They obviously filmed the faked moon landings in a giant vacuum tank. Duh!

In Sandusky which is close enough to a world famous amusement park that could provide other effects.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Was there a video recording system capable of 2.4X shutter rate in 1969 (or earlier, to allow for planning)? Was this technology used in television production?

RBG

Given that the framerate of the Apollo films (as far as I know) is 30, and the square root of (9.81 / 1.655) is 2.44, you'd need a camera capable of capturing about 73FPS (frames per second). I read in a book that the most early films were first made with a framerate of 48FPS, and then got reduced to 18FPS. For comparison, a motion picture film is shown at 24FPS.

It is not at all impossible to film something at 73 frames per second. In fact, cameras that are able of higher framerates (like 48FPS and 72FPS) are used in the production stages of films to later play it back at 24FPS (slow motion!). However there are some problems to be noted. To sucessfully capture light with higher framerates you will need either a faster shutter speed or a bigger aperture.

One can expect to see effects of this. A faster shutter speed shows differences in lighting every frame with a lot of artificial lighting. For example, when I point my webcam at my LEGO set and use a fast shutter speed (1/200), you can see the "flickering" of the lamps (most lamps don't shine all the time; they flicker at a quite fast rate, too fast for our eyes to notice), making each frame have different brightnesses. However this problem is usually solved by using a 'stage lamp', that simply doesn't flicker (it produces a lot of heat though).

A bigger aperture changes the field of focus. The bigger the aperture's hole, the more 'select' the field of focus will be: you can only focus on a small part of the image. A good example of this can be found here, on the Clavius.org website. Of course, in the case of the Apollo footage there is hardly 'alternative' shutter speed/aperture settings to compare things to.


Last of all, something else that has to be considered is for in order to fake the framerate in 1969, one would have to film it 'on film' first with a (calculated) framerate of 73FPS, and then slow the framerate down to 30FPS when showing the film. The audio and video must be matched up together, something that is made a lot harder because of the changed framerate. This indicates that in order for it to work, the footage and audio would have to have been carefully scripted and recorded far in advance of actually showing it.

As there are some instances where things in the news are being asked from the moon (I can recall reading something about an astronaut asking for the results of a baseball/football match), something which would be VERY hard, impossible even, to script out beforehand.

But to answer your question in a short way: Basically, it was able to make the technology, however there are a lot of things to be taken into account when looking at the scenario..


Well, enough typing in the morning for me right now. There may be some things I have said wrong; I'm not an expert, I'm a hobbyist.

- Spread the Love

__________________
Spread the Love!

What do you think about this?:

First pseudo slo-mo video: "1967: Ampex Instant Replay Disk Recorder
Disk recording of broadcast video was first tested in a CBS football broadcast on July 8th, 1965. Because of the extreme storage requirements this was only used for brief bursts to demonstrate slow motion, stop motion, and instant replay. Ampex introduced the commercial HS-100 instant replay deck in 1967. This unit was essentially a hard disk used to record analog video rather than digital computer data. The disc rotated at 1800 RPM and had a 30 second record capacity. Each concentric track stored one frame of video, so freeze frame was achieved by holding the head stationary, and slow motion by moving the head across the surface at less than 30 frames per second."
http://tinyurl.com/343ben

But note that this system didn't actually give you true high speed recording but, simply slowed down the 30 frames per second so that each frame was viewed longer giving an apparent, albeit jerky, slo mo.

Such was the state of video slow motion in the late 1960s.

"The first (real) video slow motion camera was invented by NAC in the mid 1980s."
http://hd24.com/digital_slow_motion_101.htm

So true slow motion video did not exist in 1969. True, smooth, slow motion in those days came from film sources - usually by overcranking the film camera to produce many more exposures per second than the usual 24 frames per second.

The trouble is that anything film-based can be spotted a mile away... especially in those days when compared to video. Film will betray itself numerous ways: through its inherently better, very-different-from-video, picture quality; by the usual contamination that can be found on discrete frames; and by the chemical grain pattern found on film but not video.

So the moon landing *video* could not have been created using film cameras sped up by 2.4 times- we'd see it for what it was. Nor could it have been shot with non-existent proper slow-mo video equipment - it hadn't been invented yet.

There is no explanation for the witnessed moon gravity effects except having been video'd on the moon.

RBG

As Jay has pointed out a number of times, changing the frame rate could realistically simulate the vertical component of the lunar gravity environment. But unlike actually being on the Moon, it would also affect the horizontal component (lateral motion) and time axis as well.

It's pretty easy to see the result by speeding up playback of the lunar surface video/film by 2x (close enough to 2.44x for demonstration purposes). While this makes the astronauts' vertical motion seem Earthlike, everything else is quite noticeably odd -- their arm and finger motions and the rate of horizontal movement in particular. Nobody would ever mistake those images for normal activity in Earth gravity, especially for someone encumbered by a bulky suit.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, RBG. There's hardly anything I can add to that.

EDIT: Adding to that, I also agree with Donnie B. If for some reason none of the film/video artefacts would pop up, one should still take into account the astronaut's motions and how they look like when sped up.

__________________
Spread the Love!

Oh, that just proves that evil NASA just fixed the baseball game too.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

They actually took a feather with them?

In fact the Apollo 15 crew took two with them. One they used for the experiment along with a geology hammer, the other thay merely placed as a symbol. The Falcon feathers, and their LM, the Falcon.

The Experiment wasn't an offical NASA experiment, it was one of the ones that the crews came up with, just like the Al Shepard golf swing.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Hi everyone, first post.

Could this be considered "indisputable proof?"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM

Hi and welcome, unscannable!

I'm sure our very own BertL, who made and posted that video, would be pleased that you think it constitutes indisputable evidence. Sadly, the hoax believers can always find ways to raise a dispute, no matter how silly. Just read the comments at your link and you'll see what I mean.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I know this is in the archive somewhere but I can't find it.

Since Japan's Kaguya will have a 1 meter resolution, do you think they will target the remaining Apollo moon artifacts for calibration purposes and at the same time provide still more independent proof of the landings? Not that the HBs will think for a moment Japan hasn't been paid off by the CIA to fake their photos followed by unfortunate accidents all over Japan.

RBG

I for one would love to see new apollo footage from orbit or even from the surface, not because I need to be convinced, but because I'd like to see what's left of it (you'd need surface photography for that I think) and because it would excite me to see new pics of the historical apollo landing sites.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I believe its best resolution will be nearer 10 metres.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

One other thing, the dust on the moon is totally different to that on Earth, our sand and dust has been weathered and eroded which makes it flow when disturbed, the dust on the moon is jagged and sharp (from no erosion) so clings easier. Knowing this debunks the hoax theorists who use the dust swirls to add 'weight' to their sad little theories.

Not only is the lunar dust composed of jagged grains (although some are spherules), there is a greater propensity for chemical cementation and cold-welding behavior. The initial clumping and crusting of the lunar surface is due to pre-existing cementation. The subsequent impressibility comes from the particulate shape as well as the notion that if you press the grains together, they will rub and generate enough energy to "weld" themselves together. This is possible because of the relative lack of oxidation in the particles.

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

What could the CIA possibly do to Japan that Godzillla could not protect them from?
Oh, wait- do the HBers believe in the conspiracy to make us all think that Godzilla is not real?

__________________
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song

The CIA has Godzilla locked up at an alligator farm in south Florida.
I know, because I saw him there! And how did I see him? Cuz I'm the master of the moon!

And now, for something completely different.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

...A man with three buttocks.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel