ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: najak on November 22, 2024, 06:14:01 AM
-
This post was inspired by @smartcooky, who presented me with this film as proof that the Film Tech for faking a Moon Landing did not exist in 1969.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs)
(META-QUESTION: What's the notation here for making this URL appear as embedded YouTube link?)
===
Here's why I don't (currently) take this seriously:
1. Fast Film capture had long been in existence by the (18,000 FPS max even)
2. The excuse of "film strips not long enough" - easily solved by splicing and getting a bigger Reel casing to hold it.
3. There's very little continuous film already... and I'm unaware of any continuous shots that don't have a least one "dead spot" per 20 minutes... enabling them to swap in a new reel on a stationary camera... (e.g. Apollo 11 had tons of dead spots - still frame)
4. Optical Printing methods to slow down frame rates, and transfer footage on to the master reel (with frame rates adjusted) is the current common MLH theory.
I'm not seeing the non-feasible "magic" required for what I believe NASA pulled off here. Please enlighten me.
-
It is very simple the video equipment as Collins describes in the video did not have the capability to capture and run the "tape" at half speed or whatever the speed needed to be to emulate the lower gravity for even the very short Apollo 11 EVA. It is stupid of the HB to even think this is possible.
-
They had the ability to over-crank, as well as to do Optical Printing (both were available).
Can no one think of any feasible scenario where the film guys shoot at higher speed, then slow it down as they do some optical printing?
And is it inconceivable to make a Reel case to hold a longer film strip?
Are you aware of the Optical Printing Technique? Or that, at that time, we had the tech for capturing up to 18,000 FPS, and so 144 FPS should be a cinch.
What is the longest continuous footage you know of without a least a blip of dead space, or a hiccup in transmission? (either would serve as an easy place to swap reels and continue)
You reference the longest continuous footage that you find the most impossible for them to film - and I'll watch it to see if I can find any places where a reel swap could occur (still camera, no action).
==
Please try to refrain from the indirect personal attacks - in that you are implying I must be stupid for not believing as you do about Apollo.
-
Here's a great link from Jarrah White, which flatly/cleanly debunks this video you shared with me @Smartcooky.
Even the author retracted this video, and stepped back from his original stance.
Unless you can rightfully debunk Jarrah's debunk, for you to continue to share this link seems to me as disingenuous/dishonest.
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col3.htm (https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col3.htm)
-
It is very simple the video equipment as Collins describes in the video did not have the capability to capture and run the "tape" at half speed or whatever the speed needed to be to emulate the lower gravity for even the very short Apollo 11 EVA. It is stupid of the HB to even think this is possible.
In light of Jarrah White's incredibly detailed and accurate video, perhaps you might like the chance to adjust your own stance? Even Collins changed his stance, while you hold on to his original claim which he claimed was incorrect. Please have more integrity.
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col3.htm (https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col3.htm)
-
Neither TBFDU or aulis has any credibility here. You'd better find better sources.
-
Neither TBFDU or aulis has any credibility here. You'd better find better sources.
You have guys here resting on Collin's claim from years ago that he took down from his website, as he admitted that he was wrong. But PNAs here continue to dishonestly use it as "proof" when it's fraudulent. Truth is, we had the film tech.
Has anyone attempted to debunk this article from Jarrah White which blatantly debunks the video people are sharing from Collins?
Is anyone today still disagreeing with Collins' own admission that the required filming tech was available to make all of it "possible"?
-
S G Collins? Didn't admit any substantial wrongness, AFAIK. Whatever TBFDU claims, he has zero track record of being right.
FILM tech? Have you ever considered what would happen if a speck of dust, a blemish in the film, even a break during transmission happened? NONE of that happened. Have you ever worked with photographic film? It's really good a collecting dust. There was none on the transmissions.
-
Dust? - you think they couldn't have "clean" rooms? dust free. This is impossible?
This is your sticking point, that forgives the breaking of actual basic physics? Breaking physics is actually impossible - which is done many times by Apollo.
-
Jarrah's article comprehensively covers two methods -- one was using high speed video.
The other was using magnetic media. Both methods were "hard" but "feasible" for NASA. Far more feasible than "Breaking Physics".
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col3.htm (https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col3.htm)
-
EXCEPT the necessary hardware didn't exist.
-
EXCEPT the necessary hardware didn't exist.
EXCEPT, it did.
Collins admitted that the disc recorder option could be used if you feed video tape recordings into it 30 seconds at a time, then record the slowmo playback to a master tape.
His exact words: 'That's a good theory, whether you can do it depends on whether you can make 95 frame accurate edits between the quad machine and the disc recorder in the days before time code editing. What they did have was a system of cue tones and multiple heads which I'm told WOULD enable frame accurate edits between those machines. So theoretically, what you're suggesting could be done! Therefore, if slow motion does give the appearance of low gravity, and if you can perform frame accurate edits between a disc recorder and a quad machine, then I think we have to promote faking Apollo 11 from ‘impossible’ to ‘not bloody likely’. That’s progress right?'
And his claim that high speed video cameras didn't exist is false. According to Chan of the Video Logic Corporation, the InSTAR high speed video system of 1970 - that Collins mentioned - was capable of recording both black and white and colour high speed broadcast quality video for long durations.
Jarrah covered both these points in his article. Did you read this article and pay attention? It's been sourced so you can fact check it. I'm seeing respectable integrity in his work.
Please do some more research before you parrot anymore inaccurate claims (and ones where SG Collins wouldn't even agree).
I'm in process of creating a KB doc on this topic, that will present the objective truth with integrity, clearly and concisely.
-
And how many minutes of TV could be stored on a tape? You'd have to switch tapes every minute or so. Perfect sync every time.One fumble and the gig was up.
No, not possible.
And no, I don't read any of TBFDU.
-
And how many minutes of TV could be stored on a tape? You'd have to switch tapes every minute or so. Perfect sync every time.One fumble and the gig was up. No, not possible.
And no, I don't read any of TBFDU.
I think your fallacy may be the modal scope. At 15 inches per second, a single reel of quadruplex could record an hour of footage. With no need tape for swapping minute or so.
"TBFDU" - I feel your hurt. I'm guessing a lot of insult matches happened back-and-forth here, which is unfortunate. In the end, this is not about egos, but rather "truth".
I'm planning to write up a summary of what I know so far, inside of a KB (knowledgebase), for your review. So maybe we can continue this within that context.
Off-the-cuff, one thing that stood out to me, is that the "Chan from the Video Logic Corporation claim that the InSTAR system of 1970 was capable of recording broadcast quality high speed video in B&W and color. " This seems to contradict Collins' claim that no high speed color video cameras existed during Apollo, which undermines the entire premise of his video.
I find SG Collins to be a rare/unique individual, as he made a whole video where he changed his stance, based upon new information. Rare these days.
I believe if SG Collins were still alive, he would, again, concede to being wrong on a very provable point. We need more people like him in this world.
I should have the KB (Knowledgebase) article drafted for your review within 24 hrs.
-
Straight from the HB playbook of, something might be possible(in their opinion) therefore it was hoaxed. The problems aren't whether it was possible to do this on video in 1969-1972, it's how do you recreate the absurd motion encountered when the speed is altered for gravity.
Horizontal actions are unaffected by gravity. Meaning that whilst you see vertical motion "corrected" from altering playback speed, the horizontal activity is unaffected and looks insanely odd. Some of these EVA sequences were continuous unbroken over 40 minutes (I am not sure the largest time). So the 30 second figure quoted is not even going to come close.
-
Straight from the HB playbook of, something might be possible(in their opinion) therefore it was hoaxed. The problems aren't whether it was possible to do this on video in 1969-1972, it's how do you recreate the absurd motion encountered when the speed is altered for gravity.
Horizontal actions are unaffected by gravity. Meaning that whilst you see vertical motion "corrected" from altering playback speed, the horizontal activity is unaffected and looks insanely odd. Some of these EVA sequences were continuous unbroken over 40 minutes (I am not sure the largest time). So the 30 second figure quoted is not even going to come close.
My HB rationale is that "Apollo cannot break physics." - this is impossible. Yet they have, many times. So I am trying to reconcile this impossibility, and I believe the claim that "video tech in 1969 wasn't sufficient" is a far weaker claim. And I'm seeing PNA's over-reach here, making false claims about the lack of tech (still present SG Collins original video which even SG Collins admitted was wrong). Why lie, if you are standing on the truth?
I don't agree with your "vertical vs. horizontal" issue. A slow forward jump, will ALSO result in slower horizontal speed... thus it's fully consistent with low-gravity. They are not playing the "Launch of the projectile" at full-speed, then slowing down only the trajectory -- they are slowing done BOTH -- thus the horizontal speed of projection is also slowed to 40%. Thus it's consistent with the vertical/gravity component as well. 100% consistency.
Do you really think my argument here is untrue? This basic simple physics.
@Allen F - promised me "smart scientific minds" here on this forum. But so far, I'm getting responses from people who don't seem to understand basic simple physics.
@Mag40 - I apologize for my offense here to you. I just think you might be in over your head on this. Maybe I'm missing something.
Is there anyone here, who can make arguments that demonstrate a solid understanding of physics?
-
At the end of Collin's video (remember? It's the one where he moved the 'Apollo was faked' rating from "impossible" to "not bloody likely"), he posed some advice for people claiming the footage was faked, do you recall this?
