Apollo Moon Landings Faked?

[outsider]

Anyone know where there is any 'genuine' unmanned Lunar Rover footage?

[telecasterisation]

Anyone know where there is any 'genuine' unmanned Lunar Rover footage?

Unmanned in the sense that it is driving itself, or just parked and empty?

I have the rare race pictures from Apollo 23 when they got some old LRV's together:



Plus the one where they were allowed to take their own cars.

[outsider]

Anyone know where there is any 'genuine' unmanned Lunar Rover footage?

Unmanned in the sense that it is driving itself, or just parked and empty?

I have the rare race pictures from Apollo 23 when they got some old LRV's together:



Plus the one where they were allowed to take their own cars.

What I want to see is video footage of an unmanned Lunar Rover, US or USSR, moving on the moon (whilst I believe the 'manned Lunar trips' were faked, I have no reason to doubt unmanned vehicles were sent there). I seem to remember such video footage on TV at some time.

[telecasterisation]

What I want to see is video footage of an unmanned Lunar Rover, US or USSR, moving on the moon (whilst I believe the 'manned Lunar trips' were faked, I have no reason to doubt unmanned vehicles were sent there). I seem to remember such video footage on TV at some time.

Don't recall any moving footage from the surface prior to the first 'manned' mission.

If you check this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

You can see what landed, what it did and what it delivered in the way of images.

[rodin]

I hope that is a Rover Tele. Looks ugly enough.

Mebbe we could fake a Mars mission???

PS I'm lovin' it

[outsider]

My question is not frivolous; the object is to compare dust cloud from a genuine Rover on the moon, with the cloud shown on the video on karlos' post. Obviously, if such video footage doesn't exist, or cannot be found, this will not be possible.
As well as the main video clip on site karlos pointed out,, there are some other interesting video clips on the same site, for instance, the 'Wires' video clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related

[telecasterisation]

My question is not frivolous; the object is to compare dust cloud from a genuine Rover on the moon, with the cloud shown on the video on karlos' post. Obviously, if such video footage doesn't exist, or cannot be found, this will not be possible.
As well as the main video clip on site karlos pointed out,, there are some other interesting video clips on the same site, for instance, the 'Wires' video clip;

Even if such moving footage existed from an unmanned mission - the vehicle most certainly wouldn't reach anywhere near the speed of the manned LRV of 1969 onwards. It would be a very slow device.

[outsider]

My question is not frivolous; the object is to compare dust cloud from a genuine Rover on the moon, with the cloud shown on the video on karlos' post. Obviously, if such video footage doesn't exist, or cannot be found, this will not be possible.
As well as the main video clip on site karlos pointed out,, there are some other interesting video clips on the same site, for instance, the 'Wires' video clip;

Even if such moving footage existed from an unmanned mission - the vehicle most certainly wouldn't reach anywhere near the speed of the manned LRV of 1969 onwards. It would be a very slow device.

But the characteristics of the dust cloud should still be apparent, and differ markedly from the 'fake' footage we are led to believe was filmed on the moon.

[chek]

But the characteristics of the dust cloud should still be apparent, and differ markedly from the 'fake' footage we are led to believe was filmed on the moon.

If you say so. Whatever...

[TmcMistress]

Everytime I look in this thread, I'm strangely reminded of George A. Romero.

[telecasterisation]

Everytime I look in this thread, I'm strangely reminded of George A. Romero.

Why, is he interested in the moon landings?

[eogz]

Tele did you not watch Dawn of the Night of the living Moon Dead?

Shame on you, it warranted an oscar, some of George's best work.

[TmcMistress]

Everytime I look in this thread, I'm strangely reminded of George A. Romero.

Why, is he interested in the moon landings?

Because this thread is like a zombie that just will. Not. Die..

[gruts]

never mind Romero....

[telecasterisation]

I just watched Bikini Zombies From The Moon and it was all rather well acted - here is a link;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6097765266

[telecasterisation]

If we can get safely through Van Allen's infamous belts and they start building cities on the moon, who knows what might happen...

[TmcMistress]

Wait a second... how's that fire burning in the tower in that picture?? Fakery, I say!

[Dogsmilk]

Everytime I look in this thread, I'm strangely reminded of George A. Romero.

Why, is he interested in the moon landings?

Because this thread is like a zombie that just will. Not. Die..

I am not sure this reference is appropriate then; George Romero type zombies are fairly easily destroyed by destroying the brain - a severe blow to the head will often suffice. Even the new fangled, faster moving variants based on the 'Romeros' suffered from the same limitation, as did the standard Romeros Simon Pegg battled in England.

A better comparison would be the zombies from return of the living dead - who only eat brains as opposed to your less fussy Romeros - these could only be killed by complete bodily destruction and hence could be more aptly described as zombies that just will. not. die.

