Author Topic: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous  (Read 2462 times)

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« on: April 27, 2019, 10:11:19 PM »
Hi Everyone,

I figure I would create a new thread regarding other DAC footage where we won't get bogged down in arguments suggesting I have manufactured/tweaked images to suit my ends. To be clear, I only suggest you use a video editor to see things better. And with these two videos, there is no need to do anything but watch the videos.

The DAC videos for Apollo 11-12 showing the Lunar module rendezvous show some interesting things that are hard to reconcile. As I am sure many of you are aware, after lifting off from the moon, the lunar modules of A11-12 did one orbit of the moon approximately 12-14 miles below the CSM's orbit. The CSM was moving at approximately 4000 miles per hour and the LM's speed was comparable. After one revolution of the moon, the LM's altered course and started a slow climb of these last 12 miles to the CSM. According to docs, this climb took approximately 55 minutes.

This leads us to the two rendezvous videos. The first thing you should keep in mind is these videos were apparently shot using a mirror like many other DAC videos. Interestingly this was only admitted by NASA after some had pointed out many of the videos seemed backwards. To illustrate this point, even the original Apollo 11 Documentary Footprints on the Moon with Wernher Von Braun narrating shows many of the videos backwards. (Footprints deserves its own topic post :) ) Now the only documented mirror on these missions was a 1.5 inch right angle mirror that can be attached to the DAC. A right angle mirror is a curious thing. It is used mainly for photos and not video. And is rarely used for anything professional. It lacks clarity and your viewpoint is curtailed significantly. In fact, today it is mainly sold as a "gag" or "spy" lens for shooting girls on the beach etc, ie point the camera one way but really shooting at a 90 degree angle to that. Yet this apparently is the mirror they used to produce many of these video sequences according to the docs. (of course, a cynical person might point out that a mirror was used but that was because it was part of a front screen projection set up. And they didn't correct for footage orientation being shot into the two way mirror :) )

In any event, lets start with the A12 rendezvous footage. It is rather simple and appears to have significantly different ascent characteristics than A11's ascent to the CM.  It starts at 1:05:10 and ends at 1:07:30 of the video below

 


The first thing you should note is while the footage took approximately 2:30 minutes, in reality, because the frames per second have been changed the real period of time is approximately 8-10 minutes. So what you are seeing is the last 8-10 minutes of ascent of the LM towards the CSM. The next thing you should note is the LM is being filmed from a stationary camera using a mirror on the CSM which is travelling approximately 4000 mph. Now what is extraordinary about this footage is the movement of the moon surface and the position of the LM vis a vis the X/Y axis of the video frame. The footage starts out with the moon rotating significantly faster than the end of the footage at probably three or four times faster. This can be only because of one of two things. Either the moon is rotating faster or the Lunar Module is moving considerably faster than the CM's 4000 mph speed above it. Now we know the moon doesn't vary in speed so it can only be a mismatch in speed between the LM and CSM with the LM going significantly faster. Fair enough. But logic dictates otherwise. At this point in the rendezvous, there are less than 10 minutes left before the LM attains the same orbit as the CSM. That means horizontally (from the moon's surface) they shouldn't be more than 4-5 miles apart at most. So even if there was a mismatch in speed of 400 or 500 mph ONLY during (for instance) the first 30 seconds (2 minutes real time) it would mean the LM was over 25 miles behind the CSM when the film starts. Of course the film doesn't appear to show the LM 'catching up' but if we assume that is what is being shown, there are significant problems. For one, an object 10'x 12' twenty five miles away is virtually impossible to film even with today's technology. Are we to accept a small camera filming through a 1.5 inch mirror somehow captured these LM images 25 miles out completely in focus? And further and more importantly, if this film is really depicting the LM 'catching up' the camera should not have been in a stationary static position. And it was. It doesn't move, or re-adjust, or pan to account for the LM closing in on the CSM.

To me, it seems clear that the film has been made to create the illusion of speed and distance as the LM closes in on the CSM. It is almost as if they were trying to re-create the perception many people have that the rendezvous is somehow one speeding bullet catching another speeding bullet. (Of course, most here know the rendezvous was a slow gradual ascent between similarly moving crafts.) It was just a simple rudimentary use of front screen projection. The variation in the moon's rotation created the illusion of speed while the foreground object (the lunar module) remained on the same Y axis (camera seemed to be bumped slightly at 1:05:50 and then corrected a few seconds later) only growing larger to give the appearance of it moving closer to the CSM. Even the big flaw of front screen projection is clearly evident here. The foreground and background don't match up in clarity or light. Even the small LM profile at the beginning of the clip 'pops' out against the background. It looks very unnatural.