He advised HB's to come up with the practical means/methodology in which it the footage could have been faked, then take this means/methodology to people who actually have the experience and knowledge of the equipment being mentioned and get their opinion on the actual possibility and feasibility. It's been over 11 years since Collins' video went up, have any HB's actually taken this advice? Where are the actual industry experts saying this could have been possible?
-
S G Collins? Didn't admit any substantial wrongness, AFAIK. Whatever TBFDU claims, he has zero track record of being right.
FILM tech? Have you ever considered what would happen if a speck of dust, a blemish in the film, even a break during transmission happened? NONE of that happened. Have you ever worked with photographic film? It's really good a collecting dust. There was none on the transmissions.
Film is also very good at creating static, which leaves damage on the film in the form of pit-marks and streaks. This is particularly the case with movie film, and the faster you over-crank it, the more likely you are to get static marks. The chances of avoiding any static damage when you over-crank 6 hrs worth of film to get 2 h 31 min on uninterrupted lunar EVA broadcast are indistinguishable from zero. That that doesn't even allow for any other other obvious defects that will give the game away..... emulsion flakes, dust and camera mechanism scratches, gate weave. And you get just ONE of those defects, and the game is up.
Then even in the extremely unlikely case that you get all of that done without a single defect, you now have the problem of turning your negative film into positive. So that is 10,800 feet of film that has to be post processed through another machine. That more chances to flake the emulsion, scratch the film and risk static pit marks to the positive.
Finally, if you have successfully made your 2h 31m slow motion fake movie of the fake lunar EVA, you now have to prepare it for broadcast, by running it through a telecine to make the analog broadcast. More opportunity to damage you film
-
Film is also very good at creating static, which leaves damage on the film in the form of pit-marks and streaks. This is particularly the case with movie film, and the faster you over-crank it, the more likely you are to get static marks. The chances of avoiding any static damage when you over-crank 6 hrs worth of film to get 2 h 31 min on uninterrupted lunar EVA broadcast are indistinguishable from zero. That that doesn't even allow for any other other obvious defects that will give the game away..... emulsion flakes, dust and camera mechanism scratches, gate weave. And you get just ONE of those defects, and the game is up.
Then even in the extremely unlikely case that you get all of that done without a single defect, you now have the problem of turning your negative film into positive. So that is 10,800 feet of film that has to be post processed through another machine. That more chances to flake the emulsion, scratch the film and risk static pit marks to the positive.
Finally, if you have successfully made your 2h 31m slow motion fake movie of the fake lunar EVA, you now have to prepare it for broadcast, by running it through a telecine to make the analog broadcast. More opportunity to damage you film
You talk as though this is high fidelity film. When NASA converts it to MPG, the best they can do is 240 pixels x 360 pixels for most of it. And it's grainy and blurry.... AND even show signs of "DUST" maybe?
Here's a shot of this high fidelity impossible to fake resolution -- with a SPECK ON IT that only shows on this one frame... looks like a "dreaded imperfection".
This tiny image is NASA's MPG native resolution, 240 pix high.
I CIRCLED THE "SPEC" - is this dust on the film? It doesn't seem to bother anyone.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2018.0;attach=1181;image)
-
At the end of Collin's video (remember? It's the one where he moved the 'Apollo was faked' rating from "impossible" to "not bloody likely"), he posed some advice for people claiming the footage was faked, do you recall this?
He advised HB's to come up with the practical means/methodology in which it the footage could have been faked, then take this means/methodology to people who actually have the experience and knowledge of the equipment being mentioned and get their opinion on the actual possibility and feasibility. It's been over 11 years since Collins' video went up, have any HB's actually taken this advice? Where are the actual industry experts saying this could have been possible?
Jarrah made a solid and detailed response to SG Collins. Have you watched it? Collins made a seemingly erroneous claim about the InSTAR camera being only B&W, but apparently there's a legit claim made that it also supports Color.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x49lImzw5s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x49lImzw5s)
I've been seeing a considerable amount of "low-integrity evidence" being shared here by PNA's, who never criticize each other, like an echo chamber.
Can anyone tell me what you find to be "low integrity" about Jarrah's response video here. It seems to me, to be higher integrity than the "original Collins Video" that he took down, and retracted.
-
Please don't avoid the very specific question I was asking.
In the 11 years since Collins' response to Jarrah, has any HB followed his advice and taken their theory to an actual, industry expert? Someone with knowledge and experience with the equipment in question?
Why do you keep saying that Collins took down his video and issued a retraction? No such thing happened, as all three videos are still available on the channel, unless you'd like to point out his retraction? Saying something has gone from "impossible" to "not bloody likely", isn't what I would consider a retraction, so could you please timestamp to Collins' retraction.
-
At the end of Collin's video (remember? It's the one where he moved the 'Apollo was faked' rating from "impossible" to "not bloody likely"), he posed some advice for people claiming the footage was faked, do you recall this?
He advised HB's to come up with the practical means/methodology in which it the footage could have been faked, then take this means/methodology to people who actually have the experience and knowledge of the equipment being mentioned and get their opinion on the actual possibility and feasibility. It's been over 11 years since Collins' video went up, have any HB's actually taken this advice? Where are the actual industry experts saying this could have been possible?
Jarrah made a solid and detailed response to SG Collins. Have you watched it? Collins made a seemingly erroneous claim about the InSTAR camera being only B&W, but apparently there's a legit claim made that it also supports Color.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x49lImzw5s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x49lImzw5s)
I've been seeing a considerable amount of "low-integrity evidence" being shared here by PNA's, who never criticize each other, like an echo chamber.
Can anyone tell me what you find to be "low integrity" about Jarrah's response video here. It seems to me, to be higher integrity than the "original Collins Video" that he took down, and retracted.
Jarrah has never made an integral discussion with anyone concerning Apollo. Too much stupidity in attempting to "discuss" what happened during Apollo in an attempt to "prove" his mentors, Kasing and Rene. Have you investigated any claims by either of those two? And then found any substance in any objection that they proposed? If so post them on a different thread as this is supposed to be dealing with film tech.
-
Jarrah made a solid and detailed response to SG Collins. Have you watched it? Collins made a seemingly erroneous claim about the InSTAR camera being only B&W, but apparently there's a legit claim made that it also supports Color.
No. His response was full of errors and assumptions... and in some cases, flat out lies. He claimed technology that doesn't exist, based on misunderstanding the results of a Google search (pretty much, Google searches is all he has, because he is not scholarly enough to understand anything beyond that). Much of the information he might need if he wants to debunk SG Collins is not going to be available in a Google search because no-one has ever taken the time to digitize the information. You actually have to talk to the people who knew the subject becasue they worked in the industry, and understand the video and film technology of the time. To quote Jay... "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
Jarrah White is an idiot.... there is a reason why he is referred to as "The Blunder from Down Under"
-
In the 11 years since Collins' response to Jarrah, has any HB followed his advice and taken their theory to an actual, industry expert? Someone with knowledge and experience with the equipment in question?
Why do you keep saying that Collins took down his video and issued a retraction? No such thing happened, as all three videos are still available on the channel, unless you'd like to point out his retraction? Saying something has gone from "impossible" to "not bloody likely", isn't what I would consider a retraction, so could you please timestamp to Collins' retraction.
We have Collins himself saying "it was possible", and this is from a guy who is Pro-NASA - so has a little bias. And he's talking about "commercial products" - as though NASA couldn't obtain access to some tech a few years before it became commercialized. So Collins' own admission is already "Possible". That is enough. Given the nature of Boomers (who would be the ones you'd have to consult) - they are more prone than anyone to believe "We did this great thing" - it was "their achievement" that is in question here. Confirmation bias affects even the experts... as an expert can look for "reasons it can't be done" or for "ways it could be done" - and if we did find some boomers alive, they'd be prone to simply state "reasons it can't be done". This is how human wiring works.
So PNA's need to stop saying "it was NOT POSSIBLE"... because it likely was.
I "heard he retracted it" - so likely my account of "retraction" is overstated/wrong - so unless I find out otherwise, I'll stop saying this.
Likewise, PNA's should stop showing his original film to prove their desired point of "it was IMPOSSIBLE" -- this is a Lie, and dishonest.
The first question on this forum, pinned, is "why do HB's Lie?" (and they do). But now you're on the hook to follow your own criticism - stop lying. PNA's need to stop telling their own lies.
-
Jarrah has never made an integral discussion with anyone concerning Apollo. Too much stupidity in attempting to "discuss" what happened during Apollo in an attempt to "prove" his mentors, Kasing and Rene. Have you investigated any claims by either of those two? And then found any substance in any objection that they proposed? If so post them on a different thread as this is supposed to be dealing with film tech.
Everyone is hit-or-miss. I could likewise put the label "stupidity" on anyone who claims "video tech was IMPOSSIBLE" during 1969, and who uses Collins' original video as proof without referencing his vital follow on video where he retracted his original "impossible" claim.
I could likewise say mean things about Collins too, for making such a "false claim"... but I won't because I believe most people (esp. Collins) are doing their best to present truth as they see it. Unfortunately, confirmation bias bleeds heavily into our judgement. It's why I prefer to spend my time here, with skeptics/opposition, to weed out my own bias, leaving a trail of more integrity in our wake.
It seems to me that the "judgement of honesty/integrity" is a one-sided view here in this forum. PNA's police the integrity of HB's, but not their own... nor seem to recognize their own.
The same one-sidedness that I hate occurs also in the true MLH forums.
