[RD]

There is a minority of people who think it may have been done with a scale model.

Apollo 11 ascent and rendezvous video from 1969 is quite bizarre if one hasn't seen it lately...


Apollo 11's Strange Docking

The docking footage is speeded-up, (time lapse photography), hence the jerky movements.
On the same YouTube there is another NASA docking where you can see the reflection of an astronaut in a window whose movements are highly speeded-up ...

to 4m10s

I did mention the docking footage was speeded-up in another thread where KubricksOdyssey falsely accused me of dishonesty : they said I "made that up". [Isn't an apology in order ?].

[dlorde]

No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.

Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.

It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).

Yup, much of the orbital maneuvering footage for popular consumption is time-lapse, otherwise it can be really boring. A few years ago, I went to the Science Museum in London, where they had a room set aside for a couple of weeks, showing film excerpts from all the manned space flights, and from cameras not normally shown. When I got there, they were showing some of the Gemini flights and space walks, in real-time; amazing, hypnotic stuff, and it all looked like slow-motion. I spent 45 mins in there watching one of the EVAs when they were trying out moving around using handrails - incredibly slow and difficult.

Having just come back from seeing 'Gravity' today, the contrast was striking - amazing though the zero-g scenes were, they mostly looked way too fast, especially the EVA scenes. But naturally they had to sacrifice realism in several areas in order to make an exciting film.

You should be able to find the real time taken for each Apollo 11 maneuver by checking the NASA logs and transcripts - for example, immediately after the trans-lunar injection burn, it took about 12.5 minutes after the separation of the command service module (CSM) from the launch adapter to turn it around and dock it with the lunar module (LEM). See EP-72 Log of Apollo 11 for the overview, and the Air-to-Ground Tech. Transcript for the detail (pages 18-19). You should be able to find all the relevant transcript timings for the other LEM maneuvers in lunar orbit (although I don't think they had the camera on for the Apollo 11 LEM undocking).

For this purpose, it doesn't matter whether you think it was all faked or not - it simply makes it clear that much of the film footage is time-lapsed relative to the event sequences.

[KubricksOdyssey]

It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).

Nope, Look how SLOWLY the Apollo 11 LEM rotation is for docking. A 4th grader can see its in REAL TIME.

Apollo 12 clip immediately after is in REAL TIME and wasnt speeded up "to save time" either.

It is was clearly made with some type of hollywood effect.The question then becomes why is NASA releasing fake footage attempting to pass it off as real?

[KubricksOdyssey]

Here is Apollo 11 LEM speeded up to save time.

Note how it was filmed in either front or rear screen projection....this special effect was also seen in Dr. Strangelove B-52 scenes...

[KubricksOdyssey]

No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.

Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.

It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).

Yup, much of the orbital maneuvering footage for popular consumption is time-lapse, otherwise it can be really boring.

Watch the "swinging antenna arm" in Apollo 12 clip immediately after Apollo 11.

The "swinging antenna arm" wouldnt be moving in a slow fluid motion if the video speed was tampered with.

Both clips were presented as "real time" by NASA in 1970. One only sees a short clip, not a sped up clip.

[RD]

You should be able to find the real time taken for each Apollo 11 maneuver by checking the NASA logs and transcripts ...

As the ascent stage reached apolune at 125 hours, 19 minutes, the reaction control system, or RCS, fired so as to nearly circularize the Eagle orbit at about 56 miles, some 13 miles below and slightly behind Columbia. Subsequent firings of the LM RCS changed the orbit to 57 by 72 miles. Docking with Columbia occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. Armstrong and Aldrin returned to the CSM with Collins.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html

128-125= 3 hours , I'm not sure for how long of those 3 hours "Eagle" would have been visible to "Columbia" as it approached, ( from how many miles can you see something the size of a camper-van without atmosphere impeding visibility ? ).

[KubricksOdyssey]

RD you seem clearly disturbed by this fake Apollo 11 docking model.

If you find out this clip is in REAL TIME what will your next excuse and apologetic be?

That strong resistance from Moons upper atnosphere aided by lunar cross winds caused the jerky movements? lol

[RD]

Here is Apollo 11 LEM speeded up to save time.

Note how it was filmed in either front or rear screen projection...

#1. Make your mind up which projection method was used to fake the footage.

#2. Provide evidence to prove that was the case.

otherwise please don't bother us (or anyone else) with this drivel ever again.

[KubricksOdyssey]

#1. Make your mind up which projection method was used to fake the footage.

A special effects expert would be able to tell. It looks like it could be either in this case.


Here is the Apollo 17 rendezvous at same speed, nothing sped up.

Notice the moon in the background is passing by at the same speed as Apollo 11 moon....

[dlorde]

Watch the "swinging antenna arm" in Apollo 12 clip immediately after Apollo 11.

The "swinging antenna arm" wouldnt be moving in a slow fluid motion if the video speed was tampered with.

Both clips were presented as "real time" by NASA in 1970. One only sees a short clip, not a sped up clip.

To me it looks like the Apollo 12 clip is real time - all the movement and moon going past in the background looks slower than the Apollo 11 clip - but it's hard to say, the camera angle looks slightly different. I don't see what the problem is with the movement - the thrusters were powerful and precise and the LEM was a very low-mass vehicle. The high-gain antenna in the Apollo 12 clip wasn't 'dangling' as the video suggested, it had a springy gimballed mounting, and looked like it was being stowed prior to docking.

But hey, if you want to believe it was all some global conspiracy, knock yourself out (why didn't the Russians spoil the party?)

[KubricksOdyssey]

To me it looks like the Apollo 12 clip is real time - all the movement and moon going past in the background looks slower than the Apollo 11 clip - but it's hard to say.

If any time lapse is present, It would be very easy to prove with a simple experiment.

Locate all 6 of the Apollo mission LEM rendezvous clips on Youtube, tile the windows and play them simultaneously in comparison.

[dlorde]

If any time lapse is present, It would be very easy to prove with a simple experiment.

Locate all 6 of the Apollo mission LEM rendezvous clips on Youtube, tile the windows and play them simultaneously in comparison.

Why would I? - whether there's lime-lapse or not in those clips, I don't see the problem.

[KubricksOdyssey]

If any time lapse is present, It would be very easy to prove with a simple experiment.

Locate all 6 of the Apollo mission LEM rendezvous clips on Youtube, tile the windows and play them simultaneously in comparison.

Why would I? - whether there's lime-lapse or not in those clips, I don't see the problem.

RD sees a problem, I'm waiting to hear his explanation why a real time clip is jerky and looks like a time lapse clip.

RD's claim of edited time-lapse would also show a moon spinning as fast as a basketball.

[RD]

There is a minority of people who think it may have been done with a scale model.

Apollo 11 ascent and rendezvous video from 1969 is quite bizarre if one hasn't seen it lately...


Apollo 11's Strange Docking

Here's a link to stock footage of docking on Apollo 12 ...

Apollo 12 / NASA / Lunar Module / 1969 ... http://footage.framepool.com/en/play/789153847

again the reflection of the astronaut in the window shows the docking footage has been speeded-up , (by NASA).

Still think the Apollo 11 rendezvous YouTube video is in real-time ?

[KubricksOdyssey]

There is a minority of people who think it may have been done with a scale model.

Apollo 11 ascent and rendezvous video from 1969 is quite bizarre if one hasn't seen it lately...


Apollo 11's Strange Docking

Here's a link to stock footage of docking on Apollo 12 ...

Apollo 12 / NASA / Lunar Module / 1969 ... http://footage.framepool.com/en/play/789153847

again the reflection of the astronaut in the window shows the docking footage has been speeded-up , (by NASA).

Still think the Apollo 11 rendezvous YouTube video is in real-time ?

Thats the same Apollo 12 clip I posted. Has the same swinging antenna arm. I played both the Youtube version and Framepool side by side and they are identical speeds.

Framepool also has the Apollo 11 strange docking footage and playing them side by side, yes it is at different speeds, a bit slower but not by a whole lot, I wouldnt consider anything "highly speeded" up.

One can still see all the same goofy jerky unnatural fake movements at any speed it is played.

Shutterstock has the same copy as Youtube http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-3936131-stock-footage--s-apollo-eagle-spacecraft-docks-with-columbia.html?src=search/bxY8at6yb2YWN1_oej-vAQ:1:1

Play it at 5% or 500% Apollo 11 docking footage is FAKE

If you want to see what a REAL Apollo docking looks like, here is Apollo-Soyuz 1975....

http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-3903479-stock-footage--s-the-apollo-soyuz-mission-of-docking-maneuver.html

[RD]

Framepool also has the Apollo 11 strange docking footage and playing them side by side, yes it is at different speeds …

A glimmer of sanity ? :  you now acknowledge the Apollo docking footage is speeded-up, and you’re now going to apologise to me for falsely accusing me of mendacity when I told you the footage was time-lapse ?.

One can still see all the same goofy jerky unnatural fake movements at any speed it is played.

Oh dear the madness returns [] . If slowed-down any motion, no matter how jerky, becomes smooth and fluid , e.g. a punch to the head …

So to say “One can still see all the same goofy jerky unnatural fake movements at any speed it is played” is nonsense : if it was slowed down to the correct speed the jerkiness would disappear.

[KubricksOdyssey]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

[KubricksOdyssey]

you now acknowledge the Apollo docking footage is speeded-up, and you’re now going to apologise to me?

We'll call that one a draw......since you still cannot see the obvious fakery and your tendency toward ad-hominen.

Let me say I do appreciate the feedback  from everyone so far on items I am presenting.

[KubricksOdyssey]

More media.....


Here is one of the biggest bungles of the Apollo 11 photos.

Its just not possible for light from the Sun to create a "hotspot" on Aldrins boot where he is. There is only one explanation for this "hotspot" and that is from a studio light, there were no flash bulbs or back lights on the moon.

This is a MAJOR oops by NASA and if they hadn't missed it, they would have airbrushed this studio light hotspot out.....

[dlorde]

The surface of the moon is not matt-black : it reflects light from the sun.
The reflection of sunlight from the surface of the moon is the second source of light illuminating the shadow side of the lunar lander. [ The very reflective white spacesuit of the photographer may contribute to the "fill" on this occasion].

You only have to look at the lower surfaces of the suit and backpack to see this backscatter illumination. As you say, this stuff has been dealt with elsewhere; I suspect trolling.