This SUBJECT may be dated but what the heck, here is my thought: US DID FAKE MOON LANDING. Why do i think that? After viewing both sides arguing about whether or not it is a fake, I come to this thought. I am not going to use pictures or any astronomical knowledges to back my opinion but one thing: WHERE IS (ARE) THE CLEAR SHARP COLORFUL VIDEO(S) THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY ASTRONAUTS THEMSELVES?? If you plan a trip that no mankind have ever done i am sure you will be well equiped. If astronauts were equiped with cameras that could produce such clear sharp and colorful pictures at the time, I would be severly in doubt that they are not equiped with such hightech camcorders as well. Can someone please shove in my face those clear colorful videos or my conclusion is true: THE MOON IS A VIRGIN?

WHERE IS (ARE) THE CLEAR SHARP COLORFUL VIDEO(S) THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY ASTRONAUTS THEMSELVES??

Ho hum. Argument from silence.

If you plan a trip that no mankind have ever done i am sure you will be well equiped.

Yes, but under what constraints? "Well-equipped" has to be judged according to what was possible.

If I sent you to Paris for a week on vacation, I would assume you would equip yourself well. But if I told you that you could only take 10 kilograms of material that had to satisfy all your needs while you were there, you might think about saving most of that weight limit for things like food, water, clothing, and other necessities. If you came back without pictures of Paris because you decided that you'd rather not use up a kilogram of your weight limit for a camera, would I be justified in questioning whether you had actually gone?

The Apollo astronauts were well equipped to take photographs on the moon, according to what it was possible to take.

If astronauts were equiped with cameras that could produce such clear sharp and colorful pictures at the time, I would be severly in doubt that they are not equiped with such hightech camcorders as well.

No, that's a total apples-and-oranges comparison. Film-based photography was already well-understood in the 1960s and high-quality equipment was already available at modest weights.

Television cameras in 1961 were huge beasts that rolled around on dollies. Handheld television cameras were comparatively rare. In fact, in order to build the Apollo television cameras, the contractors like RCA and Westinghouse actually had to dip into secret technology that was being prepared for the military.

The electronic recording of moving pictures was in its infancy at the beginning of Apollo. The equipment available to do it was reasonably reliable, but still very bulky. The recorders being made by Ampex and Sony at the time were still the size of small dishwashers. That was the best available at the time.

It simply didn't take that much effort to adapt the Hasselblad still camera for use in space. It was already 99% there. But even with strong industry motivation, high-quality camcorders didn't appear until the mid-1980s. It took that long and that much money for the industry to be able to put the recorder and the camera in the same hand-held box.

Since film-based motion picture photography was already well-understood, the astronauts took 16mm film cameras with them. Those were the "camcorders" of the 1960s and 1970s. And they used them; and the film is terrific.

Your assumption that videotape-based recording should have been highly-advanced and portable in 1969 just has no basis in fact.

Can someone please shove in my face those clear colorful videos or my conclusion is true: THE MOON IS A VIRGIN?

No, it doesn't work that way. You're trying to measure the evidence against a standard of proof and claiming it comes up short. That's only valid if you can demonstrate that your expectation is reasonable. You haven't done so, just begged us to accept it as the appropriate standard of proof. I certainly don't agree. It's your supposition that small hand-held camcorders should have been available to the Apollo astronauts, and your conclusion goes nowhere until you substantiate that claim.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

i am having trouble of finding the clip i am looking for. I am not trying to find pictures or black and white videos or even... yes EVEN BLUR COLORFUL VIDEOs, I am try to find a video clip that has equal quality of sharpness and clearness of the NASA MOON LANDING still images.


And this is for MR long Reply: it is bullsh.t to say that they could not have a small high quality camcorder at the time. They were available well before ww2 (1945) with good quality of sharpness ( how do you think they could record videos while soldiers in the battle if the camcorders were dish washing machine sizes?)

I suggest you learn the difference between film and video cameras.

Ok, then where are those quality SEQUENTIAL "FILMS" that i can see .... EVEN THEY WOULD BE AS SHORT AS 5 SECONDS?

You will never find a video image of anything that is a sharp as a photographic image, anywhere. By its very nature, video has less resolution than even halfway-decent photographic film.

First, watch your language. Go read the FAQ for this bulletin board -- the link is at the top of the page. I'll wait.

Done? Now, how old are you? All of the "video" that came out of WWII is actually motion pictures, i.e., FILM. Smaller motion-picture cameras of the time were roughtly the size of the earlier video camcorders, and the military did film a great deal of their operations at the time. In color, even.

Where are these films, you ask? Try the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for an on-line source, or Spacecraft Films for your very own film-to DVD transfers.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

i am having trouble of finding the clip i am looking for.

Try Spacecraft Films. http://www.spacecraftfilms.com

I am try to find a video clip that has equal quality of sharpness and clearness of the NASA MOON LANDING still images.

You won't, nor should you expect to. The Hasselblad cameras use a 70mm square frame format while the motion picture frame format is about 16mm by 10mm. The Hasselblad frame has on the order of 30 times the film area as a 16mm film frame. Only the IMAX motion picture format has a resolution approaching 70mm still photography.

And this is for MR long Reply

Consider that my relies are long because they are thorough.

it is bullsh.t to say that they could not have a small high quality camcorder at the time. They were available well before ww2 (1945)
with good quality of sharpness...

That's not a "camcorder". That's a 16mm motion picture camera. The images are sharp because they're in black and white. Black and white film is nearly always sharper than color film.

As I said, the astronauts took 16mm film cameras with them to the moon and shot film while they were there.

If you're having trouble finding good quality videos on the Internet, consider that the problem is that the web versions aren't intended to be high quality or full-length. They're intended to be convenient to access and download for casual inspection. Consider that not everything you think you need is available in web form. That's why we still have archives and libraries.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

i guess my request for a socall "clear-sharp" film, movie, video...whatever that should be asked right after first apolo return from the moon ( it would not make sense to ask for it NOW because even a hommie can make a high quality short of his landing on Mars). Oh well, I guess it's only the moon knows who had been there

Troll. Bad language. Banned. Locked.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com