When I clicked on the link http://www.moontruth.com/links.htm, I got a message, "The page cannot be found." One is tempted to speculate....


[edited to add link]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gastown on 2002-11-25 08:48 ]</font>

Always when I see this photo, I ask myself: What happened next? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

(Look at Armstrong's feet...)

Hahahaha! That's great! Obviously a whistle-blow by a disgruntled non-union electrician. If NASA can't get an astronaut from one side of the room to the other without him tripping, how could they get to the moon?

Caution: The above contained sarcasm and/or irony.

Aporetic

Actually, on Apollo 16, John Young tripped over the cable to a multimillion-dollar science experiment, thus disabling it.

(In his defense, though, the cable all but seemed to be designed to be tripped over because it came out of the top of the experiment rather than the bottom.)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I think Jay's already done a good job pointing out the differences between the clip and the actual lunar footage.

We have to be clear on the reasons for doing this. Simple differences between the clip and the Apollo 11 footage can be dismissed as things the filmmakers just hadn't got right yet. They can always argue that the actual Apollo 11 footage is simply the culmination of efforts of which the clip was a part.

But in examining the clip we can identify bits of evidence that undermine the author's claim that the clip pays careful attention to detail. We can also identify evidence (e.g., the anti-aliased, centered title) which contradict the implicit claim of authenticity. The clip itself is one element of the site. The elaborate claims made about the site are another -- perhaps separate -- element.

First of all, the clip is obviously a fake as NASA of course landed men on the moon.

That said, I have however a problem with one of JayUtah's reasons for stating that this is a fake. I might be wrong, but I do not belive the anti-aliased "LIVE FROM THE SURFACE..." title can be used to claim it's a fake. Here is my reason why:

Let's (incorrectly) assume it is indeed an authentic clip. JayUtah is right that the video text overlay machines of the 60's didn't support anti-aliased titles. However, if it was authentic, the title would have been inserted at the effective NTSC resolution of 640x480 pixels (I admit I don't know if the specific US hardware at that time worked at this particular resolution, but even if a slightly different resolution was used, I belive my point is still valid.).

The clip, however, is downsampled to a resolution of 256x192 pixels. This effect is known roughly as 6x supersampling. That is, each pixel in the video you have seen is the anti-aliased result of six pixels in the original source footage. Thus, even a non-anti-aliased source title would result in an anti-aliased title in the smaller clip we can download and watch.

Furthermore, most MPEG encoders smooth the image before encoding the clip, because the MPEG algorithm doesn't really like sharp edges. This would even further produce anti-aliasing even if the source was not.

That said, it's obviously a fake, and as a fake it still might have been incorrectly anti-aliased. I just don't think the argument that the clip is a fake because it's anti-aliased holds.

Please don't be offended by my argument, JayUtah. I have the highest possible respect for you and your knowledge.

However, if it was authentic, the title would have been inserted at the effective NTSC resolution of 640x480 pixels

Not really. The title toasters of the time divided the screen into a coarse grid of about 20x15 cells, into each of which could be placed a single character rendered at very coarse resolution. The only smoothing was from the natural ramps in the hardware.

In addition to the antialising issue, there is also the fact that the two lines of text do not align vertically in their proper cells.

That is, each pixel in the video you have seen is the anti-aliased result of six pixels in the original source footage. Thus, even a non-anti-aliased source title would result in an anti-aliased title in the smaller clip we can download and watch.

This would result in non-uniform smoothing, which we don't see. The smoothing is quite uniform. Of course this would depend on the filtration technique used, so it's not conclusive either way.

Furthermore, most MPEG encoders smooth the image before encoding the clip, because the MPEG algorithm doesn't really like sharp edges.

I'm not sure about software encoders, but hardware encoders generally don't. I've spent the last three years or so of my career dealing with hardware MPEG encoders and tuning the resulting digital stream for optimal transmission.

A frame is fully encoded only in I-frames, and I-frames account for only a very small portion of the MPEG traffic. However, since I-frames are the basis upon which the P-frames and B-frames work, they are typically encoded at relatively high fidelity. If you skimp on the I-frame you don't win much in terms of bandwidth, but you lose a lot in terms of divergence over time as the P-frames and B-frames amplify encoding errors.

The titles are in relatively static portions of the frame, meaning they appear only in I-frames.

I just don't think the argument that the clip is a fake because it's anti-aliased holds.

On that point alone, no. But there are other points to consider: the text is incorrectly aligned, and it was not part of the feed given by NASA to the television stations. These points make it more likely that the smoothing is due to software antialiasing effects than to artifacts of resizing, encoding, and compression.

