The flag didn't really move, Stanley Kubrick didn't take pictures, even in the worst quality video manipulation was very complicated at that time
By: Howard Berry, Head of Post-Production Studies and Course Leader for the MA in Film at the University of Hertfordshire, UK
Half a century has passed since the miraculous landing of Apollo 11 on the moon, but many people still do not believe that it really happened. Connection theories about the event that were spread since the XNUMXs are more popular today than ever. A common theory is that the famous director Stanley Kubrick helped NASA fake the historical film of its six successful moon flights.
Was it really possible to make the forgery with the technology that was available at the time? I am not a space expert, engineer or scientist. I'm a filmmaker and lecturer in post-production, and even if I can't say how we landed on the moon in 1969, I can say for sure that a shot like this can't be faked.
Here are some of the most common beliefs and questions - and why they are unreasonable.
"The landing on the moon was filmed in a TV studio".
There are two different ways to capture moving images. One is film, strips of photographic material on which series of images are exposed. And the second way is through video - an electronic method of recording on different mediums, such as magnetic tape. Video allows to broadcast on TV. In a standard motion picture film, the shooting rate is 24 frames per second, while television transmission (in the analog technology of those days AB) requires 25 or 30 frames per second, depending on the method of transmission that varies from region to region..
If we accept the idea that the landings were recorded in a TV studio, we would expect them to be at a rate of 30 frames per second on video, the standard at the time in the US. However, we do know that the video footage of the landing was shot at a rate of 10 frames per second using the SSTV (slow scan television) method using a special camera.
"They used Apollo's special camera in the studio and then slowed down the film to make it look like there was less gravity."
People might argue that when you look at people moving in slow motion, they look like they are in a low gravity environment. Slowing down the film requires more frames than usual, so you first need a camera capable of capturing more frames per second than a normal camera. This is known as overcranking. When playing the movie at the normal tempo it seems to last longer. If your camera doesn't allow you to do this you can record at a normal frame rate, and artificially slow down the movie, but then you have to find a way to store the frames and create new frames to slow it down.
During broadcast, magnetic discs capable of storing slow-motion media can capture a total of thirty seconds of film to turn it into ninety seconds of slow motion. To shoot 143 in slow motion you have to record and store 47 minutes of live action, which was not possible.
"They had more advanced means that could record and store slow motion media. Everyone knows that NASA gets the technology before the public."
Well, maybe they had VCRs with additional secret storage capacity, but with a system 3,000 times larger that's doubtful.
"They shot the movie on film and slowed it down on the spot. You can shoot as many movies as you want that way, and then they turned the movie into a TV show."
Here's an argument that makes some sense at last, but filming will require thousands of meters of film. A typical reel of 35mm film from that period shot at 24 frames per second lasts 11 minutes and is 1,000 feet long (about 300 meters AB). If we lower the requirement to 12 frames per second to film the 143 minutes on the Apollo 11 platform, six and a half reels were needed. It was necessary to put them together, develop the negative and print, and we would immediately see dust spots, hairs or scratches. None of these reels exist, which means it was not shot on film. When you consider that the other landings were filmed at 30 frames per second, and then three times as difficult to fake, the Apollo 11 mission was relatively easy to fake.
"But the flag blows in the wind, and there is no wind on the moon. The source of the wind is clearly from a cooling fan inside the studio. Or it was filmed in the desert."
This is not what actually happened, after the astronauts let go of the flag it stabilized and stopped moving in the minutes remaining for this photo. Also, how windy is it inside a TV studio? There's wind in the desert, I'll take it. But in the month of July, the desert is also hot, and you can see the effects of the heat in movies that are shot in hot places. There is no such effect on the Apollo 11 films, and thus it was not filmed in the desert, and besides, the flag was not moving anyway."
“The lighting clearly looks like a spotlight. The shadows look strange.”
Yes, it's a spotlight - a spotlight 150 million kilometers away. He is called the sun. If you look at the shadows in the Apollo 11 movies, if the light source was a nearby spotlight, the shadows would appear to emanate from a central point. But because the source is so far away, the shadows are parallel in most places. However, the direct sunlight is not the only source of illumination - the light is also reflected from the surface of the moon, this will cause some of the shadows not to be parallel, but on the other hand we can also see objects that are in a shadowy place.
"Well, we all know Stanley Kubrick filmed it"
Stanley Kubrick could have been asked to fake the moon landing. But he was such a perfectionist, and he would insist on photographing it in the most authentic place. Besides, he didn't like flying.
"It is possible to recover the dinosaurs from mosquitoes like they did in Jurassic Park, but the government keeps it a secret."
I give up.
