|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 24, 2009 0:48:23 GMT -4
Actually, I still think the most logical explanation for a possible fakery in spite of really landing on the moon, would have been a technical nightmare or even impossibility in getting real pictures and film and in particular, live feed. In this scenario, the claimed technical ability of the time to do so must have been grossly exaggerated.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 24, 2009 1:28:32 GMT -4
The still photography wasn't so much a problem. Modified camera housing for thermal considerations, modified film cases. The TV camera, they were pretty certain they had that sorted out, but they really weren't sure it was going to work till they turned it on. More than a few were surprised it worked as well as it did. It was basically an experiment that worked out.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 24, 2009 1:31:31 GMT -4
The technical capability as far as Tv goes was peer reviewed and cosely followed by th Society Of Motion Pictue And Television Engineers. Not one of its 400 000 ever expressed doubt in a live feed being feasible. The WEC camera still operates today (well a backup model at least). There is no overwhelming reason why the live feed was too advanced to happen. If you have a big enough dish, you easily can lock onto a weak signal. The main development of the lunar tv cameras were their size and ruggedness verified by months of independant testing on each model of camera.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 24, 2009 2:45:37 GMT -4
Actually, I still think the most logical explanation for a possible fakery in spite of really landing on the moon, would have been a technical nightmare or even impossibility in getting real pictures and film and in particular, live feed. In this scenario, the claimed technical ability of the time to do so must have been grossly exaggerated. Okay, sure. But unless you can provide evidence that such a thing would be the case, who cares how logical it is in context? The fact is, it wasn't impossible. Technically complicated? Possibly. But well within the known capabilities of television and film at the time.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Jul 24, 2009 2:48:09 GMT -4
Actually, I still think the most logical explanation for a possible fakery in spite of really landing on the moon, would have been a technical nightmare or even impossibility in getting real pictures and film and in particular, live feed. In this scenario, the claimed technical ability of the time to do so must have been grossly exaggerated. So instead of showing that it was impossible or really really hard (something surely easily proven, if true, and thus no shame on NASA), and simply saying "we'll show you the pictures and film when we get back", you think NASA would go to all the effort (and risk of getting "caught out") of faking live video feeds? That's beyond comprehension. What real benefit is gained, that out-weighs the cost and risk?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 24, 2009 2:51:46 GMT -4
Actually there was little in the way of modification for thermal protection, it was simply the removal of the outer leatherette cover to expose the chrome metal underneath.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 24, 2009 3:03:34 GMT -4
Becase what the moon is actually like is rather different than what we've been presented with such as (according to the article as I recall) a weak atmopshere and water. Possibly even some form of life? Anyway, it's possible TPTB don't want us to know what is really up there. If the Moon had an atmosphere, it would show up when the Moon occults stars. Such occultations show a clean break - there one moment, gone the next (I've observed this myself with my own telescope). There is no dimming of the star that would indicate an atmosphere. Water would also show up in spectrographic analysis of reflected light, and in lunar samples returned by any probes.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 24, 2009 3:10:10 GMT -4
No, but some of those photos appear to support the front screen projection theory. If Front Screen Projection is done properly, it would look just like the real thing. Conversely, the real thing would just like properly-done FSP. You'd have to show that is WAS FSP that was used, and not the real thing. Given all the other evidence supporting actual landings and real footage, I think Occam would come down in favour of the real thing...
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 24, 2009 3:55:48 GMT -4
Actually, I still think the most logical explanation for a possible fakery in spite of really landing on the moon, would have been a technical nightmare or even impossibility in getting real pictures and film and in particular, live feed. In this scenario, the claimed technical ability of the time to do so must have been grossly exaggerated. What technical issues were there? Gain in the dishes not enough, power available overall gain considering the big dishes back home.... go on enlighten us.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 24, 2009 4:15:17 GMT -4
One of the problems is that people see the slow scan B&W footage then somehow assume that that was the state of television technology generally. Instead of seeing it as a deliberately chosen low bandwidth option.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 24, 2009 4:33:08 GMT -4
Bandwidth is king in a lot of cases, if not all. How deep are your pockets and what assets are available. You can see that in news casts today from around the world, say a satellite truck or landline feed vs a video over a phone. But then TV is all about tricking the eye and brain. What is the minimum you can get away with for the occasion.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 24, 2009 4:35:47 GMT -4
Just as an aside, Stanley Kubrick also used direct projection. For instance, exterior shots of the Discovery show the crew moving around on the flight deck, through the windows. This was done by filming the live action on the flight deck set, placing reflective material on the windows of the Discovery model, then projecting the live action onto the model windows and filming the result. No matte lines. Also used on the Aries 1B shots.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 24, 2009 13:44:19 GMT -4
Of course this 'secret' of water on the moon is so well guarded that NASA has publicly announced that a major purpose of the LCROSS satellite is to answer the question of whether there is water lurking at the south pole of the moon in the form of ice and hydrates, a theory publicized by NASA after previous probes raised the possiblity, cunning devils those NASA people!
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 24, 2009 15:51:47 GMT -4
Not to mention the thousands of man hours of training in photography. Everyone seems to sweep this fact under the rug. The Astronauts were professional photographers by that point. Probably better than 99% of the photographers that were around at the time. This was a primary concern of NASA. The Astronauts were so concerned about it, that most of the discussions that took place were about photography, while they were on the way. You can read the transcripts.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 24, 2009 17:10:09 GMT -4
Not to mention the thousands of man hours of training in photography. Everyone seems to sweep this fact under the rug. The Astronauts were professional photographers by that point. Probably better than 99% of the photographers that were around at the time. This was a primary concern of NASA. The Astronauts were so concerned about it, that most of the discussions that took place were about photography, while they were on the way. You can read the transcripts. Also I believe they were encouraged to take the cameras with them on Earth to practice until they were thoroughly used to them.
|
|