I think this referenced link to Jarrah's response is well-sourced. It points out another inaccuracy of Collins' 2nd video -- the InSTAR had Color capability, not just B&W -- which undermines the whole premise of Collins' 2nd video.
I'm OK with leaving this off as "possible" (even spoken from a PNA Boomer) - and this is based on a false belief about the InSTAR, as well as with an unreasonable assumption that NASA couldn't get access to film tech a few years before the commercialization.
-
You seem to have an issue with multiple points in a post and keep ignoring my central question, so here it, all by its lonesome;
In the 11 years since Collins' response to Jarrah, has any HB followed his advice and taken their theory to an actual, industry expert? Someone with knowledge and experience with the equipment in question?
-
Jarrah has never made an integral discussion with anyone concerning Apollo. Too much stupidity in attempting to "discuss" what happened during Apollo in an attempt to "prove" his mentors, Kasing and Rene. Have you investigated any claims by either of those two? And then found any substance in any objection that they proposed? If so post them on a different thread as this is supposed to be dealing with film tech.
Everyone is hit-or-miss. I could likewise put the label "stupidity" on anyone who claims "video tech was IMPOSSIBLE" during 1969, and who uses Collins' original video as proof without referencing his vital follow on video where he retracted his original "impossible" claim.
It seems to me that the "judgement of honesty/integrity" is a one-sided view here. PNA's police the integrity of HB's, but not their own... nor seem to recognize their own.
I think this referenced link to Jarrah's response is well-sourced. It points out another inaccuracy of Collins' 2nd video -- the InSTAR had Color capability, not just B&W -- which undermines the whole premise of Collins' 2nd video.
I'm OK with leaving this off as "possible" (even spoken from a PNA Boomer) - and this is based on a false belief about the InSTAR, as well as with an unreasonable assumption that NASA couldn't get access to film tech a few years before the commercialization.
Jarrah is never hit and always miss. There are so many videos debunking Jarrah that it is difficult to find all of them. I don't believe you when you indicate that in the 2nd video Collins says it is possible and it has been a number of years since I viewed either, but I challenge you to post a time stamp where Collins says it is "possible" IIRC color/BW was not Collins issues, but rather the size of the reels required to do what Jarrah thinks NASA did. And of course machines to record/playback these huge reels was not in existence, ever. NASA was not in the business of inventing video equipment but purchased existing supplies, so they were privy to anything that wasn't on the market. Another aspect has anyone in the last 50 years admitted they used such equipment, even on a death bed "confession".
Now I ask you questions on Kaysing and Rene, have you anything?
-
In the 11 years since Collins' response to Jarrah, has any HB followed his advice and taken their theory to an actual, industry expert? Someone with knowledge and experience with the equipment in question?
We're not obligated to take his advice. Nor do I feel compelled, as I don't think it would be a "fair challenge" given that the few feeble Boomers that we'd find, would only be focused on using their "expertise" to defend their existing world views.
It would be like saying, "if you think the Bible has flaws, go present your case to an Evangelical minister and see if they agree." -- No matter how smart your argument, nor how smart the minister -- the will NOT agree. They'll only use their "expertise" to defend their faith. Same goes for Boomer Film/Video experts.
I find it VERY ENCOURAGING that Collins has integrity enough to admit the POSSIBILITY that it could have been done. That's all we need here. This is NOT PROOF that we didn't fake it. PNA's should stop lying about this.
I can prove a LOT of things about NASA that "aren't bloody likely" (like them conveniently losing all of the hard-to-fake Telemetry/video tapes for ALL Apollo missions, or them losing most of the LM design docs to show in detail how it was built and functioned). But "Not Bloody Likely" is not PROOF, and so we are forced to find "IMPOSSIBILITIES" - which is my focus.
This Collins Video that many share is DEBUNKED by Collins himself. It's POSSIBLE. Time to move on. No?
-
Jarrah is never hit and always miss. There are so many videos debunking Jarrah that it is difficult to find all of them. I don't believe you when you indicate that in the 2nd video Collins says it is possible and it has been a number of years since I viewed either, but I challenge you to post a time stamp where Collins says it is "possible" IIRC color/BW was not Collins issues, but rather the size of the reels required to do what Jarrah thinks NASA did. And of course machines to record/playback these huge reels was not in existence, ever. NASA was not in the business of inventing video equipment but purchased existing supplies, so they were privy to anything that wasn't on the market. Another aspect has anyone in the last 50 years admitted they used such equipment, even on a death bed "confession".
Now I ask you questions on Kaysing and Rene, have you anything?
Here's a time stamp link to where Collins calls Jarrah's theory "Good" and "could be done". (4:39)
https://youtu.be/-TelJ75pzP4?t=279 (https://youtu.be/-TelJ75pzP4?t=279)
Kaysing and Rene were both "pre-internet" - with the inability to do the types of analysis as well as the amount of collaboration that is now possible. The biggest Whistleblower hero of mine is Thomas Baron, whom I believe gave his life for the cause... run over by a train late at night 6 days after giving testimony to congress against NASA, and calling on dozens of others to come forward. After his "tragic accident", no others came forward, and NASA proceded at a 50% increased rate of development! (their response to piss-poor QA/QC was to accelerate development, removing steps.)
The were two deathbed confessions - the chief of security of Canon Airforce Base New Mexico, where President Johnson gave him the list of 14 names who were allowed to enter the huge hangar, where there was a set ready to film Apollo 11/12. His friend was going to blab, and he killed his friend, out of Patriotic duty... His conscience only weighed on him due to his murdering of a fellow officer who was threatening "treason".... and along with his confession, he confessed that he was the guard for this facility.
This confession seems legit - here's the one from his son, who was 14 yrs old at the time, who took better care of his own confession to ensure it didn't get destroyed, as did his father's.:
https://youtu.be/wu5Z75ji3aU (https://youtu.be/wu5Z75ji3aU)
-
Collins changed his rhetoric from impossible to not blood likely, with the caveats of all the edits required. This is not the same as accepting Jarrah's concept. No you haven't found any possibilities in your willfully ignorant mind set.
Both Kaysing and Rene put forth theories as to why NASA faked Apollo landings on the Moon. Thos are the ones you need to defend I know the answers as I have read the ideas born of as I said stupidity. And don't go into "is everything in the Bible accurate" We are talking about Apollo, stick to the subject at hand and quit hand waving.
Proof of an extraordinary project requires extraordinary evidence, and you have provided non. Wind on the "set" of the Moon? Sand falling at two fast rate? How do you measure the sand height/time give me the measurements and how you estimated them. Oh and the Ascent stage accelerates too fast? How did you estimate the height to come up with your table?
-
Collins changed his rhetoric from impossible to not blood likely, with the caveats of all the edits required. This is not the same as accepting Jarrah's concept. No you haven't found any possibilities in your willfully ignorant mind set.
Both Kaysing and Rene put forth theories as to why NASA faked Apollo landings on the Moon. Thos are the ones you need to defend I know the answers as I have read the ideas born of as I said stupidity. And don't go into "is everything in the Bible accurate" We are talking about Apollo, stick to the subject at hand and quit hand waving.
Proof of an extraordinary project requires extraordinary evidence, and you have provided non. Wind on the "set" of the Moon? Sand falling at two fast rate? How do you measure the sand height/time give me the measurements and how you estimated them. Oh and the Ascent stage accelerates too fast? How did you estimate the height to come up with your table?
From what little I know of Kaysing/Rene - their "specific ideas" are outdated -- although I agree with their underlying conclusion that "we didn't land humans on the moon" - I probably find fault in their specific ideas. Just because someone who believes MLH makes a dumb argument -- doesn't nullify at all the smart arguments.
I'd like to disinvite you from engaging here, because you really aren't qualified to debate as you think you are. I believe even the PNA smart minds here, might agree. Your manner of arguing, is poor.
Jarrah made a point - Collins listened and found LEGITIMACY IN IT - calling it a "Good Theory". I give lots of credit to Collins here. While people on this site have rejected everything from Jarrah, because it allows them to maintain their (false) PNA faith.
Jarrah makes some very solid, sourced/researched points. Collins didn't respond to Jarrah's 2nd response, which shows that Collin's 2nd video's entire premise starts with another wrong supposition about the InSTAR not supporting "Color". This takes the wind out of most of the points Collins says in this 2nd video.
In the end - the Film/Video tech EXISTED, and is especially conceivable for NASA to obtain it before commercialization.
When PNA's use Collin's original video - they are being Dishonest. While they claim it is only the HB who are dishonest. This looks like a farce to me.
Please check out -- go ask someone with better qualifications to finish this debate.
-
My HB rationale is that "Apollo cannot break physics." - this is impossible. Yet they have, many times.
Were that the case, numerous physicists would highlight it. Since only HBs do and they most certainly are not physicists your claim is just hot-air.
So I am trying to reconcile this impossibility
Try circular reasoning as your first port of call.
I don't agree with your "vertical vs. horizontal" issue. A slow forward jump, will ALSO result in slower horizontal speed... thus it's fully consistent with low-gravity.
That is simply not the case. Low gravity slows nothing down. All we are seeing is the same force resulting in exaggerated vertical motion. Humans are used to seeing gravity pull things down faster, so the human eye interprets the actions as "slow-motion" but that is a false impression.
