Moon Landings Fake Filmmaker Says Not / Video

[really?]

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

[Misha]

[Misha]

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.

[SydneyPSIder]

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.

[really?]

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

[Misha]

[SydneyPSIder]

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.

[really?]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Misha]

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.

[really?]

[SydneyPSIder]

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]

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]

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'.