View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby really? » 31 Jan 2013, 03:38

A terrific vid.
Writer/director S G Collins of Postwar Media debunks every theory that the Apollo Moon landings could have been faked in a studio. The filmmaker takes a look at the video technology of the late 1960's, showing alleged fraud was simply not possible. http://www.space.com/19531-moon-landing ... video.html
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby Misha » 31 Jan 2013, 11:33

really? wrote:A terrific vid.
Writer/director S G Collins of Postwar Media debunks every theory that the Apollo Moon landings could have been faked in a studio. The filmmaker takes a look at the video technology of the late 1960's, showing alleged fraud was simply not possible. http://www.space.com/19531-moon-landing ... video.html


Thanks, Really. I will look at this at this first opportunity.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby Misha » 31 Jan 2013, 21:18

Hi Really, I got a chance to watch the clip. I am not a photographic or film expert by no means. In fact, I think this gentleman's argument should be confronted by those who are experts and who do not believe in what we have been told with the Apollo program. I wonder what 23rdman would say on this? Also, aside from the film and photograph controversy the gentleman would have to explain all other anomalies which the Apollo Hoaxers claim. Thanks for sharing this clip.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Feb 2013, 00:22

Wonder why we can see Scotchlite artifacts in the Apollo pics when enhanced on a computer and a stereoscopic computer analysis of pics taken near each other show mountains only 50m away, and the suggestion of a curved projection screen. And the astronauts always take their pics in the same direction towards the same mountain ranges no matter where they've set up their equipment as they went on so-called expeditions supposedly kms apart. They always point the camera the same way towards the same mountains!

Then there's the clear evidence of model-making and the use of verniers to fake movement of the earth in fake footage etc.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby really? » 01 Feb 2013, 03:05

One of you is more incredible by far than the other. Misha I have hope for you though.

If you've not seen 2001 A Space Odyssey by all means watch it because you'll see the cutting edge of film technology of the late 60's. As for video, way back at university during the mid 70's I took film an video courses and had the opportunity to have *professors on the cutting edge of video technology. I can assure you video was still a nascent technology and not yet capable of doing the things Moon Hoaxers claim was done back then that includes film. Video technology from that time could be described as stone age primitive.
Relating to the video. My dad worked for Univac. I still have in my possession magnetic hard drives from that time period. They are made entirely of metal like todays drives and huge in comparision. Estimating the diameter of about 14 inches from them. They held a few megabytes.

Here's some questions for both of you.
1. Have we sent probes which have orbited or landed on other planets and moons ?
2. Have we taken photos of those surfaces and sent them back to NASA and the European Space Agency?
3. Are those photos real or not ?

*This is my former prof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Etra
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby Misha » 01 Feb 2013, 08:05

really? wrote:One of you is more incredible by far than the other. Misha I have hope for you though.

If you've not seen 2001 A Space Odyssey by all means watch it because you'll see the cutting edge of film technology of the late 60's. As for video, way back at university during the mid 70's I took film an video courses and had the opportunity to have *professors on the cutting edge of video technology. I can assure you video was still a nascent technology and not yet capable of doing the things Moon Hoaxers claim was done back then that includes film. Video technology from that time could be described as stone age primitive.
Relating to the video. My dad worked for Univac. I still have in my possession magnetic hard drives from that time period. They are made entirely of metal like todays drives and huge in comparision. Estimating the diameter of about 14 inches from them. They held a few megabytes.

Here's some questions for both of you.
1. Have we sent probes which have orbited or landed on other planets and moons ?
2. Have we taken photos of those surfaces and sent them back to NASA and the European Space Agency?
3. Are those photos real or not ?

*This is my former prof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Etra


Really, this not an accusation but a question. When you say photos are you speaking from the digital era? It is my understanding that Apollo's pictures were not digital but of celluloid. If celluloid then how did Apollo crews protect their film from Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation? Film as we understood back in the Apollo days was highly susceptible to not only the Van Allen belts but also to cosmic galactic radiation in space and on the moon? Furthermore, radiation was illustrated in Lifton's book "Hiroshima in America" when the Kodak plant was concerned that the radiation fallout from the Trinity A-bomb test fogged their film in Rochester, NY. I posted this somewhere in the threads.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Feb 2013, 19:26

They believe film would have been both fogged by radiation AND melted by the temperatures on the surface of the moon. Hard to see survivability. That NASA flack in the present gabbles on about special thin gel films etc, except the actual Kodak rep working with NASA at the time says it was perfectly ordinary film. Melts at 150F. Moon surface temperatures outside the LEM would have been (hypothetically of course) 250F.

The other footage from other probes are not taken on photographic film but are digital transmissions, are they not?

As Ralph Rene cogently points out, you never send humans (radiation, temps, etc) where you have not even sent a monkey.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby really? » 01 Feb 2013, 23:12

SydneyPSIder wrote:They believe film would have been both fogged by radiation AND melted by the temperatures on the surface of the moon. Hard to see survivability. That NASA flack in the present gabbles on about special thin gel films etc, except the actual Kodak rep working with NASA at the time says it was perfectly ordinary film. Melts at 150F. Moon surface temperatures outside the LEM would have been (hypothetically of course) 250F.