In actuality whilst vertical motion appears slower, horizontal does not and neither does the movement of arms largely unaffected by gravity. One of the more obvious things to a physicist is the motion of the dust. When properly analysed there is not a scrap of doubt that the motion is in lower gravity:-
They are not playing the "Launch of the projectile" at full-speed, then slowing down only the trajectory -- they are slowing done BOTH -- thus the horizontal speed of projection is also slowed to 40%. Thus it's consistent with the vertical/gravity component as well. 100% consistency.
In that sentence you demonstrate a very poor understanding of basic gravitational motion. The issue is not that both vectors are slowed down but that only the vertical component needs to be. It's why when objects thrown are played back at an adjusted Terrestrial freefall the astronaut looks somewhat like Charlie Chaplain.
I suspect you will not watch this:-
Do you really think my argument here is untrue? This basic simple physics.
Your understanding is flawed.
@Mag40 - I apologize for my offense here to you. I just think you might be in over your head on this. Maybe I'm missing something.
I neither accept your insincere "apology" or your insinuation. We shall see who is "over their head". I suspect you are not going to alter a single claim whatever argument you receive.
Is there anyone here, who can make arguments that demonstrate a solid understanding of physics?[/b]
Try not to patronise people when you don't understand the subject.
-
Mag40 - seriously, go get someone who really understands physics.
THIS is part of the reason I find it pertinent to set the record straight on Apollo. Because the faked Apollo is being justified by very bad proofs, that are FALSE.
You don't know this because you must suck at physics.
TRUTH - if you do launch a projectile on earth and film it. Then slow that film to 40.658% speed for replay -- it will work out EXACTLY as it would on the Moon. EXACTLY.
This video saying otherwise is MORONIC.
Here's a calculator page, for projectile distance that you can test the theory with:
https://byjus.com/projectile-motion-calculator/ (https://byjus.com/projectile-motion-calculator/)
First enter for the Earth -- vel 59 m/s, gravity 9.8, at 45 degrees -- projectile lands 355 meters away, taking 8.5 seconds
Then slow it down to 40% and do it on the Moon: Vel = 24 m/s, gravity 1.62, at 45 degrees -- and AGAIN it lands 355 meters AWAY, taking 21 seconds (2.5x longer!)
So if you simply slow down the Earth film to 40% speed, it will follow the same trajectory path as the moon example, and the SAME TIME, 21 seconds! EXACTLY THE SAME!
It follows the EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY.
If you care about physics/truth, please study this more.. What I'm saying here is BASIC PHYSICS TRUTH.
Please go study this equation a bit, and learn how it works. Then you'll see that whoever made that video for PNA's was either inept at Physics, or dishonest (wanting to defend the Apollo Faith no matter what).
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2018.0;attach=1194)
-
Mag40 - seriously, go get someone who really understands physics.
I suggest you drop your distasteful and rather childish attitude.
THIS is part of the reason I find it pertinent to set the record straight on Apollo. Because the faked Apollo is being justified by very bad proofs, that are FALSE.
You aren't setting anything straight.
You don't know this because you must suck at physics.
And more of the childish retorts.
TRUTH - if you do launch a projectile on earth and film it. Then slow that film to 40.658% speed for replay -- it will work out EXACTLY as it would on the Moon. EXACTLY.
That's just so ignorant. The object will be "airborne" 2.45 times longer and be carrying the same inertia. It will thus travel much further on the Moon.
This video saying otherwise is MORONIC.
This is just hot air and bare assertion.
Here's a calculator page, for projectile distance that you can test the theory with:
Some of us don't need google and you are using a wrong calculator.
First enter for the Earth -- vel 59 m/s, gravity 9.8, at 45 degrees -- projectile lands 355 meters away, taking 8.5 seconds
Then slow it down to 40% and do it on the Moon: Vel = 24 m/s, gravity 1.62, at 45 degrees -- and AGAIN it lands 355 meters AWAY, taking 21 seconds (2.5x longer!).
I'm finding it hard to convey this to you without being rude, but you really don't know what you are doing.
The calculator is quantifying two components. Did you seriously not notice that in the lunar example the velocity has been changed to accommodate the same distance? Of course the two are going to be the same, the calculator has dropped the initial force to do that.
Now suppose you address that video, without the attitude and explain how on Earth a gigantic wave of dust does that on Earth with a tiny sideways flick of a boot.
It follows the EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY.
Only when you lower the initial force.
Please go study this equation a bit, and learn how it works.
Back at you. Go find one that does it like for like.
-
I have a simple question for najak, please answer it:
From your "document": "However, the “dust” beneath his feet which rises at the same speed with his boots, falls to the ground while he’s still at the peak of his jump."
Do you understand that any object (air resistance excluded) will rise to apex in the same time as it takes to subsequently fall back down?
-
@Mag40 wrote: "Now suppose you address that video, without the attitude and explain how on Earth a gigantic wave of dust does that on Earth with a tiny sideways flick of a boot."
Simple - whatever you saw on the film actually happened at 2.4x that speed - so it was a fast kick... 2.4x faster than what you saw. On Earth, this would produce the same exact trajectory path as what you saw. This is how physics works with gravity. Do you question the "trajectory equation"? Horizontal/Vertical motion components will match EXACTLY... only time is changed.. by a factor of 2.4x.
If you don't get this, you don't get basic physics, and my retorts are accurate.
You wrote: "Do you understand that any object (air resistance excluded) will rise to apex in the same time as it takes to subsequently fall back down?"
Yes, this is 100% true. It's parabolic motion, with no (or nominal) air resistance.
What in my physics thinking do you disagree with? Why do you think the basic "projectile" equation does not fully apply to "projectile dust"??
-
Collins changed his rhetoric from impossible to not blood likely, with the caveats of all the edits required. This is not the same as accepting Jarrah's concept. No you haven't found any possibilities in your willfully ignorant mind set.
Both Kaysing and Rene put forth theories as to why NASA faked Apollo landings on the Moon. Thos are the ones you need to defend I know the answers as I have read the ideas born of as I said stupidity. And don't go into "is everything in the Bible accurate" We are talking about Apollo, stick to the subject at hand and quit hand waving.
Proof of an extraordinary project requires extraordinary evidence, and you have provided non. Wind on the "set" of the Moon? Sand falling at two fast rate? How do you measure the sand height/time give me the measurements and how you estimated them. Oh and the Ascent stage accelerates too fast? How did you estimate the height to come up with your table?
From what little I know of Kaysing/Rene - their "specific ideas" are outdated -- although I agree with their underlying conclusion that "we didn't land humans on the moon" - I probably find fault in their specific ideas. Just because someone who believes MLH makes a dumb argument -- doesn't nullify at all the smart arguments.
I'd like to disinvite you from engaging here, because you really aren't qualified to debate as you think you are. I believe even the PNA smart minds here, might agree. Your manner of arguing, is poor.
Jarrah made a point - Collins listened and found LEGITIMACY IN IT - calling it a "Good Theory". I give lots of credit to Collins here. While people on this site have rejected everything from Jarrah, because it allows them to maintain their (false) PNA faith.
But he did not say Jarrah was correct he said it didn't bloody well happen, major difference
Jarrah makes some very solid, sourced/researched points. Collins didn't respond to Jarrah's 2nd response, which shows that Collin's 2nd video's entire premise starts with another wrong supposition about the InSTAR not supporting "Color". This takes the wind out of most of the points Collins says in this 2nd video.
In your mind it may have but in reality, Jarrah didn't respond to the massive amounts of editing the must be accomplished, did he?
You mentioning color is a red herring, nothing more or less.
In the end - the Film/Video tech EXISTED, and is especially conceivable for NASA to obtain it before commercialization.
Show me where Collins said that films could not be edited. You are being dishonest, not Collins
When PNA's use Collin's original video - they are being Dishonest. While they claim it is only the HB who are dishonest. This looks like a farce to me.
Please check out -- go ask someone with better qualifications to finish this debate.
You may want all you wish, but as long as you are spouting nonsense I'll correct you.
-
@bknight - wrote: "show me where Collins said..."
https://youtu.be/-TelJ75pzP4?t=305 (https://youtu.be/-TelJ75pzP4?t=305)
He is no longer calling it "impossible". If you watch Jarrah's 2nd rebuttal video, he describes where Collins was wrong (and is sourced) and also how Collins' belief that "it would be hard" is also overstated.
Collins first video says "Impossible"... his second video retracts that stance. Showing his first video without that disclaimer is DISHONEST. If you have to Lie to make your case -- that doesn't bode well for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x49lImzw5s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x49lImzw5s)
-
Simple - whatever you saw on the film actually happened at 2.4x that speed - so it was a fast kick... 2.4x faster than what you saw.
You are being ridiculous. There is no way anyone kicks up a dust wave like that with a casual flick of the boot. In addition the speed of the activity when adjusted to make it at terrestrial freefall is like Charlie Chaplain.
This is how physics works with gravity. Do you question the "trajectory equation"?
No, only your poor understanding of it.
Horizontal/Vertical motion components will match EXACTLY... only time is changed.. by a factor of 2.4x.
Nonsense. To achieve the same distance the force needs to change. You ignored where I highlighted your failure to understand this. When you patronise people then make simple blunders, it isn't a great look.
You wrote: "Do you understand that any object (air resistance excluded) will rise to apex in the same time as it takes to subsequently fall back down?"
Yes, this is 100% true. It's parabolic motion, with no (or nominal) air resistance.
Then in that one sentence you prove the clips being highlighted are in low gravity.
