that's what they want you to believe!
(Very TIC)
-
Puts a new spin on the "Kubrick filmed them" claim. Imagine going up to him and saying, "You need to make parts of your new film, 2001, intentionally bad and/or wrong so the films your did secretly for us look better by comparison."
-
Even modern films, with their maker's access to all sorts of digital enhancements and effects, still get it wrong.
^^Clouds of billowing dust that could only happen in an atmosphere^^
For actual motion of dust in a 1/6th g vacuum environment I like this section from Apollo 15 :
The 'not long enough' joke also makes it....
-
Puts a new spin on the "Kubrick filmed them" claim. Imagine going up to him and saying, "You need to make parts of your new film, 2001, intentionally bad and/or wrong so the films your did secretly for us look better by comparison."
I think if you did that, Stanley would have had two words for you... the second word would be "Off"
-
Even modern films, with their maker's access to all sorts of digital enhancements and effects, still get it wrong.
^^Clouds of billowing dust that could only happen in an atmosphere^^
... and on top of that, the EVA walking didn't look like the Apollo astonauts, and the wiggling curly cords on the control panel as the astronaut drove away did not act like they were in 1/6 G.
The hilarious thing is that it looks like the billowing clouds of dust was digitally added in post-production after the scene was filmed with the model machines!
-
Or just watch the first episode of "Space, 1999."
That also contains the classic astronauts fight where the visors flip up, I must admit if I saw that one in an Apollo EVA I would join the hoax crowd. :D :D
Edit: Found the clip too watch the astronaut as he throws the other astronaut.. I remember this from watching the show when first broadcast, not a bad memory for a man 2 months shy of sixty.