I don't know how [exactly] they kept the film cool and neither do you. I think they did so with the same material and design on a smaller scale as was used to keep the LEM interior cool. For the fact that you can't imagine doesn't imply that it was beyond the technology of that time and doesn't add validity to your position or to the hoax theory. There's no rational reason for NASA to lie about this point specifically and the missions to the Moon generally without risking the world finding out it was all a hoax. It's much simpler to have gone an not fake it. Btw. it's 250F in the sunlight like you said, but frigid in the shade. By simply holding the camera in shadow the astronauts could keep the camera film within temperature tolerances.
Thermal info. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... soZbL-bmPQ

SydneyPSIder wrote:The other footage from other probes are not taken on photographic film but are digital transmissions, are they not?


You didn't think about and answer the questions.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Feb 2013, 21:23

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:They believe film would have been both fogged by radiation AND melted by the temperatures on the surface of the moon. Hard to see survivability. That NASA flack in the present gabbles on about special thin gel films etc, except the actual Kodak rep working with NASA at the time says it was perfectly ordinary film. Melts at 150F. Moon surface temperatures outside the LEM would have been (hypothetically of course) 250F.

I don't know how [exactly] they kept the film cool and neither do you. I think they did so with the same material and design on a smaller scale as was used to keep the LEM interior cool. For the fact that you can't imagine doesn't imply that it was beyond the technology of that time and doesn't add validity to your position or to the hoax theory. There's no rational reason for NASA to lie about this point specifically and the missions to the Moon generally without risking the world finding out it was all a hoax. It's much simpler to have gone an not fake it. Btw. it's 250F in the sunlight like you said, but frigid in the shade. By simply holding the camera in shadow the astronauts could keep the camera film within temperature tolerances.

What garbage. The cameras were ordinary Hasselblads, with a metal case, an excellent conductor of heat. There is no evidence the astronots kept their cameras shaded, quite the opposite -- they are often shooting into the sun. There are plenty of shots where the cameras are exposed to the sun for lengthy periods, and no shots of astronots shading the cameras. There was no 'coolant' on or in the cameras, they just slotted on the front of the spacesuits with a bracket, I've seen the brackets and method of construction, etc. There are interviews with the German Hasselblad employee who improved the cameras a bit for the ostensible mission, no mention of coolants either, although there is clearly no mechanism for it on the cameras anywhere anyhow. There is also obviously a big question mark over how the astronots 'remained cool in their suits' in blistering radiant heat, and the LEM batteries are held to be underpowered to cool the LEM, because THEY DIDN'T GO.

And you haven't adddressed or worried about the FACT that the NASA guy was LYING in the present time about the nature of the film. What else are they prepared to lie about, hmm?

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:The other footage from other probes are not taken on photographic film but are digital transmissions, are they not?


You didn't think about and answer the questions.

What?

Here's some questions for both of you.
1. Have we sent probes which have orbited or landed on other planets and moons ?
I believe so.

2. Have we taken photos of those surfaces and sent them back to NASA and the European Space Agency?
I believe not, I understand they are transmitted digitally? Similar to a digital camera, no film involved.

3. Are those photos real or not ?
There are no 'real' photos on the moon or other planets when they are captured and transmitted digitally. They are not developed on the surface of the planet or moon.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby Misha » 03 Feb 2013, 22:00

Sydney's points 1 through 3 is how I understand the difference between celluloid and digital pictures with the space program then and now. Are there any pictures out there from the Apollo missions which NASA has claimed having been damaged by radiation? Also, Sydney is correct on the Hasselblad not having any more protective features than the cameras used on earth. I believe this was explained by the same technician which Sydney sites in Percy and Bennett's book - "Dark Moon."

Give this a read concerning the handling and care of Kodak film.

FILM STORAGE AND HANDLING - KODAK: Motion Picture Camera ...
motion.kodak.com/.../US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_newsle...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Skin can be blistered by chemicals or heat; so can film. • Skin can be .... and customs agents may open containers of unprocessed film, ruining weeks of work.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby really? » 03 Feb 2013, 23:11

SydneyPSIder wrote:They believe film would have been both fogged by radiation AND melted by the temperatures on the surface of the moon. Hard to see survivability. That NASA flack in the present gabbles on about special thin gel films etc, except the actual Kodak rep working with NASA at the time says it was perfectly ordinary film. Melts at 150F. Moon surface temperatures outside the LEM would have been (hypothetically of course) 250F.

really? wrote:I don't know how [exactly] they kept the film cool and neither do you. I think they did so with the same material and design on a smaller scale as was used to keep the LEM interior cool. For the fact that you can't imagine doesn't imply that it was beyond the technology of that time and doesn't add validity to your position or to the hoax theory. There's no rational reason for NASA to lie about this point specifically and the missions to the Moon generally without risking the world finding out it was all a hoax. It's much simpler to have gone an not fake it. Btw. it's 250F in the sunlight like you said, but frigid in the shade. By simply holding the camera in shadow the astronauts could keep the camera film within temperature tolerances.