What in my physics thinking do you disagree with? Why do you think the basic "projectile" equation does not fully apply to "projectile dust"??
Your "physics thinking" misses the totally obvious.
Very obviously and confirmed by you, the dust wave on the Cernan jump rises to boot level at apex. It doesn't matter what subsequently happens with the dust visibility. Once we have established that the arc is at boot level (and it is) and that it's there at apex (also confirmed) the laws of physics puts it there in line with gravitational motion.
Very obviously the Young jump shows a nice little parabola rising in perfect sync and height with his boots. The same irrefutable conclusion applies.
Any reasonably competent physics student will understand this. Do you?
-
Since reading is apparently beyond your limited set of skills, my comment "Show me where Collins said that films could not be edited." Liking a whole video is a poor response. I have already submitted that Collins changed from impossible to not bloody likely, that does not indicate that Collins accepts Jarrah's argument completely.
-
Since reading is apparently beyond your limited set of skills, my comment "Show me where Collins said that films could not be edited." Liking a whole video is a poor response. I have already submitted that Collins changed from impossible to not bloody likely, that does not indicate that Collins accepts Jarrah's argument completely.
Never said he accepts it completely. I would have liked to see his response to Jarrah's 2nd response, where he offers a few more corrections. Jarrah's rebuttal and explanations are well-sourced and reasonable.
Anyone who continues to post Collins' original video without clear disclaimer - is being dishonest.
-
Anyone who continues to post Collins' original video without clear disclaimer - is being dishonest.
Don't lecture people on dishonesty.
Answer post no. 38 just above and do so honestly. If you claim anyone can flick dust like that on Earth, that high, that fast with just a casual boot motion, then you are being dishonest. If you looked at the boot flick in full context with the footage before and after, adjusted for terrestrial freefall, then claimed it looked normal, you are being even more dishonest.
-
Don't lecture people on dishonesty.
Answer post no. 38 just above and do so honestly. If you claim anyone can flick dust like that on Earth, that high, that fast with just a casual boot motion, then you are being dishonest. If you looked at the boot flick in full context with the footage before and after, adjusted for terrestrial freefall, then claimed it looked normal, you are being even more dishonest.
Not Lecturing - but accurately labeling the behavior. When those same people gripe about HB's being dishonest - -this makes them hypocrites as well. (lots of hypocrites on both sides of this debate)
Please post to me a link to the SOURCE video for the kicked dust... (from the Surface Journal) - and I'll do a frame by frame analysis, and give you my assessment.
Have you conceded now that the Projectile Equation produces IDENTICAL results on both Earth and Moon, by simply slowing the initial velocity of each projectile to 40%? I'd like to make sure we got this one out of the way, and that we're now on the same page.
-
Please post to me a link to the SOURCE video for the kicked dust... (from the Surface Journal) - and I'll do a frame by frame analysis, and give you my assessment.
Yet you already claimed it was normal! The video description details the source. I've seen your "analysis" of the John Young jump and the Cernan jumps and they miss the obvious time to apex problem. You can only deny this from a place of dishonesty.
These two clips prove on their own that the footage is in lower gravity.
Have you conceded
Don't weasel out of your blunder. You input 2 variables into an online calculator and screwed up with your conclusion. The trajectories will never be the same. With lower gravity distance increases due to extended time. If you put the two at the same distance (which you did), then the initial force must change.
now that the Projectile Equation produces IDENTICAL results on both Earth and Moon, by simply slowing the initial velocity of each projectile to 40%?
If you alter the time to reflect terrestrial gravity, the force must be increased accordingly - the very large problem. Nobody has disputed it, just your understanding of what it means.
I'd like to make sure we got this one out of the way, and that we're now on the same page.
You're on the page that inspects obvious lunar footage and misses physics-related clues that any student would see.
-
@Mag40 - OK - I'll lay it out very clearly, so you can agree or disagree, once again:
My claim:
1. If you see a filmed projectile launched on the moon, and verify it's all behaving according to lunar gravity.
2. Then if you simply take that same clip, and speed it to 250%, it will now behave EXACTLY as if it's within Earth's gravity.
Agree or disagree?
-
@Mag40 - OK - I'll lay it out very clearly, so you can agree or disagree, once again:
My claim:
1. If you see a filmed projectile launched on the moon, and verify it's all behaving according to lunar gravity.
2. Then if you simply take that same clip, and speed it to 250%, it will now behave EXACTLY as if it's within Earth's gravity.
Agree or disagree?
Disagree, pedantic. It is 245%. However the object may well behave like terrestrial freefall, but the person flinging it will not!
-
@Mag40 going to state it again, clearer again:
My Claim:
1. If you film an astronaut tossing a ball underway at an upward angle of 30 degrees, and it lands 20 feet away.
2. Then if you take that same clip, including the part where he throws it, and simply speed it up by 245%, the entire clip will appear as though he's on Earth, 100%.
Agree or Disagree. If disagree, be specific on what will be different.
-
@Mag40 going to state it again, clearer again:
My Claim:
1. If you film an astronaut tossing a ball underway at an upward angle of 30 degrees, and it lands 20 feet away.
2. Then if you take that same clip, including the part where he throws it, and simply speed it up by 245%, the entire clip will appear as though he's on Earth, 100%.
Agree or Disagree. If disagree, be specific on what will be different.
I have already told you I disagree and explained why! The object will act the same (requiring more force to do so) but the person throwing it will most certainly look odd. Every horizontal and limb related nuance will be exaggerated.
I have cited the dust flicked by the boot, which requires a 245% speed increase to make it Earth freefall and you have just ignored the last part of that video showing how unnatural their movements are.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1692807.mpg
-
Simple - whatever you saw on the film actually happened at 2.4x that speed - so it was a fast kick... 2.4x faster than what you saw.
You are being ridiculous. There is no way anyone kicks up a dust wave like that with a casual flick of the boot. In addition the speed of the activity when adjusted to make it at terrestrial freefall is like Charlie Chaplain.
This is how physics works with gravity. Do you question the "trajectory equation"?
No, only your poor understanding of it.
Horizontal/Vertical motion components will match EXACTLY... only time is changed.. by a factor of 2.4x.
Nonsense. To achieve the same distance the force needs to change. You ignored where I highlighted your failure to understand this. When you patronise people then make simple blunders, it isn't a great look.
You wrote: "Do you understand that any object (air resistance excluded) will rise to apex in the same time as it takes to subsequently fall back down?"
Yes, this is 100% true. It's parabolic motion, with no (or nominal) air resistance.
Then in that one sentence you prove the clips being highlighted are in low gravity.
What in my physics thinking do you disagree with? Why do you think the basic "projectile" equation does not fully apply to "projectile dust"??
Your "physics thinking" misses the totally obvious.
Very obviously and confirmed by you, the dust wave on the Cernan jump rises to boot level at apex. It doesn't matter what subsequently happens with the dust visibility. Once we have established that the arc is at boot level (and it is) and that it's there at apex (also confirmed) the laws of physics puts it there in line with gravitational motion.
Very obviously the Young jump shows a nice little parabola rising in perfect sync and height with his boots. The same irrefutable conclusion applies.
Any reasonably competent physics student will understand this. Do you?
Still awaiting an answer post 38. In addition to the Cernan footage showing the arc at apex, we have at least 2 of the jumps showing dust hitting the surface in sync with his landing.
-
I have already told you I disagree and explained why! The object will act the same (requiring more force to do so) but the person throwing it will most certainly look odd. Every horizontal and limb related nuance will be exaggerated.
I have cited the dust flicked by the boot, which requires a 245% speed increase to make it Earth freefall and you have just ignored the last part of that video showing how unnatural their movements are.
I restated it again, to be sure that you REALLY believe what I think you are saying. And you confirmed it. So please be more specific, using #'s and an example.
So in my case of "tossing a ball at 30 degrees 20' away" - on Earth this wouldn't look at ... so film it at 59 FPS. Then slow it down to 40%, and it just looks like he tossed it more slowly. What about this 40% speed specifically is going to look "wrong"?? Be specific, use #'s. Which "Horizontal components of motion" will end up WRONG?
-
@Mag40 - for the "kicking up dust" clip - please tell me the source footage link (and timestamp), and I'll go review the source frames, and give you my assessment.
-
@Mag40 - I found the source clip, but the frame rate is only 10 FPS... not 24. And the peak is reached by 0.9 seconds, not 1.24 seconds, thus making the gravity be 3 m/s^2, not 1.62. This could be achieved by 44% slowdown to 56%.
I have no idea where this video gets the idea for a 66% slowdown, nor realizes that the slowdown done for this scene should have just been for the kick... it's not all-or-nothing, using an optical printer.
Plus there are two more issues with this scene:
1. There is evidence of atmosphere by the trailing dust cloud, which happens in atmosphere as the lightest particles get left behind.
2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.
Here's the clip I watched, and saved to frames: (starts at 2:32)
https://youtu.be/kibAjb6qjtQ?t=152 (https://youtu.be/kibAjb6qjtQ?t=152)
Why does your guy say this is 24 FPS? Is there another source at 24 FPS, and if so, why link to this 10 FPS from his video?
This isn't a great example to make proofs from, given that it's dust cloud, so harder to determine "peak of parabola" plus it doesn't show the other half of the parabola, so that we can determine if it's a perfect parabola, vs. one hindered by air resistance.
-
2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.
That seems completely incompatible with your theory.
Why would they add the complexity of recording live synchronized audio if the footage is going to be slowed? Unless they were talking fast, breathing helium...