For the original article on THE CONVERSATION website
More of the topic in Hayadan:
The end of the conspiracy theories: Smart-1 photographed the landing sites of the Apollo spacecraft
Five things that science knows for sure to be true
Pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are not victimless crimes against science
Why social networks have become a perfect breeding ground for scams and misinformation
The moon hoax spurred a crusade against anti-astronomy
30 תגובות
The point is that, just the other way around in the infinite vacuum (the moon has no atmosphere), as soon as the flag started moving, it had to continue swinging on the pole because there is no resistance!
Opening the module in infinite vacuum is a death sentence in half a second due to pressure comparison
Propaganda for ninety shekels
A day of the moon is 27 days in Israel, that is, 13.5 of our days is a night on the moon and 13.5 is a day
If they landed at night, they are 22 hours at minus 175 degrees Celsius, so you understand what would happen after 10 minutes in such cold
And if they landed during the day then they are at 127 degrees Celsius so you understand what would have happened after an hour
The funniest thing is that President Nixon spoke to you on a landline!!! With the dial remember? When they talk about it at all, it's one big hoax from a distance of 400000 km when there was barely a Motorola in the world... and they repeated it 6 times in three years hahaha joke and then came the mulbalovsky and this propagandist and they sell us keys
Propaganda for ninety shekels
A day of the moon is 27 days in Israel, that is, 13.5 of our days is a night on the moon and 13.5 is a day
If they landed at night, they are 22 hours at minus 175 degrees Celsius, so you understand what would happen after 10 minutes in such cold
And if they landed during the day then they are at 127 degrees Celsius so you understand what would have happened after an hour
The funniest thing is that President Nixon spoke to you on a landline!!! With the dial remember? When they talk about the connection at all, it's one big hoax from a distance of 400000 km when there was barely a Motorola in the world... and they repeated it 6 times in three years lol joke and then this propagandist comes and sells us keys
Yes... a lot of professional terms that don't mean or prove anything.
Occam's razor simplifies the matter.
It is much easier and cheaper to shoot tens of meters of film with super expensive technological means than to reach the moon.
But Stanley Kubrick didn't make it a fact that he was still alive. The real director has long been smelling the flowers from below
Shalimla, you may not be able to touch a brick, but 12 Americans not only walked on it, but also brought souvenirs, and even managed to prove that it is not made of yellow cheese.
Just as I dance against you and I cannot touch you
This is what we say in the white blessing
For me it is enough to know that there was not and will not be a landing on the moon.
I suggest you do a Google search for "China Technology"
for heaven's sake,
It is understandable that you are angry with the Chinese because they exterminated the sparrows and that the government there is a totalitarian despot, but why do you let that blind you and disdainfully state that they are not a technological power?
By the way, how did they steal the programs from the Americans? Did they load them on a rickshaw?
We're talking about China, right? A communist-totalitarian power that is so technologically advanced that it cannot develop its own fighter jet without first stealing the plans from the Americans? that despite its geopolitical desire to dominate the days surrounding it it only has two aircraft carriers? And that at the time when the Americans started organizing to land a man on the moon, the Chinese were busy exterminating all their sparrows, and as a result managed to starve to death another 15 million Chinese?
It's a wonder they haven't tried to land a man on the moon yet.
(I mean, yes. Certainly without any disrespect, they can land a man on the moon in the next twenty years, but only after they manage to "get inspiration" (and plans) from someone who has already succeeded).
for heaven's sake,
If you believe this - you will be guaranteed. Just note that China, which is a huge technological and economic power, only this year launched a probe to the moon. It doesn't seem to me that one of the reasons you mentioned is the one that prevented her from sending a man to the moon.
Rafael, perhaps because no country has the scientific, or economic, or political, or propaganda, or other will to invest the human and financial resources necessary to carry out the task? After all, we have already seen many successful robotic missions to various celestial bodies, and there are still very few countries that do perform such missions, and that too at a very unsatisfactory rate.
Father, then they could have landed on the dark side of the moon.
Although the atmosphere there is not great, but at least there is good Pink Floyd music.
Why until now, 50 years later, with technology that has developed perhaps 1000 times, no country has been able to reproduce the great success?
Laugh, laugh, but it's on purpose, because in the middle of the lunar day, the sun is very strong, and the temperature reaches over 100 degrees Celsius.
The landing on the moon could not be carried out for the simple reason that on July 20, 1969 the moon was in a natal state and there was simply not enough space for a landing.
joetv and his friends are Russian bots, i.e. brainwashed humans who were convinced by the Russian secret propaganda systems that "you wouldn't land". After the Soviets lost the moon landing contest they had a strong incentive to downplay its importance and undermine American self-confidence. The Rods and their successors continue this and even perfect the method.
It's just amazing how so many idiots flock to Russian propaganda.
Yonatan and Chen: Well done for what you wrote! This is exactly the approach to take. I couldn't resist, so I wrote down my thoughts - maybe they will reach an attentive ear, which will have a higher and faster impact than my own.
