Impossible Film Tech?

[najak]

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

(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.

[bknight]

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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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

[najak]

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

[Allan F]

Neither TBFDU or aulis has any credibility here. You'd better find better sources.

[najak]

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"?

[Allan F]

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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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

[Allan F]

EXCEPT the necessary hardware didn't exist.

[najak]

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.

[Allan F]

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.