Take a very close look at the LM, it remained dead center in the video frame and its orientation/position profile remained identical for the entire film. That is mind boggling. Any braking, upward trajectory movements, etc, absolutely nothing altered the LM's profile orientation during the entire film. You can literally overlay the first frame of the film with the last frame of the film and the LM has not shifted its profile position at all. That is unbelievable. Even if the LM didn't shift its profile orientation because of braking, RCS thrusts etc (unlikely), as it ascended it should have caused a shift in its profile vis a vis the CSM's camera's angle of view. But it doesn't.

Now lets turn to the DAC footage of Apollo 11's LM rendezvous. It is somewhat different than A12's rendezvous but very similar in the techniques used. Below is the clip.



Again this rendezvous was shot using a mirror like Apollo 12. It is also longer than the A12 clip. It is approximately 4:30 minutes long or about 18-20 minutes in real time once the frames per second alteration has been taken into account.

The significant difference between these two rendezvous sequences is the seemingly different trajectories between the two LM's as they approach the CSM. A11's approach seems at odds with A12's. I am sure some are going to point out it is a perspective issue or you need to think in "3D". So I rather not even deal with this apparent inconsistency.

Rather I would like to highlight film similarities between the two rendezvous that are hard to ignore. In both films, the camera is stationary and doesn't pan. The A11 clip is rather extraordinary in that it captures approximately the final 18 minutes of the LM's trajectory from beneath and behind the CSM to being on the horizon in front of the CSM. Not once does the camera move or pan. Yet it captures the entire movement of the LM (in complete focus no less! ) Even more extraordinary is the fact the LM stays on the same y axis of the video frame for the entire 18 minutes of film. And like the A12 sequence, the LM's profile remains the same/static for the entire ascent to the CSM. Only when out front of the CSM does the LM show a change in profile as it begins to rotate (on the SAME y axis). The rotations don't look real and appear mechanical in nature as if they are being rotated on a stick from behind. Of course some will argue (and have) that these rotations look unnatural because the film speed has been changed from 6 -10 fps to 24 fps. They would have a point but this change in speed does not seem to have affected other movements in the films. Only these rotations seem to be jarring and mechanical in nature. When you see the LM moving laterally its movement appears smooth. And the moon's surface rotation seems smooth as butter. So why do these LM rotations appear mechanical while nothing else exhibits the same jarring movements?

Like the A12 rendezvous, I believe a simple rudimentary front screen projection technique is being used to create the illusion of speed and movement of a stationary LM. Further it has all the hallmarks of the mismatch background/foreground lighting problems associated with front screen projection. This video standouts in particular as seeming unnatural. The lunar module 'pops' out from the moon background the entire clip. Even when it is only a tiny speck at the beginning of the clip, its clarity and lighting makes it standout unnaturally from its background.

With regards to the illusion of speed and movement, if you watch the film carefully from the beginning, the LM inexplicably moves up a y axis and when it reaches the top of the video frame it reverses and drops down the same y axis creating an illusion of speed as the moon's rotation slows down in the background. At the same time, the LM grows in size to create the illusion the LM is getting closer to the CSM to the point the LM finds itself somehow on the horizon in front of the LM. That is one magical camera with a 1.5 inch mirror. With a 1.5 inch mirror, the camera literally captures (in focus) 18 minutes of the lunar module moving from below and behind the CSM to in front of it on the horizon without no movement, adjustment or so much as one pan. And to top it off, it is filmed in such a manner the lunar module stays on the same Y-axis in the video frame for the film's entirety.  Unbelievable is the only way to describe all this.

That's all for now. Let me know your thoughts.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2019, 12:13:40 AM »
I'm thinking you should ANSWER THE QUESTIONS put to you, before doing another imitation of a seagull.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1343
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2019, 02:27:22 AM »
ANSWER YOUR OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2019, 02:59:36 AM »
My comments and thoughts are that you really don't know what you're talking about and are desperately trying to bend reality to fit your narrative despite the gaping plot holes in your story.

I love how HBs like to throw in the word 'admit whenever they reveal something NASA has said all along, as if someone forced them into saying something that's always been public.

The fact is that your claim that NASA only 'admitted' that some film is reversed when the images were pit on the internet is utter BS. This document:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/nssdc70-06-03.jpg

or here, in the press kit:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo11_Press-Kit_restored.pdf

clearly discusses the right angled mirror used in the CSM to deal with mounting the camera. Many NASA images and film of the lunar surface are presented reversed because, like you, the people preparing them for public use don't know what they're looking at.

If a camera was mounted and left running, why would it pan and move? If a distant object is heading directly towards the camera, why would it not be centre frame?

How is it possible for the 16mm footage to zhoe details of the surface not known about prior to the missions, or to show meteorologically accurate images if Earth?

I'd like to say you're overthinking this, but you're not thinking at all.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 03:10:27 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2019, 04:01:50 AM »
Hi Everyone,

I figure I would create a new thread regarding other DAC footage where we won't get bogged down in arguments...
I'll echo everyone else's sentiments - you need to respond to unanswered questions on your other threads before starting off on a new claim.  Or are you admitting you were wrong on those topics, and have no answer?

That said, since it's lazy Sunday morning time :

The footage starts out with the moon rotating significantly faster than the end of the footage at probably three or four times faster. This can be only because of one of two things. Either the moon is rotating faster or the Lunar Module is moving considerably faster than the CM's 4000 mph speed above it.
Or, perhaps you aren't appreciating / understanding the relative motions and orientations of the different objects involved in this manoeuvre?

Even more extraordinary is the fact the LM stays on the same y axis of the video frame for the entire 18 minutes of film. And like the A12 sequence, the LM's profile remains the same/static for the entire ascent to the CSM.
No, it doesn't.  Even a cursory viewing shows the X & Y position in the frame is continually changing.  And why would you expect large changes in orientation once the correct trajectory has been established?

The rotations don't look real and appear mechanical in nature as if they are being rotated on a stick from behind. Of course some will argue (and have) that these rotations look unnatural because the film speed has been changed from 6 -10 fps to 24 fps. They would have a point but this change in speed does not seem to have affected other movements in the films. Only these rotations seem to be jarring and mechanical in nature. When you see the LM moving laterally its movement appears smooth. And the moon's surface rotation seems smooth as butter. So why do these LM rotations appear mechanical while nothing else exhibits the same jarring movements?
Again, you're expressing an opinion on how things should work, or appear on film.  Perhaps a better question would be "What rates of change of rotation would we expect, given the known mass of the LM and the thrust produced by the RCS?".  Work that out, and then come back and tell us if it matches the observed rate in the film.

Like the A12 rendezvous, I believe a simple rudimentary front screen projection technique is being used to create the illusion of speed and movement of a stationary LM. Further it has all the hallmarks of the mismatch background/foreground lighting problems associated with front screen projection.
What you "believe" is irrelevant.  What you can provide proof of is what matters.  There is nothing in any of the material you've posted which looks unusual or "faked" to me.  You've still not provided any verifiable, measurable proof of any of your conjectures, here or on the other threads.

That's all for now. Let me know your thoughts.
My thoughts are that it's a lovely sunny Sunday morning, and I've wasted enough time dealing with someone who seems determined to troll or Gish-gallop this board, possibly just to annoy the regulars, and there are better (boater  ;)) things I can be doing.  Perhaps you could find a more productive hobby as well...  ::)
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2962
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2019, 05:01:31 AM »
Mr Knowing:

Why should we pay any attention to your new questions when a) you haven't resolved your previous discussions b) it's clear from your history here that you're not interested in actually listening to our answers?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2019, 05:54:10 AM »
Let's dissect a few more of the false claims made.

There's this:

Quote
significantly different ascent characteristics

referring to the Apollo 11 and 12 LM ascent. Define 'significantly'. The only difference I can see is the viewing from which the two were viewed. Are you really incapable of seeing the same thing just because the camera has been rotated 90 degrees?

Then there's this:

Quote
The footage starts out with the moon rotating significantly faster than the end of the footage at probably three or four times faster.

Which is completely false. Pick a crater as it appears on the left hand side. See how long it takes to traverse the frame. Now do the same towards the end of the sequence. My count is roughly four seconds at both the start and end of the sequence. Your claim of 'significantly faster' and 'three or four times faster' needs accurately quantifying and actually demonstrating. Again, you are guilty of making a claim while making no effort at all to substantiate it.

What very few people notice in the Apollo 11 rendez-vous footage is that Earth appears in it. Here's the relevant still as published in Life magazine in 1969, together with the Earth as photographed by a Hasselblad.



Both images match the weather satellites of the time.

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/ch4_3_1b.html

Why is that?

Then there's this:

Quote
an object 10'x 12' twenty five miles away is virtually impossible to film even with today's technology

For a start it's a strawman argument, given that you have decided how far away the LM is and then declared it to be impossible to film (today's technology very much could film an object that size that far away, even back then all you need is a good enough lens and film, which they had). In reality the CSM and LM were only separated by 15 miles from their respective orbits when they started the rendez-vous procedure. These things are not difficult to find out. Likewise this (from the AFJ):

Quote
127:43:43 Collins (onboard): I have 0.7 mile [1.3 km] and I got you at 31 feet per second [9.5 m/s]

is the point when Collins started filming, not when they were 25 miles away. Are you just being a lazy researcher or being dishonest and hoping no-one will notice?

If you want to fool people into thinking you understand the material with which you are dealing, or to convince the gullible, you are in the wrong place.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 05:56:58 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1343
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2019, 09:41:25 AM »
I note that it didn't take long for jr Knowing to move from Just Asking Questions and this:
Quote
And yes I am not a naïve guy who just wandered in. But I am not a "hunchbacked" either. To be honest I don't know what to think anymore. I don't have a agenda. But having immersed myself in the subject over the years, some things continue to nag at me. I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.
to full-bore conspiracy nutjob. ::)
It's especially amusing as he apes hunbacked's inability to understand simple translations and movements in 3D space.

Anyhoo.....GO ANSWER YOUR OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS.
Perhaps Lunar Orbit might consider getting involved to restrict posting until jr Knowing answers his interlocutors?
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2019, 10:16:06 AM »
Here's another false statement:

Quote
Even more extraordinary is the fact the LM stays on the same y axis of the video frame for the entire 18 minutes of film

Doesn't matter whether you mean X or Y axis, these three randomly chosen stills prove you wrong.



Making a claim, and that claim being true, are not the same thing.

Offline BDL

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2019, 04:23:48 PM »
What was wrong with the first thread you made on this? Why make another one?
“One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” - Neil Armstrong, 1969

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2019, 06:15:18 PM »
Hi Everyone,

I figure I would create a new thread...

jr Knowing

I have removed your ability to start new topics. Respond to the topics that you have already started, and then maybe I will restore your ability to create new ones. Or leave... whatever.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2019, 10:47:56 PM »
Hi Onebigmonkey,

I appreciate your responses, at least you attempt to refute my claims. Others would rather put down people for having different views on things then them. I have posted 100 times. I attempt to answer people's questions. (I only have so much time in a day) But in the end, we are going to have to agree that we will disagree on many things. That's life. Case in point. You rightly point out the earth is in the background in last few frames of A11 DAC rendezvous footage. It is also in some corresponding A11 photos too. But are you suggesting because the earth in the Apollo photos matches weather satellite pictures at the time, these photos and film by deduction have to be real? I would highly object to that. Clearly if you were going to fake something like this, one would ensure to use current satellite photos. They are not going to use photos from 1965. I don't think you can use this argument as proof the film/photo is real. But that's life. You made your point, I made mine. We could argue for ever on this and perhaps get no where. This is just a friendly debate (at least the way I see it).

With regards to your comments about the moon's rotation in the A12 clip, I think you are mistaken with your time count and understanding of how this might have been filmed. At the beginning of the clip, any crater moving from the left side takes approximately 2.5 secs to reach the right side of the frame. At the end of the clip it takes over 6 secs for a crater to reach the right side of the frame from the left side.  So the moon is moving nearly 2.5 times faster at the beginning of the clip than at the end. But that is just part of it. If you understand how front screen projection works, specifically zoptic techniques, to create the illusion of speed and distance, the background picture (being shot into a two way mirror) is not only manipulated from a speed perspective but can be gradually compressed/shrunk to effect an illusion of changing distance. And by doing that it also effects the perception of speed. And that appears to be the case with this A12 clip. At the beginning of the clip, a crater entering the lower left corner of the frame exits in the upper right corner of the frame. A the end of the film, a crater entering the lower left corner of the frame exits at a lower exit point on the x axis on the right side of the frame than the beginning of the clip. That is because the background film was slowly being compressed/shrunk to create the illusion the moon was further away. It also means that the moon wasn't rotating 2.5 times faster at the beginning of the clip but actually even more given the crater at the beginning is travelling more distance in the video frame than the crater at the end of the film.

Please check out the link I gave about Zoptic front screen projection. And read up about it. (it will also help explain why the foreground object might 'wobble' around the y axis) These two rendezvous clips are remarkable pieces of film. A stationary non panning camera shooting into a 1.5 inch mirror through a thick piece of glass travelling 4000 mph capturing the final 20 minutes of the rendezvous in its entirety from below to in front, all in frame and focus, is truly a masterful feat. The question is it believable?

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2019, 11:10:19 PM »
Hi Lunar Orbit

I respect your decision. But I would like to point out I have only created 5 new topics in the 9-10 months I have been a member. (unlike that clown who peppered the forum with 5-6 new threads in one day and then disappeared) I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads. I have attempted to answer people's questions. I have only so much time in a day. It is me against 100. At least it feels like that to me. :) And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard. Which isn't fair but goes with the territory. I have been respectful and courteous to everyone. I am not here to belittle others or make hurtful/hateful comments. Yes, some of my views clearly don't conform to most view's here. But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong. Thanks.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2019, 12:16:02 AM »
Then - again - answer the questions put to you, which you seem unable to. Or admit - in writing - that you are wrong.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2019, 12:21:52 AM »


It is me against 100.

All the more reason to limit how many topics you start or participate in. Why create more work for yourself?

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)