See - http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38541

It is unfortunate that you Americans should be lagging behind in Zombie Studies as it is well known that Zombie Apocalypses almost invariably begin in the United States. Though it is fortunate your ample stocks of easily available firearms are of great convenience in such an eventuality.

I have not yet watched the documentary gruts alerted us to, but it clearly shows that lunar zombies are a known problem and despite the known zombie-related failings of the United States emergency planning infrastructure -
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41676
- I find it very mysterious that NASA have yet to make a single public statement on lunar zombie contingency planning. This is despite the fact that Romeros may arise from anyone newly dead in the event of something to do with sunspots or whatever, making any random dead astronaut potentially deadly to everyone crammed in a lunar module with him.

I can only conclude that -
a/A hair-raising breed of moon dwelling zombies is being prepared to destroy us all. Moon photos were faked to avoid showing us the enormous zombie pens on the moon's surface. (Is it any coincidence the moon landings took place the year after the Romero first appeared in America??)
b/We never went to the moon and there is an impending false flag whereby the government will deceive us into thinking we are being attacked by zombies from outer space.

[outsider]

If we can get safely through Van Allen's infamous belts and they start building cities on the moon, who knows what might happen...

They might even find Bin Laden's hideaway!

[rodin]

Apollo 15 shot

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showpost ... stcount=28

Faked. The light should gradiate in intensity towrds the sunny side. So obvious now

[chek]

Apollo 15 shot

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showpost ... stcount=28

Faked. The light should gradiate in intensity towrds the sunny side. So obvious now

You need the altitude figures.
The big lower shot is from low altitude where the ground appears flat.
The upper photograph is from higher up, where the moon's spherical nature is apparent in the lighting.

*thinks* is it possible no plane syndrome is a disease like a virus that can be caught?

[TmcMistress]

It is unfortunate that you Americans should be lagging behind in Zombie Studies as it is well known that Zombie Apocalypses almost invariably begin in the United States.

Yes, but to be fair, nearly every other apocalypse begins or centers in your country. To wit:

28 Days Later
28 Weeks Later
Children of Men

So, *thpppt*

[outsider]

Apollo 15 shot

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showpost ... stcount=28

Faked. The light should gradiate in intensity towrds the sunny side. So obvious now

You need the altitude figures.
The big lower shot is from low altitude where the ground appears flat.
The upper photograph is from higher up, where the moon's spherical nature is apparent in the lighting.

*thinks* is it possible no plane syndrome is a disease like a virus that can be caught?

Not exactly; rather it's an extension of normal intelligent analysis of slowed-down footage of 'planes' hitting Towers; if they faked the shots (as is apparent to many), then perhaps there were no planes at all (I don't make that leap, but definitely believe the TV shots were fake).

And you don't need to know altitude to see the light reflected on supporting wires on 3 'Moon walking' expeditions:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related

[telecasterisation]

Apollo 15 shot

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showpost ... stcount=28

Faked. The light should gradiate in intensity towrds the sunny side. So obvious now

I have to agree with the basic premise of what is implied here by rodin. The light source is 93 million miles away, so you wouldn't have 'fall-off' above and below a central hotspot. You can approximate the position of the sun by noting the shadows - then place it in your mind's eye and you should be able to determine where shadows would naturally fall and what would be illuminated.

There is a very apparent vignette effect that would only happen if we are looking at a print where the periphery of the image has been dodged to create central focus by produced artificial shadows around the edges.

There are many images that just never get mainstream viewing like this from (supposedly) Apollo 11 - note the even distribution of shadows and highlights.

[chek]

Apollo 15 shot

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showpost ... stcount=28

Faked. The light should gradiate in intensity towrds the sunny side. So obvious now

I have to agree with the basic premise of what is implied here by rodin. The light source is 93 million miles away, so you wouldn't have 'fall-off' above and below a central hotspot. You can approximate the position of the sun by noting the shadows - then place it in your mind's eye and you should be able to determine where shadows would naturally fall and what would be illuminated.

There is a very apparent vignette effect that would only happen if we are looking at a print where the periphery of the image has been dodged to create central focus by produced artificial shadows around the edges.

I disagree and maintain that altitude above the surface, in addition to lighting direction relative to the observer is an important factor.
The lighting distribution in Rodin's first photo:


has very similar characteristics to the lighting on this spherical object.


admittedly the scales are vastly different, but the principle remains the same.

There are many images that just never get mainstream viewing like this from (supposedly) Apollo 11 - note the even distribution of shadows and highlights.

The detail available in your photo indicates a much lower altitude to me, even with the slight curve of the horizon visible.