SydneyPSIder wrote:What garbage. The cameras were ordinary Hasselblads, with a metal case, an excellent conductor of heat. There is no evidence the astronots kept their cameras shaded, quite the opposite -- they are often shooting into the sun. There are plenty of shots where the cameras are exposed to the sun for lengthy periods, and no shots of astronots shading the cameras. There was no 'coolant' on or in the cameras, they just slotted on the front of the spacesuits with a bracket, I've seen the brackets and method of construction, etc. There are interviews with the German Hasselblad employee who improved the cameras a bit for the ostensible mission, no mention of coolants either, although there is clearly no mechanism for it on the cameras anywhere anyhow. There is also obviously a big question mark over how the astronots 'remained cool in their suits' in blistering radiant heat, and the LEM batteries are held to be underpowered to cool the LEM, because THEY DIDN'T GO.

How do you know they didn't shade the cameras when not in use ? Were you there ? Of course you weren't. Is it reasonable to think the astronauts walk around holding the camera always in the upright position ? Is that something people do where you live? But no it's not because that's not something people do, it causes tired arms. I presented an linked article showing how it would have been possible to thermally protect cameras that you refused to consider because it causes you cognitive dissonance. I didn't mention anything about coolent, you did which is a red herring

SydneyPSIder wrote:And you haven't adddressed or worried about the FACT that the NASA guy was LYING in the present time about the nature of the film. What else are they prepared to lie about, hmm?

I don't care what one NASA person says if it ain't back up by facts.

SydneyPSIder wrote:The other footage from other probes are not taken on photographic film but are digital transmissions, are they not?

Just a technical point for clarification. When you capture light be it by photo reactive chemicals or by solid state device it's still a photo. The medium is different, the end result is the same.
SydneyPSIder wrote:You didn't think about and answer the questions.
What?


Here's some questions for both of you.
1. Have we sent probes which have orbited or landed on other planets and moons ?
I believe so.

2. Have we taken photos of those surfaces and sent them back to NASA and the European Space Agency?
I believe not, I understand they are transmitted digitally? Similar to a digital camera, no film involved.

3. Are those photos real or not ?
There are no 'real' photos on the moon or other planets when they are captured and transmitted digitally. They are not developed on the surface of the planet or moon.[/quote]

How do you know those photos aren't digitally create [cgi] at some NASA or European space agency... facility or the surfaces created on a movie set ? With today's computer capabilities is quite easy to do. You certainly haven't gone to Mars or Venus... It could all be a hoax. It's actually much easier with today's capabilities too fake it all then would have been during the late 60's and early 70's. But you believe we have gone to those planets. Why ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby SydneyPSIder » 05 Feb 2013, 21:11

yes, it could be a hoax, but I believe we have the capability to do it. I have a background in computing, electronic comms, interfacing, robotics/mechanical engineering and physical sciences generally, so I believe it's possible.

I don't believe we had the capability of landing 6 missions on the moon successfully and returning with no major cockups or loss of life, with 7 years development time and 1960s technology, where Apollo 1 wasn't ready 2 years out from the deadline and US-designed rockets regularly failed on the launchpad with dire results. (The Russians were making better rockets with a buttress design, and not assembling them vertically to wheel out as an act of grand theatre.) Science and engineering just isn't that good, it wasn't then and it isn't now. Plus all the other objections already raised on numerous threads.

It's clear in the footage and the still photos that the cameras were often in the 'sun' for lengthy periods. The evidence is clear. It just happens that the 'sun' was just a studio light.

Your view of the NASA guy lying through his teeth not being a problem with the official story is extremely illuminating about yourself and the sort of moebius strip logic the pseudosceps get caught up in.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Feb 2013, 04:15

The fakery is certainly getting good these days. It's pretty funny when computer enhancements of a lot of old Apollo shots bring up Scotchlite-type artifacts and also show evidence of manual 'blacking out' of photos where the shades of black don't quite match, leaving artifacts not visible to the naked eye.

They can generally do a better job these days. Although there were a lot of problems with 9/11 fakery back using 2001 technology and video software etc -- the plane's nose going all the way through a building and coming out the other side intact, repeated patterns in the smoke suggesting the pics were enhanced and fabricated. A gesticulating guy's arm travelling through another guy's body while no-one appears to be looking at the smoking towers at all. Little red herrings that show the movies and stills were fraudulent.

SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Feb 2013, 20:43

Response from Jarrah White:



So it's quite possible to have shot on 16mm film feasibly, etc etc.

S G Collins has prepared an extremely well-scripted and well-produced little piece there, although it looks as though it can be completely debunked. And yet he points out problems with the Patriot Act and various recent foreign policy decisions quite happily. So trying to redeem the Apollo missions but point out today's lies and cover-ups?

The more I look at the Apollo sets the more they look like... sets... Like something from 'Lost in Space'.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests