|
|
Post by Jairo on Jun 17, 2009 10:16:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by antoniocc on Jun 18, 2009 15:26:11 GMT -4
I remember it from a spanish TV program about paranormal events. It was touted as a secret recording from NASA. Some time later, it was revelated that it was all filmed in studio with a green screen and most of the "moon" surface added by CGI.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jun 23, 2009 14:33:57 GMT -4
Quite apart from anything else it's a REALLY poor match for the rest of the Apollo footage, and far too obvious with the digital post processing.
I'd have done a much better job.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 24, 2009 18:42:26 GMT -4
Yes, in this day and age does anyone really believe in a video posted to a video-sharing site claiming some lofty provenance? Sure, that might have been a head-turner 20 years ago when such a feat wasn't practically within the reach of any bored teenager and his trusty 'puter.
|
|
vq
Earth
What time is it again?
Posts: 129
|
Post by vq on Jun 25, 2009 0:36:31 GMT -4
The overdone "scratchy film" effect is a dead giveaway (though the fact that it's a video of a Moon Base on YouTube is a bigger one).
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 25, 2009 13:27:15 GMT -4
That astronaut is finding it awfully easy to bend over.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Jun 25, 2009 14:13:39 GMT -4
That astronaut is finding it awfully easy to bend over. And the Moon surface must be awfully flat in that locale. Looks like a lot of dolly shots. |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jun 27, 2009 21:41:32 GMT -4
Hmm, not just dolly shots there; one or two literally impossible ones, unless we submit to the idea that NASA had, in the sixties, a film camera and camera operator which did not occupy the third dimension or which was capable of phasing through solid matter: Towards the end of this abomination, you will see a close-up of a column followed by a swift pan. Unfortunately, to achieve this pan, the body of the "camera" (and whoever was running it) has to pass through the column. As others have also mentioned, the "film grain" effect is overdone and, worse, on a frikken loop; it starts to repeat about half-way through. I also love the way the opening text is overlaid onto the video using a mock-seventies style font and CG techniques not developed until the eighties. Made extra special by the text promising "unedited images." And, last but not least, everything in the video, even under all the filters (some of which I note are designed to mimic atmospheric effects  ) and compression artefacts, retains that ugly unreal "hey! this is CGi!" look that mars so many attempts at computer animation, even today. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 28, 2009 14:57:12 GMT -4
Welcome aboard, Randombloke!
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jun 28, 2009 18:21:35 GMT -4
You know, if Apollo really was fake, you would think it would be a lot easier to fake. Yet when people make things they claim are part of Apollo, like the Apollo 20 hoax, the falling lights supposed to be from Apollo 11, and this piece of. . . organic fertilizer, it looks quite poorly.
Odd, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 28, 2009 19:29:54 GMT -4
You know, if Apollo really was fake, you would think it would be a lot easier to fake. Yet when people make things they claim are part of Apollo, like the Apollo 20 hoax, the falling lights supposed to be from Apollo 11, and this piece of. . . organic fertilizer, it looks quite poorly. Odd, no? Even when Hollywood attempts to do it (eg From the Earth to the Moon, Apollo 13, and Magnificent Desolation) it looks wrong, and they have the supersized budgets to do it with. (Of course they are also under orders from the NASA suits to fail too.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jun 29, 2009 11:27:14 GMT -4
Lets not forget the moon sequences from "2001"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 29, 2009 15:01:14 GMT -4
Lets not forget the moon sequences from "2001" Because they were obviously shot in Earth gravity? |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jun 29, 2009 16:07:28 GMT -4
Lets not forget the moon sequences from "2001" Because they were obviously shot in Earth gravity? That must be why Kubrick insisted on filming on location when NASA asked him to fake the Apollo videos.  |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 30, 2009 0:59:24 GMT -4
Lets not forget the moon sequences from "2001" I didn't forget 2001, merely left it off the list since it was filmed bfore they had footage of the real thing and it wasn't attempting to mimic it where the others were. |
|
) and compression artefacts, retains that ugly unreal "hey! this is CGi!" look that mars so many attempts at computer animation, even today.
)
