The cameraman on the moon is one of my favorites. The guy's been up there for over 50 years, has he gotten relieved yet? The Academy should at least give him a lifetime award.
Did we land on the moon?
- Thread starter Roosh
- Start date
The cameraman on the moon is one of my favorites. The guy's been up there for over 50 years, has he gotten relieved yet? The Academy should at least give him a lifetime award.
Yup the poor camera man!
Here he is being left behind while aiming the camera as has crew mates leave him behind.
That's the color tv camera on the LRV. Extremely difficult to pan on the LEM ascent stage because the camera was operated remotely from Houston with command to pan and transmission delay. The operator had to start panning up based on the countdown, before the LEM even lifted off, and know the approximate change in altitude/second.
Apollo 15, there was a problem with the servo on camera I think (it didn't move) Apollo 16, the timing of the pan was slightly late (LM goes out of frame) 17 was the last chance at getting the entire liftoff.
Last edited:
He surely got a raw deal. Even when I was child I viewed this so called 'take off' as being extremely fake. Not very convincing. Why all the multicoloured sparks?
The multicolor sparks are what's called chromatic aberration. It's a prism-like effect that is happening in areas of the picture where you have a lot of light right next to darkness. Do a Google search for chromatic aberration and you'll see examples of this rainbow like fringing. Chromatic aberration is common on old low quality lenses do to a lack of mathematical precision in the engineering process. Different wavelengths or frequencies of light are traveling at different speeds and reaching their destinations at different times, creating this rainbow effect in lenses that are not engineered to modern specifications.
It's not natural to have footage like this, and I've heard it speculated that the reason you're seeing this unusual amount of chromatic aberration is that this footage was messed with in camera, and afterwards in a second camera. It's possible they ran the film at double speed so they could halve the speed and then re-record it for broadcast. This will look like slow motion, giving everything a "floaty" weightless look. Seriously, watch these clips at double speed, it's hilarious. This is normal gravity, it's just been slowed down.
However- this strobing rainbow pulse effect that can be seen on everything in this film is not normal, and is not something that would be caused by axial or transverse chromatic aberration. I have never seen any footage besides this footage that looks like this, which is why I believe this camera was modified to shoot slow motion footage in the dark. It's possible this camera is literally spinning something very fast in between the lens and the film stock that is a bit like a prism, alternating red, blue and green colors. This is the mechanism by which the motion blur is being reintroduced into the slowed-down film.
Slow motion footage requires the film to run much faster, giving it less time to be exposed. So to get a reasonable exposure they had to change only the shutter angle, slow it down and re-film the playback footage it with another camera and use this prismatic effect to artificially reintroduce motion blur.
We would've never seen the original tapes of this because it probably looked completely insane. All we would ever be shown was this grainy footage.
I have worked in tv, film and visual effects and this is how I you would take this in the 60s/70s I believe.
Last edited:
Yah....as it gets higher it even does a weird slight rotation....cus the rope pulling it up shifted.
I mean come on. 'They' claim that the lunar gravity is 1/6 that of the earth. There is no possible way they would have the fuel or the thrust in something the size of large car to launch off the moon.
My guess is the sparks are metalized Mylar that shreds apart once the ascent stage rocket fires. It is highly reflective (like foil) and spinning around catches the very intense sunlight.
is it possible that a smaller, lighter tv camera (vs a full size studio camera) of the period would have a smaller lens more prone to chromatic aberration?
@andy dufresne , the rotation seen is a gravity turn. The same maneuver is performed on earth launches, but at a higher altitude. Gravity turns are more efficient in vacuum if done lower, because it minimizes gravity losses to dV. In a thick atmosphere, it’s more efficient to climb straight up to a higher altitude, because atmospheric drag at low altitude is more than losses to gravity. Turning too low builds too much speed at low altitude in atmo.
Just watched Apollo 13. They didn't land on the moon.
I am getting more and more confident that the established members of this forum are controlled opposition. In other words, CIA.
Yes, looks like you are really trying to defend the moon landing fakers here. "
A+ level of rationalization.
Yes, looks like you are really trying to defend the moon landing fakers here. "
"Slow motion footage requires the film to run much faster, giving it less time to be exposed. So to get a reasonable exposure they had to change only the shutter angle, slow it down and re-film the playback footage it with another camera and use this prismatic effect to artificially reintroduce motion blur."
A+ level of rationalization.
How to tell something is fake? They use Tom Hanks in the movie version.
@whateverdude123 I think you may be misunderstanding me, I am not defending this footage. I'm saying I believe that it is fake.
There are so many problems with all of this footage that you have to be a true believer to accept it at face value. If it were fake, what you'd see is exactly what we see here: no high jumps, no sense of scale, light fall off as if the main light source is just out of frame.
There are so many problems with all of this footage that you have to be a true believer to accept it at face value. If it were fake, what you'd see is exactly what we see here: no high jumps, no sense of scale, light fall off as if the main light source is just out of frame.
Caduceus
Ostrich
Apollo 13 comes across today as a desperate attempt at keeping the world public interested in "outer space" topics.
After Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 both allegedly landed on the moon, people everywhere were already bored with all the moon nonsense, and went back to watching other television channels and going to the movies. Television ratings for any sort of space stuff plummeted and commercial advertisers weren't gonna shell out any more cash for such a non starter.
But NASA and the elites wanted their tax stealing billion dollar money laundering operation to keep going (and perhaps the 6 alleged moon landings, plus Apollo 13, were also a veiled backdoor way to get more money to keep financing the Vietnam war), so they concocted this phoney baloney story abort astronauts stranded in space on the dark side of the moon. The number "13" fit in the with the unlucky narrative. It worked...people got interested again. Even the pope at the time told people to pray for Apollo 13.
The alleged moon landings of Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17 all followed and were all financed by american tax dollars.
It was billions and billions of laundered money.
Interestingly ALL the moon landing stuff stopped almost immediately at the same time as when the Vietnam war ended in late 1972-early 1973.
Last "moon landing" (Apollo 17) = 7–19 December 1972
Vietnam War Paris peace accords = 27 January 1973
A year and half later in August 1974, Richard Nixon, who had been president for during all 6 alleged moon landings, resigned.