-
2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.
That seems completely incompatible with your theory.
Why would they add the complexity of recording live synchronized audio if the footage is going to be slowed? Unless they were talking fast, breathing helium...
I would also like to know *how* they could add pre-recorded audio at all, especially that included Houston's responses. There were news media and VIPs present at mission control during the Apollo 11 landing; CBS was broadcasting it live. They could hear and watch Charlie Duke in the flesh talking to Armstrong and Aldrin, and would have noticed had he been reading from a script. One live stumble from a guy with no acting training during the whole EVA would have given the whole game away.
-
@Mag40 - I found the source clip, but the frame rate is only 10 FPS... not 24.
Your powers of observation match your powers of search engine success! I posted a direct NASA link to the clip at the bottom of Post No. 47. This one is 29.97 FPS.
And the peak is reached by 0.9 seconds, not 1.24 seconds, thus making the gravity be 3 m/s^2, not 1.62.
Nope. One major thing I appreciate about any source is where it takes time to do a detailed explanation. On the video in question it uses a very easy to replicate method and is very accurate. Yours is just your personal statement.
I have no idea where this video gets the idea for a 66% slowdown, nor realizes that the slowdown done for this scene should have just been for the kick... it's not all-or-nothing, using an optical printer.
You have no idea? TBFDU makes this his primary claim!
Plus there are two more issues with this scene:
1. There is evidence of atmosphere by the trailing dust cloud, which happens in atmosphere as the lightest particles get left behind.
One of the most ridiculous anti-physics statements you've made so far. The boot has kicked up a wave of dust that is completely gone in under a second.
2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.
I really don't care what "seems" to you or what you think the "clunk" is. Numerous noises occur throughout the transmission at regular intervals, static comes to mind but from many threads before there are many comms-related sounds that occur.
Besides, it takes a total moron to have a live microphone on a piece of footage that is going to be speed altered. Anyone who fails to see that is being dishonest.
Why does your guy say this is 24 FPS?
25 FPS
Is there another source at 24 FPS, and if so, why link to this 10 FPS from his video?
It's bad enough that you fail to see the glaring elephant in the room - that this is an absurd amount of disturbance for an Earth-like flick of the boot - without you not noticing the link provided in post 47.
This isn't a great example to make proofs from, given that it's dust cloud, so harder to determine "peak of parabola" plus it doesn't show the other half of the parabola, so that we can determine if it's a perfect parabola, vs. one hindered by air resistance.
Hand-waving is the tool of the HB. There is a clear height of the wave and the video explains how it is established. The immediate dispersal of the leading half of the parabola shows all is needed regarding air resistance. There are a considerable number of hours of EVA motion that have no visible air resistance in any of them.
Now answer post NO. 38 properly and if you are going to play the physics "guru" show some methodology that stands up to scrutiny. I am assuming you are deliberately going to fudge the figures as much as you can, since you quite definitely are not here to debate with the potential to learn and alter your opinion.
-
I would also like to know *how* they could add pre-recorded audio at all, especially that included Houston's responses. There were news media and VIPs present at mission control during the Apollo 11 landing; CBS was broadcasting it live. They could hear and watch Charlie Duke in the flesh talking to Armstrong and Aldrin, and would have noticed had he been reading from a script. One live stumble from a guy with no acting training during the whole EVA would have given the whole game away.
Good questions. Do you have a source for your claim that CBS was broadcasting live from the Control room for the entire mission? (or this specific part?) There are many unsubstantiated PNA claims that could easily be false, or exaggerated, intended to convey confidence. So please source it, and I'll record it.
I am capturing ALL good evidence inside of a publicly accessible Knowledgebase (KB), which includes the PNA claims. 100% integrity is the goal of this KB.
The only "dog" I have in this fight is "Truth/Integrity". If integrity leads me to conclude Apollo was real, I'll be very excited to change my stance, PROUDLY (as the world needs more people who are sincerely wrong, to change their stance when faced with facts/logic that outweigh existing perceived evidence/logic).
So far, I'm seeing too much evidence of the "Impossible" or "Nearly Impossible" category - to accept Apollo's claim that we landed men on the moon.
-
Hand-waving is the tool of the HB. There is a clear height of the wave and the video explains how it is established. The immediate dispersal of the leading half of the parabola shows all is needed regarding air resistance. There are a considerable number of hours of EVA motion that have no visible air resistance in any of them.
Now answer post NO. 38 properly and if you are going to play the physics "guru" show some methodology that stands up to scrutiny. I am assuming you are deliberately going to fudge the figures as much as you can, since you quite definitely are not here to debate with the potential to learn and alter your opinion.
I didn't spend much time on it this one, because it's not a smoking gun for you -- as him just kicking it up 2x faster would produce the same result on earth... Are you saying this is "impossible" for them to slow down this 1.3 seconds of footage?
The MLH theory is that nearly all film is slowed by 10-20%, IIRC, and some slower.
Via Optical printing methods, one mainstream MLH theory, they can vary the playback speed many times, very quickly.
I will put this on my list for deeper analysis. My cursory look didn't align to their 1.24 second delay (suspiciously perfect for their own point).
We can start a new thread, when I get my feet to the pedals on this specific footage.
If you are going to post a link for me - please label it with bold font and tell me what it is... you gave no indicator of the meaning/content of that link, which I simply didn't notice...
I've got it now, and will include this for later analysis. Thank you for the references and debate here.
-
@Mag40 - I captured your claim in the KB doc that covers "Dust Falls Too Fast".
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing)
It's on my TODO list.
-
I didn't spend much time on it this one, because it's not a smoking gun for you -- as him just kicking it up 2x faster would produce the same result on earth... Are you saying this is "impossible" for them to slow down this 1.3 seconds of footage?
The MLH theory is that nearly all film is slowed by 10-20%, IIRC, and some slower.
Via Optical printing methods, one mainstream MLH theory, they can vary the playback speed many times, very quickly.
I will put this on my list for deeper analysis. My cursory look didn't align to their 1.24 second delay (suspiciously perfect for their own point).
And once again hand waving away the size of this dust wave. It is a ridiculous height for that to occur on Earth. Did TBFDU do it on one of his videos? No he did not, nor could he. A complete lack of logic and objectivity, no surprise to anyone on this forum.
We can start a new thread, when I get my feet to the pedals on this specific footage.
Do so and I shall report you for spamming the forum. There are plenty of threads opened by you already. We've all seen this before from numerous other HBs.
If you are going to post a link for me - please label it with bold font and tell me what it is... you gave no indicator of the meaning/content of that link, which I simply didn't notice..
You didn't read the post properly. The word NASA in a link under the video was all the clues you needed.
Post 38 please.
-
I would also like to know *how* they could add pre-recorded audio at all, especially that included Houston's responses. There were news media and VIPs present at mission control during the Apollo 11 landing; CBS was broadcasting it live. They could hear and watch Charlie Duke in the flesh talking to Armstrong and Aldrin, and would have noticed had he been reading from a script. One live stumble from a guy with no acting training during the whole EVA would have given the whole game away.
Good questions. Do you have a source for your claim that CBS was broadcasting live from the Control room for the entire mission? (or this specific part?)
I never said CBS was broadcasting live for the entire mission. Video of their coverage for the EVA (which was watched by millions of people around the world) still exists and can be found online. DYOH.
-
I never said CBS was broadcasting live for the entire mission. Video of their coverage for the EVA (which was watched by millions of people around the world) still exists and can be found online. DYOH.
OK - so you are only talking then about the footage that NASA broadcast via satellite, which then was re-broadcast by CBS. This I knew about.
I thought you were claiming "CBS live TV coverage of the control room" -- in the same room with the CAPCOM, Charlie Duke. This would have been news to my rookie ears.
-
When can we expect an answer to this?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2018.msg57816#msg57816
And don't complain about too much to do - you raised all these useless threads.
That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.
Young rising to apex with a clear parabola.
The dust being flicked at a ridiculous height and showing perfect lunar freefall, no dust suspension.
All I'm seeing from you is a lot of obfuscation, evasive behaviour, patronising, insults and Gollum-like excitation about your "observations" that have been exhaustively discussed over the last 15 years.
-
1. That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.
2. Young rising to apex with a clear parabola.
3. The dust being flicked at a ridiculous height and showing perfect lunar freefall, no dust suspension.
1. "dust at apex" - In an atmosphere, the boot leaves a temporal vacuum suction in it's wake (you are aware of this fact, yes). This temporary vacuum only lasts a very short time, but this suction effect pulls the dust upwards as the boot rises. As the boot reaches apex, it's upward velocity slows, and the vacuum effect instantly dissipates, leaving that dust to fall at earth gravity. While the Cernan falls slower due to partial suspension. This is what would be EXPECTED to be seen on earth, per MLH theory.
The dust falling from apex too fast, is the damning evidence here. This is IMPOSSIBLE on the moon. The "Hippity" clip supports MLH, not PNA.
2. "parabola" - why use this term? Parabola's are the same shape on moon and earth, with a 2.4X speed difference, that's all.
I assume you are talking about the "faint dust" that appears on YOUR gif (but NOT the one from NASA's own site)... But let's assume YOUR source is accurate -- we see at 4-5 frames after liftoff, that there is a patch of dust that STARTED moving upwards at a FASTER rate.... this of course may end up hitting apex at around the same time as John. Additionally, in atmosphere, the lighter dust experiences more air resistance, which also slows it's falling a bit -- also giving you this effect.
