Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Weird spam e-mail about the Apollo 11 landings (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Weird spam e-mail about the Apollo 11 landings
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 11-29-2003 04:47 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A message landed (excuse the pun) in my inbox this morning, from a German address and containing the following text:

quote:
The Lunar Lander's guidance system was not even as powerful as calculator built in 1980 None of the following astronauts can be contacted for a " official " interview The Flag that was planted in the lunar surface can not be seen by the most powerful earth telescope as well as the Hubble Space
telescope

Nasa cannot provide a video of astronauts in total weightlessness for over a period of 1 minute " The maximum total time a aircraft can free fall out of the Earths atmosphere simulating weightlessness " this is how these films are made with weightlessness.

The " Live " video feed that was fed back to earth was impossible for the " compression " technology of the time. The " 3 meter "
dish would of required a far more advanced and powerful signal generation. As well the computer buffer couldn't even buffer the
amount of data even necessary for the most reduced black and white video signal at extremely low frame rate.

The shadowing off every picture in Nasa's database shows that their are too many light sources there should be only one " The Earth reflecting light" Its impossible to be sitting on the sunny part of the moon as it would melt the 3 astronauts above.
During 1969 a project called " Above Black " was started cost of which was approximately that of the Apollo 11 mission approx $25
billion utilizing the money which was intended for the Apollo 11 mission. In order to research space travel what better way to get the funding to do it than fake a " Mission to the Moon " then use the money to actually figure out a way to achieve space travel. Better to send up a billion dollar decoy and say 24 billion for research then kill men failing to atempt it.

Why haven't we been back since? If it was done in 1969 surely its not beyond our abilities now * We still cant do it * The USA was in a race for space with Russia and faked the mission to help save face with the Russian superiority regarding space
travel.

You can see the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio where it was filmed. Flags don't sway in space see the Videos and you can clearly see the choppy editing of the poor film editing of 1969 where the Astronauts didn't jump up and down to show there weightlessness live for the world to see. The reason they didn't do that is that it was beyond the Producing ability of 1969 film editing to show weightlessness. As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness Aprox, 40,000 - 50,000 feet ( clarification that the video did not show weightlessness meaning in 1969 they just moved still frames to create the illusion as well as the slow moving effect which is very un-matrix like overall a poorly done video).

Astronauts replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. However radio waves and s-band signals travel at roughly 189,000 miles per second, this means Mission Control couldn't of replied faster than 3 seconds since the moon is over 380,000 miles from the Earth even at its closest apex. Total trip for the message 1.5 seconds there reply and then 1.5 seconds back. There would be this great of a delay for the sound/image to come back, so altogether you would see a 1.5 second delay after a question was asked and this is if Nasa Astronauts are replying instantly to a questions without even thinking about the question.

Nothing particularly remarkable about this conspiracy theory BS (what has film editing got to do with the ability to depict weightlessness?!), I hear you say. But the message was 89k, and the Mailwasher window indicated no attachment or HTML content.

Has anybody had one of these? Is it a virus of some description which can hide the presence of its payload from Mailwasher? Thanks...

 |  IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 11-29-2003 05:17 AM      Profile for Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Author's Homepage   Email Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wow... I like how their spatial logic is so full of holes.

Anyway, you should probably forward the message to everyone you know. Somebody might know why it's so big.

Seriously, no HTML content as in it wasn't a multi-part message with HTML formatting? I've seen the odd message with so many comments in it to break up words that they have weighed in pretty heavy.

 |  IP: Logged

Jeff Stricker
Master Film Handler

Posts: 481
From: Calumet, Mi USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 11-29-2003 06:22 AM      Profile for Jeff Stricker   Email Jeff Stricker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I can't believe that these conspiracy theorists resort to sending spam. Indeed that's a lot of BS. [bs] Lot's of these people weren't even on the planet at that time. What do they know??

I used to work with a guy who was the Apollo Guidance & Nav controller and another who did most of the reliability work on the Nav designs. Believe me it was REAL!

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-29-2003 07:49 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
At least two of the landing sites have been photographed by satellite in the last 5 or so years. I thought the moon was about 240,000 miles away??? He says 380,000?? Has it moved further out into space??? Also, I do remember a delay in voice transmissions. The astronauts were interviewed extensively and very recently on the 40th anniversary or what ever celebration it was that happened about a year or so ago.
Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-29-2003 09:28 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The flags would have blown away the moment the space craft took off....however..the Lunar Rovers should still be there. That is a mistake that people who would fake such a thing wouldn't have done! (not to mention the bottom half of the Lunar Landers...on each site).

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-29-2003 02:19 PM      Profile for Bruce Hansen   Email Bruce Hansen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's interesting how they were talking about (digital) compression of the video. This was LONG before video was transmitted digility, and VERY LONG before compression. I guess whoever wrote this thing is too dumb to know about ANALOG transmition. Let's face it, MOST things are still tramsmitted in analog.

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 11-29-2003 04:45 PM      Profile for Aaron Sisemore   Email Aaron Sisemore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know I am preaching to the choir here, but bear with me:

Nasa cannot provide a video of astronauts in total weightlessness for over a period of 1 minute " The maximum total time a aircraft can free fall out of the Earths atmosphere simulating weightlessness " this is how these films are made with weightlessness.

1. An aircraft can do a freefall dive that lasts far more than one minute.

2. I guess this guy can't explain the shuttle program (or is that all a big hoax too?) to prove that weightlessness exists in space... :roilleyes:

None of the following astronauts can be contacted for a (sic) " official " interview...

The last time one of these 'moon hoaxers' approached an astronaut with their 'official' interview questions, the interviewee got cold-cocked by the astronaut for even suggesting that he did not go to the moon.

The 'live' video.....compression of its day...

As mentioned above by Bruce, it was ANALOG, DUH... Any hardware that could do 'digital video compression' in 1969 was probably still in Bell Labs and was far too large (like several rooms of equipment) to been have placed into any spacecraft.

Its impossible to be sitting on the sunny part of the moon as it would melt the 3 astronauts above.

This is one of the more ludicrous things I have heard yet in defense of a moon hoax! HELLO!! SPACE SUITS?!?!? The space suits were designed to handle extremes far in excess of those found on the lunar surface...

Why haven't we been back since? If it was done in 1969 surely its not beyond our abilities now? * We still cant do it *

1. The entire lunar surface has been charted, and from the data we have gathered, it has been determined that there is no apparent (read: strategically important) valuable resources on the moon, and there have been enough advances in technology that it is now far less expensive to use satellites and other space-based technologies to do the lunar exploration rather than manned missions.

2. We still can't do it? We probably still can, but as I mentioned before, it is just too costly to try anymore, for what there would be to gain.

The reason they didn't do that ['live' footage of astronauts on the moon] is that it was beyond the Producing ability of 1969 film editing to show weightlessness.

Stanley Kubrick seemed to do it rather convincingly in 1968 for '2001:A Space Odyssey'...

As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness (Aprox(sic), 40,000 - 50,000 feet) ( clarification that the video did not show weightlessness meaning in 1969 they just moved still frames to create the illusion as well as the slow moving effect which is very un-matrix like overall a poorly done video).

I don't think aircraft made today (not even a C-5A or the Russian equivalent which is actually a bit bigger) can a: accomodate a full studio crew and b: accomplish the filming while in a dive from 40-50K feet. Slow Motion has been posible since the beginning of film. The images were 'un-Matrix-Like' because they were live analog feeds from 1969, not 2000's CGI imagery. WAKE UP, IDIOT!!

You can see the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio where it was filmed

AHH! So you have visited MoonTruth.com ? And, if you watch that video long enough, you can see the lighting rig falling to the ground and the 'director' calling out 'CUT!'

Hey, you imbicile, 'moontruth.com' is a parody of the 'moon hoaxers', You are so stupid that you actually thought that the video on Moontruth was 'genuine smuggled out of NASA hoax footage'???

Sometimes I wonder...

-Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

Andy Muirhead
Master Film Handler

Posts: 323
From: Galashiels, Scotland
Registered: Dec 2000


 - posted 11-29-2003 07:33 PM      Profile for Andy Muirhead   Email Andy Muirhead   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think Leo is too bothered about the landings being fake, well not at the moment. The great conspiracy here is why such a small amount of text amounts to 89k.

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Macaulay
Film God

Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 11-29-2003 09:06 PM      Profile for Dave Macaulay   Email Dave Macaulay   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think Leo is too bothered about the landings being fake, well not at the moment. The great conspiracy here is why such a small amount of text amounts to 89k.
It was probably written with MS Word.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Hipp
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1462
From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas)
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted 11-30-2003 01:15 AM      Profile for Chris Hipp   Email Chris Hipp   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here is a thread from a couple months ago about the moon landing

Do you think the moon landing was a hoax?

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 11-30-2003 05:34 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, it was the 89k bit I was wondering about. Most of the e-mails I get like that turn out to be some virus/worm/trojan adware type thing and I was just wondering if this could be too, and if so how it conceals its payload. If I get another one I'll investigate the message header a bit more to see if there are any clues, but I'm not going to let it out of Mailwasher and into my e-mail client software.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-30-2003 09:34 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Gee, We better warn the Chineese about all this lest they not attempt to go to the moon in 2010 [Confused] .
_________________________________________________________________

BTW: I love this line....

" How, when and where was it made?
It was made in 1965, judging by the camera it was shot on - an Ikegami Tube Camera. We have evidence that the footage was shot outside the US - possibly in Europe, by a foreign crew."
_________________________________________________________________

This guy is really beyond stupid! Ikigami was not even making studio cameras for export to the U.S. back then. In those days it was solely what was called the big three here in the U.S., RCA, General Electric, and Marconi from Britian. We were still completely shooting 16mm film for news on location back then. The RCA TK 76 eng camera, the first of its type, was not even on the drawing board nor did the staticon tubes it used even exist yet. In fact the first two B&W moon TV cameras used minaturized versions of Philo Farnsworths IMAGE DISSECTOR TUBE as the pickup!! Those tubes have artifacts of their own that are sometimes quite visible in the video. They were utilized because the target coating won't burn from being aimed at the sun. Many of you may remember that the first color moon camera used a spinning color filter wheel inbetween the face of the pickup tube and the lens. That camera used a special vidicon tube and one of those was aimed directly into the sun by one of the astronauts setting it up and the tube received a serious target burn and became unusable.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 11-30-2003 11:55 AM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, you can see the color fringing from fast motion on Apollo color video. Anyone know the specs, like was it standard frame rate with the RGB filter wheel superimposed or some higher rate? And how was the conversion to normal video done?

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-30-2003 03:57 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For real time video it would have had to be scanned at three times the frame rate assuming 30 fps. CBS actually designed the MK V color camreas for NASA based on the field sequential system they developed back in the late 40's!! This camera was used for live broadcasts fomr Apollo 11 during its flight to and from the moon. The added advantage of this system was that NASA could actually adjust all parameters of the signal to be sure the colors were correct before it was re-broadcast to millions of viewers. I do remember that down conversion for broadcast was done at JSC.
You can see the insides of one of these cameras at this link.......
http://www.tvhistory.tv/NASA-Camera.htm

Since the B&W camera that was used on the surface of the moon was slow scan... 10 fps the signal was processed through a scan convertor that was built specially for the Apollo 11 mission. Here is an interesting link to info about how it was done....

http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/tv_from_moon.html

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 11-30-2003 07:43 PM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark, thanks for those links! Some really cool pics and TV history info!

I was really impressed with the sequential camera for back then.

>>> Phil

[ 11-30-2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.