Doubts about the moon landings

I am sorry TES.

To verify what I already knew I found the camera specs.
I had forgot we are actually talking about Apollo 14. In this instance the camera was the Westinghouse Apollo lunar television camera, the colour version. It was used on A12 and A14. I sometimes forget how primitive these things actually were.

The color camera successfully covered the lunar operations during the Apollo 14 mission in 1971. Image quality issues appeared due to the camera's automatic gain control (AGC) having problems getting the proper exposure when the astronauts were in high contrast light situations, and caused the white spacesuits to be overexposed or "bloom". The camera did not have a gamma correction circuit. This resulted in the image's mid-tones losing detail
Click to expand...

Auto gain control, hence the bloom in the whites, so not a gamma flare. But that is just a terminology thing.

Focal Length 25 - 100mm
Aperture F4 to F44

The most important part.

"Several Lenses were required because the anticipated scenes require different fields of view...

....To cover both of these conditions a set of four fixed focus lenses were chosen in preference to zoom lens or turret system."
Click to expand...

So definitely no automatic depth of field changes. So we can put that one to rest. As I said you are a very smart guy but you are not immune to human psychology. You confirm it with this statement.

If a person is here in Skeptiko, pondering all these possibilities - they are already way past the CD point.
Click to expand...

You see you are in a fixed state, you only see one possibility, so you need to create some consistency. This has caused you to create hypothesis while avoiding everything that contradicts those hypothesis. This is cognitive dissonance.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/WEC-Engineer-3-1968.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera
 
Last edited:
David Bailey said:
Well I guess the antennae on the top of the LEM may be intentionally moveable - I don't know. It would only take the slightest movement to potentially put something into shadow, or reveal it.

The 'shadow' over the backdrop looks to me like an automatic brightness control cutting in when the flag lights up - whatever caused that. Old fashioned TV was full of artefacts like that.

David
Click to expand...

The shadows are almost black there is no shadow on the flag. Nor should there be any on the backdrop. We can see the backdrop clearly. The camera had a auto gain that was causing the highlights to bloom in conditions of high contrast.
 
Last edited:
This is why I got so frustrated with this subject in the first place, I could never get past social conditioning for people to see what is right in front of their eyes. Not even the simplest of logic. It gets extremely frustrating.
 
I have to make an amendment.

The color version of the camera did include a zoom lens.

The camera was larger, measuring 430 millimetres (17 in) long, including the new zoom lens. The zoom lens had a focal length variable from 25 mm to 150 mm, with a zoom ratio rated at 6:1
Click to expand...

But as was stated the focal length actually changes the framing.

The aperture was as stated. Was the aperture automated? I doubt so. it was very primitive.

Everything I stated still stands, in order to move that many pixels, everything in that region would also blur that amount, that region, the flag would have to be outside of the focal range, yet we still see the stripes quite clearly and nothing else is moving to that degree. It is just simple logic.

Just see for yourself, this is a easy home experiment. Grab a camera and try. You quickly see what I mean.
 
Last edited:
LoneShaman said:
so not a gamma flare.
Click to expand...

The article said "and caused the white spacesuits to be overexposed or "bloom". The camera did not have a gamma correction circuit."

Gamma

gamma flare.jpg

A bloom comes from an image ON the field of view. (use 'bloom' in the pic above if you will)
A flare comes from an image OFF the field of view.

The flag was OFF the field of view the entire time.


​
 
Last edited:
LoneShaman said:
You see you are in a fixed state, you only see one possibility, so you need to create some consistency. This has caused you to create hypothesis while avoiding everything that contradicts those hypothesis.
Click to expand...

No, it is called reason. There are literally thousands of hard concrete data evidences which falsify your hypothesis.

Just because I do not give you money for a bridge in Brooklyn does not mean that I am suffering cognitive dissonance.
 
The Ethical Skeptic said:
The article said "and caused the white spacesuits to be overexposed or "bloom". The camera did not have a gamma correction circuit."