3. 4 ft high is not "ridiculous amount". Since we can't see the fall, we have less idea about suspensions. This is a Half-parabola, giving us less physics to analyze. BUT the full clip is explained by him simply kicking his leg twice as hard as you thought he did. This is a feasible and reasonable MLH theory.
Keep trying.
-
Again a Vacuum does not suck, it is not a force.
-
Again a Vacuum does not suck, it is not a force.
Correct, but the PSI of earth's atmosphere is a 14 PSI force. So when the boot leaves the ground, the PSI beneath the dust pushes it upwards. So when you talk "force of a vacuum" we're simply referring to the atmosphere pressure IMBALANCE... Did you think I really didn't know this?
It's nice to meet you. I hope you'll be participating in this debate too. For "vacuum" let's change that over to the appropriate thread... THIS thread is about "film/video tech".
-
1. "dust at apex" - In an atmosphere, the boot leaves a temporal vacuum suction in it's wake (you are aware of this fact, yes).
It's mainly friction.
This temporary vacuum only lasts a very short time, but this suction effect pulls the dust upwards as the boot rises. As the boot reaches apex, it's upward velocity slows, and the vacuum effect instantly dissipates, leaving that dust to fall at earth gravity.
Nope - mainly friction. I specifically posted a gif of volleyball on the beach and the same sandy colour against a sandy background shows the same thing. Earth gravity has the dust disappearing instantly in the same irrelevant way. Just because it's harder to see doesn't mean a thing.
While the Cernan falls slower due to partial suspension. This is what would be EXPECTED to be seen on earth, per MLH theory.
That is just bollocks. The dust impacts simultaneously with his feet touching the ground on 3 successive jumps. Should I fetch where you said it was sliding along the ground?
The dust falling from apex too fast, is the damning evidence here. This is IMPOSSIBLE on the moon. The "Hippity" clip supports MLH, not PNA.
Grey on grey and a poor quality video. The only damning thing is your persistent obfuscation. What you can or cannot observe with the conditions present is totally irrelevant.
Once more your evasion on this matter is noted and starting to deliberately irritate now.
That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.
The dust reaches apex at the same time as he does. Time up = time down. Which part of that confuses you?
2. "parabola" - why use this term? Parabola's are the same shape on moon and earth, with a 2.4X speed difference, that's all.
Because it is a parabola. Because it is visible. Because it reaches apex in a beautifully consistent synchronised motion with his jump.
I assume you are talking about the "faint dust" that appears on YOUR gif (but NOT the one from NASA's own site)
You are lying. The dust parabola is visible on every NASA version.
But let's assume YOUR source is accurate -- we see at 4-5 frames after liftoff, that there is a patch of dust that STARTED moving upwards at a FASTER rate.
And once again with the diversion avoiding the issue. My source is 100% accurate and if you suggest it has been doctored or any other HB lie along those lines, than people will start to see your true nature.
this of course may end up hitting apex at around the same time as John.
Rubbish, it is a blob on your crusty copy of the footage! Most of the dust travels forward. Once more you avoid points I have raised. If you think I am suddenly going to let you away with this, think again.
Additionally, in atmosphere, the lighter dust experiences more air resistance, which also slows it's falling a bit -- also giving you this effect.
And not visible on the volleyball clip! All diversion from the main point.
3. 4 ft high is not "ridiculous amount".
Of course it is! So is the distance involved.
Since we can't see the fall, we have less idea about suspensions.
Nonsense, we see no suspension at all on the leading section of the event.
This is a Half-parabola, giving us less physics to analyze.
Irrelevant in the extreme. We have enough to analyse it by height, projected distance and force.
BUT the full clip is explained by him simply kicking his leg twice as hard as you thought he did. This is a feasible and reasonable MLH theory.
There is nothing reasonable about this it all. I do not believe you think that. No honest physicist would look at that totally weird looking dust wave and conclude it looks Earth-like.
I'm still waiting for you to expand on your bare assertion about the time. I've done a manual check and his figures are spot on.
Keep trying.
Keep running away from the evidence. The game is up and you've been here less than a week. Your credibility is now in question since you are clearly evading the obvious on 3 separate matters. Smart people show they are smart by their actions not by bragging about it whilst showing they aren't.
John Young Jump
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust in perfect sync with his jump and the same height. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see shaded areas on the ground moving forwards away from Young.
Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.
Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.
-
Keep running away from the evidence. The game is up and you've been here less than a week. Your credibility is now in question since you are clearly evading the obvious on 3 separate matters. Smart people show they are smart by their actions not by bragging about it whilst showing they aren't.
I've addressed your "evidence" head on every time. Your tone, integrity and approach here matches what you did with the "Flag was hit by the PLSS" declaration of victory. (where you were 100% wrong)
"Friction" doesn't provide much upward force, but a vacuum does.
"Rise time = fall time" is FALSE when the rise involves ongoing vacuum force pulling it into the wake of the boot. (a force not present on the moon)
Perhaps one of your PNA friends will (again) police your conclusions here, for me. Maybe you'll listen to them.
I ask that you incorporate the "vacuum" force into your arguments. If you don't, then it is YOU who are "running from the evidence/science".
-
I summon the trustworthy @Zakalwe, to see if he sees any faults with @Mag40's logic here?
-
I've addressed your "evidence" head on every time.
A lie. You continue to avoid it and offer diversion.
Your tone, integrity and approach here matches what you did with the "Flag was hit by the PLSS" declaration of victory. (where you were 100% wrong).
I have the honesty and integrity to admit that. You simply do not.
"Friction" doesn't provide much upward force, but a vacuum does.
Clueless. The lunar surface is fine, jagged particles very much susceptible to friction and static attraction.
"Rise time = fall time" is FALSE when the rise involves ongoing vacuum force pulling it into the wake of the boot. (a force not present on the moon)
Strawman, it doesn't involve this vacuum "force" at all. Friction and static.
Perhaps one of your PNA friends will (again) police your conclusions here, for me. Maybe you'll listen to them.
Or perhaps you have run out of excuses for running away from the 3 simple proofs.
I ask that you incorporate the "vacuum" force into your arguments. If you don't, then it is YOU who are "running from the evidence/science".
Total bollocks. It isn't a force. The dust is dragged up though friction and static.
I summon the trustworthy @Zakalwe, to see if he sees any faults with @Mag40's logic here?
Stop trolling.
-
Perhaps one of your PNA friends will (again) police your conclusions here, for me. Maybe you'll listen to them.
I summon the trustworthy @Zakalwe, to see if he sees any faults with @Mag40's logic here?
Stop trolling.
@Zakalwe, so far, is the only PNA who has corrected the bad logic of a fellow PNA. So he's my hero.
Since you won't listen to any good reasons from me, I'm pulling in someone (@Zakalwe) who is the closest thing I can find to a "more neutral party" - less subject to Confirmation bias, and more attuned to good science instead.
He corrected you - and you conceded. I'd like to see what he has to say here about your stance on the "dust", and your omission of "vacuum force" from your argument.
-
@Zakalwe, so far, is the only PNA who has corrected the bad logic of a fellow PNA. So he's my hero.
I asked you to stop trolling.
Since you won't listen to any good reasons from me,
You're not giving good reasons!
I'm pulling in someone (@Zakalwe) who is the closest thing I can find to a "more neutral party" - less subject to Confirmation bias, and more attuned to good science instead.
Unlike you then.
He corrected you - and you conceded.
He proved it.
I'd like to see what he has to say here about your stance on the "dust", and your omission of "vacuum force" from your argument.
Stop lying. I haven't omitted anything. This is negligible compared to friction and static attraction, particularly on the Moon.
-
@Zakalwe, so far, is the only PNA who has corrected the bad logic of a fellow PNA. So he's my hero.
I asked you to stop trolling.
"Trolling" - Please find a different word (look up the meaning).
I am asking @Zakalwe to help break our "stalemate", so I'm calling in a 3rd person, someone seems to be willing to "correct his fellow PNAs" and also shows signs of stronger logic skills.
-
"Trolling" - Please find a different word (look up the meaning).
Your posts are full of needless troll comments.
I am asking @Zakalwe to help break our "stalemate", so I'm calling in a 3rd person, someone seems to be willing to "correct his fellow PNAs" and also shows signs
There is no stalemate and I never for one moment expected you to concede a single thing. HBs just don't do that.
PNA is a troll label. Stop using it.
-
There is no stalemate and I never for one moment expected you to concede a single thing. HBs just don't do that.
PNA is a troll label. Stop using it.
I conceded on a few things so far, and will continue to do so. Most recently I conceded that "vacuum suction" along the path is "slight" not "substantial".
"PNA" - Pro-Nasa-Advocate? This seems to be about the most neutral term I can find.
I have avoided the derogatory terms like "NASA Fanboy", "Pro-Nasa Disciples" etc...
I'd prefer to call you an "Apollogist" - because it's snappy, and also seemingly non-offensive (as even Biblical defenders call themselves 'Apologists'). It simply means you explain things, as best as you can, from a standpoint of "Apollo was fully real."
What term do you prefer in lieu of PNA?
-
I conceded on a few things so far, and will continue to do so. Most recently I conceded that "vacuum suction" along the path is "slight" not "substantial".
What? You literally just said that it was "substantial" in the other thread. It's flimsy, miniscule, barely noticeable, like wafting your hand. Your attempts at trying to explain away time up = time down have failed.
