Top5s, welcome to ApolloHoax. Please hang around and learn some real stuff about the marvellous Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. Had you come here first and asked questions, we might have been able to help you make a much more accurate video.
I apologise for some of the uncivil remarks here. Normally, most of us at ApolloHoax attack the message, if we disagree with it, but not the messenger.
To me, your video is a disappointment. It is very full of errors and omissions, such as no mention of the flag having a horizontal bar along the top to hold it up.
At 0:36 your commentary says, "The fact that the flag placed by Neil Armstrong was flapping..." yet doesn't mention if that was after Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their hands off it, because it certainly didn't flap at all after that, as can be viewed in the movie film, the video, and the still photos. In fact, it is quiet famous among Apollo people for staying absolutely motionless right up until many hours after the EVA when the test of the Lunar Module's thrusters caused it to turn. The only visual evidence of that is one of the last views before liftoff taken by the 16mm DAC camera.
Furthermore, your photo at 0:36 doesn't even show either Neil Armstrong or the Apollo 11 flag, and instead shows photo AS12-47-6897, taken by Apollo 12's Al Bean, of Pete Conrad holding up the flag because, as the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal's caption says, "Pete is grasping the flag because the locking hinge that was supposed to hold the crossbar and flag out from the staff would not latch."
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.htmland
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6897HR.jpgTake a close look at the central fiducial. It is clearly
in front of the flag and Conrad's left arm. Not behind because of "pasting".
Your entire video seems to imply that there was only one lunar landing, yet it uses stills or video clips from Apollos 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17.
Is that what you intended – to imply that there was only one moon-landing? If so, your knowledge might be similar to that of the hoax-believer with whom I had my briefest ever debate on a New Zealand forum:
Hoax-Believer: I reckon the moonlanding was faked.
Kiwi: Which moonlanding?
HB:
The moonlanding!
Kiwi: Which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17?
HB: I didn't know there were that many.
Another glaring error in your video is at 4:23: "Crosshair markings from the camera lens..."
Wrong. There is no way that the lens itself could form the markings on the film. The reticule, or fiducial, or crosshair marks were produced by a reseau plate right at the film plane at the back of the camera. I would guess that it was actually in close contact with the film's emulsion, but JayUtah might be able to confirm or deny that. (Have you checked out Jay's excellent website
Clavius?)
From the document "APOLLO-11 HASSELBLAD CAMERAS" by Phill Parker:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html(1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.
The reason that the lines are diminished in the presence of bright light is due to emulsion bleed (a type of flare) in the film. It is a simple thing for bright light to spread around those tiny 0.02 mm-wide, black marks on the reseau plate.
Some of the lines that are not visible in digital photos were actually visible in large photographic prints from the original copy negatives, but there is another reason why marks disappear from online photos: digitising itself. Even the most recent high-quality online scans are reduced versions of the original scan, and very fine vertical or horizontal lines can be among the first things to vanish when scans are reduced in size.
Strangely, you talk about no stars in the lunar surface photos, yet at 5:05 you say, "You can see the crosshairs are visible in all areas, apart from the over-exposed, bright white star."
Wrong again. If you had a basic working knowledge of photography you would be able to recognise that that is not a star at all. It is a lens flare caused by the sun catching the front element of the lens. Many of these flares appear in the upsun lunar photos. Probably hundreds, if we took the time to research the subject.
That particular photo is AS16-108-17618, taken by Charlie Duke at Apollo 16's Station 6.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17618HR.jpgAnd here's the entire stitched-together 360-degree panorama which shows more of the lens flares. Hopefully, you can see that they are indeed caused by the sun.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16pan1461110.jpgBy the way, your video implies that that entire photo is over-exposed. It's not, but obviously the two small flares are, and there's a much larger, weaker flare.
However, at top left and bottom right you can see something that might be what got some hoax-believers going at times – in one case claiming they were studio lights. Wrong. They are examples of hurried or careless negative-numbering that has strayed into the image area. Sometimes I got the same effect when using a pen with a nib and Indian ink to number negatives back in the 1970s. It happened less once I graduated to a draughting pen.
Take a close look at the fiducial (or crosshair) near John Young's left elbow in AS16-108-17623 in the same panorama:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17623HR.jpgNote how it's right arm fades where it crosses the bright sunlit portion of his sample bag. That is the emulsion bleed or flare at work. Nothing at all to do with the image being "pasted on top". Compare that cross with the other crosses over grey regolith, which look quite normal.
Finally, you imply in the video that Photoshop existed in the 1970s. Do you really believe that? Or that the moon has near-zero gravity? And would you please quote your source(s) for Neil Armstrong's "lie."
Perhaps I should add that I'm a New Zealander and have been a bit of a space nut ever since seeing Sputnik 1 back in October 1957, and NASA does not, and never has, paid me to parrot whatever they say. In fact, I don't think NASA cares what I say.