Gamma

View attachment 1452

​
Click to expand...
That's right it did not have a gamma correction, So The gamma was not changing which resulted in a loss of detail in the mid ranges.
The auto gain caused the bloom.

The curve you see there includes what is lift, the very first point, gamma, which is the middle range and gain which is the end point.

Like I said it is just semantics, that is all.
 
Actually if I recall correctly no depth of field was used on the moon. I can't remember where I read this. The reason being is that very savvy photographic experts would then be able to roughly calculate distances. This is why we see what is meant to be many kilometers away are always in focus as is the foreground.

I can't be certain of this, I'm sure it will find me. :)

There is another way to calculate distance through subtraction of related images with small shifts in the camera placement, and calculating the parallax. Very interesting. I'll post the AULIS article on this in time.
 
Creativemind said:
lone, save your breath. this is a zen koan in real life. you are talking and no one is listening....
Click to expand...
I can’t understand a lot of what is being discussed but I did find some of the film compelling, esp where it appears as if the astronauts are being lifted. The moon rover vid was also interesting. It is definitely baffling why so many things connected to the missions have been destroyed.
Finally, it seems amazing that we did this so long ago yet we haven’t returned.
I’m not convinced either way, but I certainly believe anything’s possible.
Here’s a Ron Unz site writer’s thoughts.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/
 
LoneShaman said:
Actually if I recall correctly no depth of field was used on the moon. I can't remember where I read this. The reason being is that very savvy photographic experts would then be able to roughly calculate distances. This is why we see what is meant to be many kilometers away are always in focus as is the foreground.
Click to expand...

LS, you were correct, it was not 'depth of field' adjustment.

Apollo Color Video Camera outfitted with focus regulator (Reference Specs)

The focus regulator and focus regulator inductor-controller (shown below from the Apollo Color Video Camera schematic). Focus regulation on a Westinghouse WL30691 SEC imaging tube, which along with the horizontal and vertical deflection (HOR Sweep and VERT Sweep positioning elements below), both together serve to manage the clarity and position of the scanning beam on the signal plate - and are not congruent with 'autofocus' (neither passive nor active), which adjusts the aperture lenses of the camera.

The 3 devices are each managed by a capacitance inductor which releases an EMF signal upon current actuation - which would impact a CRT based imaging tube, by imbuing EMF RFI effects in its picture.

If I had $1 million to place on this - I would wager it... focus regulator/horizontal deflection sweep regulator variance allowing gamma flare from the sunlit white stripes on a static flag, OFF camera... and commensurate with purple CRT RFI interference effects from the controlling inductor(s) (squiggly electronic symbols below).

100% sure.

apollo color camera.png
 
Last edited:
The Ethical Skeptic said:
LS, you were correct, it was not 'depth of field' adjustment.

Apollo Color Video Camera outfitted with focus regulator (Reference Specs)

The focus regulator and focus regulator inductor-controller (shown below from the Apollo Color Video Camera schematic). Focus regulation on a Westinghouse WL30691 SEC imaging tube, which along with the horizontal and vertical deflection (HOR Sweep and VERT Sweep positioning elements below), both together serve to manage the clarity and position of the scanning beam on the signal plate - and are not congruent with 'autofocus' (neither passive nor active), which adjusts the aperture lenses of the camera.

The 3 devices are each managed by a capacitance inductor which releases an EMF signal upon current actuation - which would impact a CRT based imaging tube, by imbuing EMF RFI effects in its picture.

If I had $1 million to place on this - I would wager it... focus regulator/horizontal deflection sweep regulator variance allowing gamma flare from the sunlit white stripes on a static flag, OFF camera... and commensurate with purple CRT RFI interference effects from the controlling inductor(s) (squiggly electronic symbols below).

100% sure.

View attachment 1453
Click to expand...

Go and do the simple home experiment, grab a camera.

The rest of the image is unaffected. Why is that? I would take that $million bet. So all of that stuff is not congruent with auto focus, So how do you activate it? by using the common lens adjustment of focus iris, zoom and F-stop.


camlens.jpg

The flag is moving. You just can't handle that. So now you are inventing yet another just so story. The officials had to resort to cabin pressure. Your excuse is a similar magic trick.

This is the same old same old...

You were so positive about your last story, with all the ethical arguments and logical theory. I could not convince you in any way using the simplest of logic, until I showed you the specs.

So now you have to invent this nonsense. And of course you won't be able to tests it, so your mind can continue with it perception games and save you in your belief.

Wow! just wow!
 
Last edited:
LoneShaman said:
Go and do the simple home experiment, grab a camera.

The rest of the image is unaffected. Why is that? I would take that $million bet.

The flag is moving. You just can't handle that. So now you are inventing yet another just so story. The officials had to resort to cabin pressure. Your excuse is a similar magic trick.

This is the same old same old...
Click to expand...

Our cameras today do not operate on an inductor-capacitance controlled Westinghouse WL30691 SEC imaging CRT tube. So grabbing a camera of today will shed no light into this.

The flag was not moving, guaranteed. The videos of the Moon walks were in a low gravity vacuum, guaranteed. The sound was able to move through the LRV and mechanically to a hot space suit mic, guaranteed.

This is not CD - this is applying professional engineering expertise and significant professional experience at solving mysteries and running a research lab.

You can claim fundamental attribution bias (without evidence) as a defense mechanism all you want - But you are wrong on these evidences. Just dead wrong.

(This does not make you wrong on the other things however... you have good material elsewise)
 
The Ethical Skeptic said:
Our cameras today do not operate on an inductor-capacitance controlled Westinghouse WL30691 SEC imaging CRT tube. So grabbing a camera of today will shed no light into this..
Click to expand...

Yeah very convenient, it's untestable!

Perhaps you missed my edit.

The rest of the image is unaffected. Why is that? I would take that $million bet. So all of that stuff is not congruent with auto focus, So how do you activate it? by using the common lens adjustment of focus iris, zoom and F-stop.


camlens.jpg​

Autofocus was not yet invented and all pending patents at the time were owned by Leica.
 
Assuming they filmed it outside on a breezy day, and not in a Hollywood basement, the ‘anomaly’ doesn’t even flutter like a flag would. We’ve all seen a flag in the wind. Just look at it.

Also, this ‘wind’ is affecting nothing else in the scene.
 
LoneShaman said:
Autofocus was not yet invented and all pending patents at the time were owned by Leica.
Click to expand...

You need to read my summary of the technical specification - this was not autofocus. This component effect had nothing to do with lenses or apertures. It was on old CRT control mechanism... which was why it was so confusing when we were thinking 'modern cameras' earlier in this thread. :)

The focal ranging and the purple EMI effect are DEDUCTIVE - so this is not simply grasping - it is a thing in a research initiative called 'critical path' - this is how research works. You slay inductive linear affirmation with deductive analysis. You need to be able to see this.

You are still awesome nonetheless.... because you think outside the box and are willing to dive into the detail. ;;/?
 
Last edited:
The Ethical Skeptic said:
You need to read my summary of the technical specification - this was not autofocus. This component effect had nothing to do with lenses or apertures. It was on old CRT control mechanism... which was why it was so confusing when we were thinking 'modern cameras' earlier in this thread. :)

You are still awesome nonetheless.... because you think outside the box and are willing to dive into the detail. ;;/?
Click to expand...

Well thanks. I am not an engineer but I can read the diagram. It is indeed non congruent.

CONGRUENT
in agreement or harmony.
"the rules may not be congruent with the requirements of the law"
 
Last edited:
malf said:
Assuming they filmed it outside on a breezy day, and not in a Hollywood basement, the ‘anomaly’ doesn’t even flutter like a flag would. We’ve all seen a flag in the wind. Just look at it.
Click to expand...

It was supported by wire.


Also, this ‘wind’ is affecting nothing else in the scene.
Click to expand...

What else is there to be affected? the flag would be like a sail.

It is a good logical point though, likewise why is nothing else being shifted to the amount of pixels we see under a non congruent focus regulator?

Nice one Malf!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top