Please don't be offended by my argument, JayUtah. I have the highest possible respect for you and your knowledge.

And I for yours; no offense taken. In fact, we would not be good scientists if we did not submit each other's findings to peer review and have these debates. The points you bring up are very valid and must be addressed before we can have confidence in this -- or any -- conclusion.

Yes, I know the title overlay systems worked in blocks instead of pixels at that time. That is not my point. The point is that the output resolution of the image would still be 640x480, while the movie we have seen is 256x192, which means it has been downsampled resulting in anti-aliasing. The internal resolution of the title machine does not affect it - only the output resolution does. And that is still the same. Otherwise, the entire image would have been outputed in blocks, which did not happen.

You said downsampling a larger image into a smaller one would result in non-uniform smoothing, which can't be seen in the movie. Now, perhaps we're talking about different things here, but unless you have a *very* primitive filtering kernel, I don't see how anything except a uniform smoothing can happen. And that is what we se.

I have to trust you on the issue of hardware MPEG encoders not smoothing the image, as they usually aim for speed and not quality, and I've never worked with one so I don't have any references. But virtually all software encoders I've worked with do include a smoothing option to increase visual quality.

Actually, the title do appear in the P/B-frames as well as in the I-frames. The frames 0, 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108 are I-frames, yet the blocks containing the title change a significant more number of times than 7. Not that it's very important for this discussion. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I completely agree that the misalignment of the text is proof enough that the movie is a fake. I do still disagree with you, however, that anything relevant can be said of the aliasing state of the original source footage based on the clip we have seen.

However, I willingly admit that I might have misunderstood your argument, but from where I stand I do not completely see it holding together.

Anyway, I'll make a few experiments and see what I can find out. I might very well be wrong.

I just watched the video of Aldrin on the Moon (kindly linked by AstroMike). I can't figure out what the light source is under the LM, but it's clearly something different to the motionless spotlight shown in the "baked" video. It does seem to move, but then I'm tempted to think it's flare on the camera lens caused by the intensity of the sunlight reflected off the lunar surface. Whatever it is, the baked version's spotlight is clearly a poor attempt to mimic a light source that the video's producers did not know the nature of.

Since I'm not sure what it is either, does anyone else have any ideas on the nature of that light source (if that's what it is)?.

By the way, I've just seen the "blah-blah-blah" post by "adsf" in the PDX TV thread, and now assume that's the reason why "adsf" was banned (must be the same troll who posted and got banned under the name "stevedahl"). Anyway, how disappointing - I was hoping he was banned because he called the BA a pixie! (see current thread) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Cheers,

JB

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.

Probobly both [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]




Thanks for your explanation of the light. makes sense to me. Probobly is a flare on the lens that just happens to be in a certain space.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

g99,

That footage was still bugging me, so I looked at it again.

I think I was wrong there. It's not flare off the lens from the sunlit lunar surface at all. It actually seems to be reflected sunlight off an EVA suit, creating a very over-exposed Neil Armstrong, who was standing behind the LM's ladder, a little off to the left. If you follow the "light" throughout the video, you'll notice that it seems to disappear just as Armstrong's shadow and silhouette appear from behind Aldrin, moving off to the right.

So the faked "Moontruth" video has Neil replaced by a spotlight, obviously because its producers didn't realise that he was the source of the "light" in the original footage shot on the Moon - how sloppy!

Cheers again. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.

I see what you're referring to now. Yes, it's Armstrong.

He took a picture of Aldrin working his way out of the hatch. Then while he was messing around on the porch, Armstrong moved into the sunlight, took a couple of pictures of the LM, then turned his attention back to Aldrin descending the ladders. The lens flares in the Hasselblad photos of the rest of Aldrin's descent testify that Armstrong is indeed standing in the sunlight.

A Chromel space suit is extremely bright. It's meant to be. It provides a lot of fill light, and it's what is making the little hot spot on Aldrin's heel -- the heel still coated in a light film of manufacturing lubricant because Aldrin had just taken them out of the little plastic baggie.

makes even better sense. Thnaks for the expert opinions!

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

I caught an perfect example of this just this weekend on the Discovery channel. In an otherwise stupendous documentary about going to Mars, they did a rundown on past missions that mentioned Apollo. Wouldn't you know it, they showed a clip of Armstrong jumping down off of the ladder while the "one small step..." line was voiced over it. I immediately thought of James' post above.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Incidentally this is a scene which David Percy claims was recorded differently in the Hasselblad photography versus the television coverage. Percy admits Armstrong is standing in sunlight while photographing the last of Aldrin's egress. But he claims no sign of Armstrong can be seen in the television footage. Either Percy has never seen the entire television footage, or he's lying about what is in it, or he doesn't interpret the large, bright, moving blob as Armstrong.

This is especially ironic since Percy goes on at length about the low-light lens fitted on the television camera. Doesn't he realize that a very bright object such as a Chromel-clad astronaut in full glare of the sun will certainly appear washed out and devoid of detail when using a low-light lens?

The work of Bennett and Percy is riddled with such inconsistencies.

Did they do a practice run off the lander before actually filming it (on the moon)? Like before turning on the cameras did they climb off the lander, then climb back up to do it for t.v.? To make sure they don't screw up. You mentioned that he jumped up and then did the "one small step" But did this happen after another test?

I imagine that they would try to have as much safety as possible and they probobly would not like to film Armstrong falling on his butt when tripping out the hatch. I know they probobly did hundreds of tests on earth, but the gravity would of been different and movement would of changed.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Nope - we saw it live - no prior testing.

<a name="2-12-05.Mac'N"> page= 2-12-05.Mac'N
0k? i went to the place {4th story} (see below) & I got in
1 one of the two camers was alread there
I grabbed a metal chair leaning off A WALL
3 2 1 Hr segments on counting in Two'ss
ei 1024 B's in a Kilo
<a name="Kil0.2-12-05"> line= Kil0.2-12-05
skip'N that & this to /KE/rn/all
7 the camers were not fixed possition but moved about
and at one time were positioned to block "EGGress" {lnk later to Kill0}(maybe)

Nope. If you go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/) you can look at the transcript for yourself: select Apollo 11, then the transcript section labelled "One Small Step." You can trace Armstrong's movements down the ladder to the footpad, back up to the first rung (to make sure he could get back up the ladder), back down to the footpad, then onto the surface of the Moon with his famous words.

I think it's reasonable to assume the astronauts would have (not "would of" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ) done a fair bit of training with 1/6 gravity simulators. There are photos showing them practicing in the Vomit Comet plane, and also with harnesses connected to weights which cancelled out 5/6 of the astronauts' weight.

This is all too funny,what gets me is the way he says "I guess you want me to do it again" if I was director I would have yelled cut at that very moment.Im not trying to flame anyone here but enough of the quote/ladder [bad word deleted] this was supposed to be a previous take and that wouldnt be the same on the original,with so many excellent obvious flaws in the film this should not even be brought up.

__________________
I have studied the matter (Astrology), you Sir, have not

- Sir Issac Newton to Edmund Halley

I did a Yahoo search on "Symond Lewis" and got this link, http://www.zeusnews.it/index.php3?ar...791&numero=904
which has this interesting story:

"Apollo 11 Moon Landing Footage Out-take - How Did We Do It? -

We shot on original 1960's Ikegami Tube Camera in Mount Pleasant Studios in London. The guy in the suit is an actor. The rest of the 'cast' were basically the crew, who thought the idea was very funny and wanted to be in it.

The landing craft and 'moonscapè were a set built by our art director, Richard Selway. The ladder that 'Neil' descends was made according to original blueprints that were downloaded off the Net. The rest of the set was built to match the original as closely as possible.

The moon surface was cement dust. It was disgusting. Even with the studio ventilation on full it got everywhere, and at one point there was so much of it floating round, the lights were flaring really badly.

The footage was treated in post-production to give 'Neil' his weightlessness and the ghosting effect of the original. We re-recorded and processed the soundtrack to recreate the effect of sound traveling al the way from the moon.

We think it's pretty convincing, and one thing's for damn sure - it was a lot cheaper than really going to the moon."


The rest is in Italian. Anyone care to translate?

These are all sub documents within the aforementioned web site:

How did we do it?
Adam
www.moontruth.com/why.htm]Making of[/url]
The full story
Why?
Links
Who the hell?

One minute they all existed in Google's cache, the next minute Google could only account for one page. I guess Google updated its cache just as I was browsing. Oh well.

No! No! No!

Google is in on the conspiracy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Everyone knows that Kubrick shot the moon landing hoax. He used the amazingly amazing f.70 lens that NASA would later let him borrow as a favor.

What they fail to tell you is that they flew him up to the moon with the camera and he had to wait 3 days for the other lander to arrive. Why they just didn't soundstage the thing is beyond me.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Serious thread necromancy, but a good skit in my opinion.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales