Impossible Film Tech?

[najak]

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?

[TimberWolfAu]

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?

[smartcooky]

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

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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

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.

[TimberWolfAu]

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.

[bknight]

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

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.

[smartcooky]

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"

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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.

[TimberWolfAu]

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?

[bknight]

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?

[najak]

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?

[najak]

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

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

[bknight]

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?