-
What? You literally just said that it was "substantial" in the other thread. It's flimsy, miniscule, barely noticeable, like wafting your hand. Your attempts at trying to explain away time up = time down have failed.
The "initial suction" IS substantial, just as it the suction of a 1" diameter suction dart, can require up to 10 lbs of force to pull it off the window. The foot against the dust, may create a similar situation.
And here again, this conclusion is tentative. You refuted my original claim that it was much more substantial for the entire rise. I conceded and changed my stance.
This is the FIRST I've argued this point to this level of detail, and so I am prone to tertiary mistakes. As mistakes are exposed, I concede and adjust my stance. As should you.
Do you disagree that there is an upcurrent of air in the wake of this boot rising? I believe this a point that you need to "concede on, and then adjust your stance"
-
The "initial suction" IS substantial,
That is just bollocks. It's no more than an arm wafting across the surface.
just as it the suction of a 1" diameter suction dart, can require up to 10 lbs of force to pull it off the window.
False equivalence fallacy. This is just made up nonsense.
The foot against the dust, may create a similar situation.
No it may not. It will create a very slight pressure drop that potentially could move a few grains of sand. The overwhelming force is friction, on the Moon a nice helping of static attraction and dust cohesion.
And here again, this conclusion is tentative. You refuted my original claim that it was much more substantial for the entire rise. I conceded and changed my stance.
Change it to reality! It is barely anything at all.
This is the FIRST I've argued this point to this level of detail, and so I am prone to tertiary mistakes. As mistakes are exposed, I concede and adjust my stance. As should you.
You look after your own errors. The force is minuscule. If you suggest otherwise your understanding of physics is seriously flawed.
Do you disagree that there is an upcurrent of air in the wake of this boot rising? I believe this a point that you need to "concede on, and then adjust your stance"
Which part of the equivalence to an arm wafting across the surface, do you not understand? Minsicule. Barely a few grains disturbed. Certainly questionable whether it is enough to drag even a few grains off of the ground.
-
@Mag40 - gonna cut this off here, and take it back to Sand post instead.
-
@Mag40 - gonna cut this off here, and take it back to Sand post instead.
The hell you are! You have this evaded post a show stopper for any objective person:
1. "dust at apex" - In an atmosphere, the boot leaves a temporal vacuum suction in it's wake (you are aware of this fact, yes).
It's mainly friction.
This temporary vacuum only lasts a very short time, but this suction effect pulls the dust upwards as the boot rises. As the boot reaches apex, it's upward velocity slows, and the vacuum effect instantly dissipates, leaving that dust to fall at earth gravity.
Nope - mainly friction. I specifically posted a gif of volleyball on the beach and the same sandy colour against a sandy background shows the same thing. Earth gravity has the dust disappearing instantly in the same irrelevant way. Just because it's harder to see doesn't mean a thing.
While the Cernan falls slower due to partial suspension. This is what would be EXPECTED to be seen on earth, per MLH theory.
That is just bollocks. The dust impacts simultaneously with his feet touching the ground on 3 successive jumps. Should I fetch where you said it was sliding along the ground?
The dust falling from apex too fast, is the damning evidence here. This is IMPOSSIBLE on the moon. The "Hippity" clip supports MLH, not PNA.
Grey on grey and a poor quality video. The only damning thing is your persistent obfuscation. What you can or cannot observe with the conditions present is totally irrelevant.
Once more your evasion on this matter is noted and starting to deliberately irritate now.
That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.
The dust reaches apex at the same time as he does. Time up = time down. Which part of that confuses you?
2. "parabola" - why use this term? Parabola's are the same shape on moon and earth, with a 2.4X speed difference, that's all.
Because it is a parabola. Because it is visible. Because it reaches apex in a beautifully consistent synchronised motion with his jump.
I assume you are talking about the "faint dust" that appears on YOUR gif (but NOT the one from NASA's own site)
You are lying. The dust parabola is visible on every NASA version.
But let's assume YOUR source is accurate -- we see at 4-5 frames after liftoff, that there is a patch of dust that STARTED moving upwards at a FASTER rate.
And once again with the diversion avoiding the issue. My source is 100% accurate and if you suggest it has been doctored or any other HB lie along those lines, than people will start to see your true nature.
this of course may end up hitting apex at around the same time as John.
Rubbish, it is a blob on your crusty copy of the footage! Most of the dust travels forward. Once more you avoid points I have raised. If you think I am suddenly going to let you away with this, think again.
Additionally, in atmosphere, the lighter dust experiences more air resistance, which also slows it's falling a bit -- also giving you this effect.
And not visible on the volleyball clip! All diversion from the main point.
3. 4 ft high is not "ridiculous amount".
Of course it is! So is the distance involved.
Since we can't see the fall, we have less idea about suspensions.
Nonsense, we see no suspension at all on the leading section of the event.
This is a Half-parabola, giving us less physics to analyze.
Irrelevant in the extreme. We have enough to analyse it by height, projected distance and force.
BUT the full clip is explained by him simply kicking his leg twice as hard as you thought he did. This is a feasible and reasonable MLH theory.
There is nothing reasonable about this it all. I do not believe you think that. No honest physicist would look at that totally weird looking dust wave and conclude it looks Earth-like.
I'm still waiting for you to expand on your bare assertion about the time. I've done a manual check and his figures are spot on.
Keep trying.
Keep running away from the evidence. The game is up and you've been here less than a week. Your credibility is now in question since you are clearly evading the obvious on 3 separate matters. Smart people show they are smart by their actions not by bragging about it whilst showing they aren't.
John Young Jump
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust in perfect sync with his jump and the same height. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see shaded areas on the ground moving forwards away from Young.
Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.
Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.
Members should be made aware of your truly daft claim that the upward "draft" from a suction vacuum is responsible for lifting the dust off of the surface! Simple experiment, place bucket 1/4 inch from surface and yank it up - are you seriously claiming that the bucket pulls up a column of dirt/sand/dust?
You have nowhere to go now. Cernan and Young jumps both show dust level with boot at apex. Time up = time down. The dust is not on wires therefore......an honest physicist fills in the details.
-
This is the wrong thread for this discussion - we have an active/vibrant thread already dedicated to "Dust falls to fast". In this thread, you are off-topic. This thread is about Film/Video Tech of 1969.
-
There is another elephant in the room that has not been addressed. The official storage medium of TV footage at NARA until the mid 1970's was 16mm kinescope. These are 24 frames per second. This means the original TV feed has had what is commonly referred to as inverse pulldown, to make the 29.97fps compatiple with 24fps for film.
Secondly as opposed to the color TV signal, the Apollo 7,8,9 and 11 black and white TV signal was shot at 10 fps. In order to convert this to 30fps, a different type of conversion was utilized than for the color-matrixing for the later missions. This is how the slow scan conversion was handled:
A scan converter built by RCA was the unit chosen to convert the slow scan TV signal from Apollo 7, Apollo 8, Apollo 9 and the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Their unit very similar to that devised by Westinghouse, used a stock standard video camera which had seen use in film-to-video telecine, and in the days prior to videotape was also used to record video onto film (a process
known as kinescope). It was a black-and white Vidicon tube camera pointed at a 10” high resolution cathode ray monitor.
The monitor had a persistent phosphor which caused the image to remain on the screen for longer than normal. The TK-22 was gated to record 1 frame as it was written onto the high resolution screen. The output from the camera was a standard interlaced NTSC video signal. 1 full frame of video information was composed from two fields of 262.5 lines which the camera could not properly record from the 10 frame-per-second rate. The first field was recorded correctly, but the second field would be recording off the monitor when the next frame of video information was already being written, resulting in a messy signal which generated a lot of problems in the conversion process. This snag was overcome by recording
the first field onto a video disc recorder which would then repeat the redundant field with a delay built into every second field to allow it to mimic the missing field that the camera was unable to capture.
Essentially, the TK-22 recorded the first field, with the disc recorder repeating the fields while adjusting them so that they correctly formed a full NTSC image. This process was repeated to form the “missing” 3 frames of NTSC video and the resulting output was a fully compatible NTSC video signal. There was one major drawback, which unfortunately the technology of the time could not solve. The picture was unavoidably degraded as it was optically converted and this on top of the already reduced resolution of the incoming slow scan TV signal.
Similar to the color TV archived material, the Apollo 11 TV footage was also converted to kinescope. This was updated in 2009 when the Telemetry Tape Search Group (in which I was involved) obtained the videotapes held by CBS. The first step from Honeysuckle was obtained from a privately held copy. Although this material is also held as a kinescope in Australia.
-
And his claim that high speed video cameras didn't exist is false. According to Chan of the Video Logic Corporation, the InSTAR high speed video system of 1970 - that Collins mentioned - was capable of recording both black and white and colour high speed broadcast quality video for long durations.
Is that so? And just where, exactly, did Chan make the statement that the InSTAR equipment of 1970 was capable of recording both B&W, and colour high speed broadcast quality video for long durations?
In fact, the statement is "One system", yet the system isn't named, nor is the period when the system was first used advised, so how can the claim be made, based of Chans statement, that the equipment of 1970 (which helps the 1969 landings how?) could actually do what has been claimed?
-
FYI CBS did indeed telecast footage live from MOCR during its TV coverage of Apollo 11.
-
Another question to Najak. Do you agree the TV cameras were opearting on all post Apollo 11 missions at 30 frames per second?