[chek]

Apollo 15 shot

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showpost ... stcount=28

Faked. The light should gradiate in intensity towrds the sunny side. So obvious now

You need the altitude figures.
The big lower shot is from low altitude where the ground appears flat.
The upper photograph is from higher up, where the moon's spherical nature is apparent in the lighting.

*thinks* is it possible no plane syndrome is a disease like a virus that can be caught?

Not exactly; rather it's an extension of normal intelligent analysis of slowed-down footage of 'planes' hitting Towers; if they faked the shots (as is apparent to many), then perhaps there were no planes at all (I don't make that leap, but definitely believe the TV shots were fake).

Most of the 'normal intelligent analysis' of the slowed down WTC footage that I've seen isn't even intelligent enough to realise that digital video and optical film are different animals and don't produce like-for-like results when frame rates are slowed to less than optimum.

And you don't need to know altitude to see the light reflected on supporting wires on 3 'Moon walking' expeditions:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related

That must be the most tenuous, hanging-by-a-thread (no pun intended) 'evidence' of moon hoaxing I've yet seen.

[telecasterisation]

admittedly the scales are vastly different, but the principle remains the same.

The detail available in your photo indicates a much lower altitude to me, even with the slight curve of the horizon visible.

I am not in any way sure what 'principle' you refer to - as long as the subject to light source does not change, the distance/altitude of the observer has zero impact on the shadows or their perception.

The moon is lit by a point light source that is so distant, the intensity on the surface will only vary and gradate on the aproach to the terminator - there will be no variation in intensity from an observer's perspective as he/she gets closer to or more distant from the subject.



In the example we are discussing, the light source is high and left from direction A, evident by the shadows in the craters and rims. There can therefore be no shadow at point B, due to the position of the light source and its extreme distance from the surface. If it were a few miles above the surface and the only source of light, then the moon's curvature might be relevant, it isn't so it's not.

The earthbound example you provide – the light source is far too close to the subject to offer any real insight to what we are discussing.

[outsider]

That must be the most tenuous, hanging-by-a-thread (no pun intended) 'evidence' of moon hoaxing I've yet seen.[/quote]

That may be how you see it, but the point was being made by a professional, who makes films using wires to suspend people and make them appear to be douing all sorts of acrobatic feats. He claims it's clearly done with wires; I doubt you have enough experience to overide his judgement.
And remember, the 'wires' are just one of the many flaws in the 'Moon wallks'; I hadn't been aware of that aspect before seeing the video clip.

[telecasterisation]

That may be how you see it, but the point was being made by a professional, who makes films using wires to suspend people and make them appear to be douing all sorts of acrobatic feats. He claims it's clearly done with wires; I doubt you have enough experience to overide his judgement.
And remember, the 'wires' are just one of the many flaws in the 'Moon wallks'; I hadn't been aware of that aspect before seeing the video clip.

Doesn't it seem odd though that given the quantity of 'walking on the moon' type footage there is, that there aren't numerous and ongoing examples of reflective wires? I find it difficult to accept that we don't see wires all the time, not just in rare examples.

[chek]

admittedly the scales are vastly different, but the principle remains the same.

The detail available in your photo indicates a much lower altitude to me, even with the slight curve of the horizon visible.

I am not in any way sure what 'principle' you refer to - as long as the subject to light source does not change, the distance/altitude of the observer has zero impact on the shadows or their perception.

The 'principle' is that of angles of incidence and reflection being equal and that those angles constantly alter across the surface of a sphere.

I've seen a photo (that I haven't yet located) showing an area of glare on the Earth's ocean which is what I suspect may help account for what's happening in the moon photo. The effect is similar to the lamp sphere housing, which is why I posted that picture.

But... the more I look at it, the more I'd like to know about where, when and how it was taken. Does anybody recognise the fairly distictive features?

The moon is lit by a point light source that is so distant, the intensity on the surface will only vary and gradate on the aproach to the terminator - there will be no variation in intensity from an observer's perspective as he/she gets closer to or more distant from the subject.

The relative angles of the viewer, the light source and the object will cause different shadow or shade effects depending on each's position.

In the example we are discussing, the light source is high and left from direction A, evident by the shadows in the craters and rims. There can therefore be no shadow at point B, due to the position of the light source and its distance to the surface. The earthbound example you provide – the light source is far too close to the subject to offer any insight to what we are discussing.

As an example of what I said above, in the upper polar region of the moon photo you posted where the incidence is low, the region outlined in red has a combination of light and shade effects caused by highlands, lowlands and darker moondust. The net result is a 'C' shaped pocket (picked out in green dots) where a darker area can be seen nearer the lightsource than the brighter area.


I'm also at a loss to think of a worthwhile reason for faking what seems a fairly common or garden orbital photo that could've been taken on any manned or unmanned mission.