As long as the billions of innocent and "simple" people around the world, most of whom cannot (and some do not even want to) think independently, and are not willing to teach themselves about the experiments, understandings and innovative discoveries (since the fascinating period that began at the end of the 19th century and continues even today) through reading modern scientific literature - which is presented in a huge variety of "popular science" books (at different levels and with varied explanations depending on their readership), which give each person the opportunity to understand himself and his position in the environment closest to him (such as the use of modern roads and transportation, the durability of modern buildings in strong earthquakes, the effectiveness of vaccines against serious diseases that can be exterminated, etc.) and in the universe, which every day gathers more and more information and understanding about its essence - from quantum mechanics to Einstein's theory of gravity, understanding the fields of biology, electricity, micro- and nanotechnology, astronomy and astrophysics, a medicine that is really based on facts that have been collected, analyzed and tested through logical-scientific-objective thinking and understanding in order to replace the use of "grandmother's medicines" and various "witches'" potions (the effectiveness of which is often even lower than 50%, i.e. non-use of "medicine" will help more than taking it) and continuing with basic knowledge in the fields of construction engineering, proper nutrition and more - will continue to have blind faith and with full confidence that their "mentors" (or as they are called: "public messengers") know better than all the researchers of the exact sciences about every A possible field - by reading primitive texts written 1,500 years ago (and that's at best), written in languages that no longer exist - or about "facts", rituals and traditions that are thousands of years old (bloodletting, cupping, sacrifices - such as expiation chickens, a method Cruel slaughter of cattle - which lasts for long minutes during which the animal simply bleeds to death) - the development of Homo sapiens will not continue.
When these "emissaries of the public", who are characterized as charismatic people, who (for mysterious reasons) are attributed full wisdom and knowledge in various fields - even though in reality they have partial, confused, prejudiced and often wrong knowledge - determine forms of conduct and observance of rituals for the public of their supporters (such as Rituals and prayers to prevent periods of drought, promises of recovery and mental and physical health after "donations" of various kinds in combination with prayers, banning the use of common electronic devices, harming and perpetuating the low and humiliating status of approximately 51% of the entire population, and more) - and their statements are always accepted without question and without reservations by their believers - There will remain high and unnecessary death rates from diseases that can be eradicated permanently through the administration of vaccines without baseless scaremongering by pretend "doctors" who rely on "secret" articles and studies which they are not willing to reveal, a real help to people all over the world who could use their full potential if only Safe and proven drugs will be prescribed (Ritalin, for example, has been in use since the 50s and has helped so many people between the ages of 20 and 5 - that it was labeled by the Church of Scientology in a strange and medically unfounded move - about fifteen years ago - about "Devil's medicine"), the rate of technological progress will slow down and the development momentum of the human race (Homo Sapiens) to its next evolutionary stage (Homo Optimus) may stop.
In 1969, the technology was not there to return the people from the moon, let alone to hardly land
And transmitting a live broadcast, without broadcast satellites, is not possible
There was a race with Russia and the Americans were pressured and staged
A question of a very short time until it blows up in all the "wise" faces
Holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, vaccine opponents, global warming deniers, opponents of drugs and modern medicine, passionate believers in astrology, members of cults that believe in the divine supremacy of the Guru - they all have one thing in common: ignorance.
They didn't learn to read articles, they didn't learn the subject in the academy, but they did learn to play a YouTube video and believe a video without a source, sources and without a research basis.
Science can deal with very complex questions that sometimes take decades to find a solution and technology to confirm them, but ignorance is not a problem that scientists can deal with.
The problem with science is that it takes seriously the claims of people who haven't studied a day in their life and shout nonsense like "the flag is waving".
Let's say I call a scientist a "poophead" and the scientist, instead of smiling and admitting that he is an infantile, wastes time explaining the chemical and physical differences between a human brain and a fecal mass.
So whoever doesn't want to believe, let him not believe, and when he cooks, let him do it on stones and when he needs medicine, let him go to the neighborhood barber for bloodletting.
It is real, because the Shin Bet did not shout in vain.
Either way no one has a way of knowing if it happened or not. It's probably a secret that will never be revealed.. maybe in 500 years when we won't be here anymore. In the meantime we will read and understand about the conspiracy or we will believe that the landing really happened.
Yes Yes. The guy "Eyal" didn't even bother to check if the videos were shot by electronic means or film, but that doesn't stop him from safely stating "no landing and no shoes". So why would he go and investigate and stand up for the nature of the transmission system that existed between NASA and the Apollo spacecraft? Maybe we should hold a "symposium" for him as well?
Everyone misses the big question that no one raises or gives a solution to:
How in 1969, when there were no satellites in space, there were no antennas and satellite dishes and all means of communication on earth were a wired telephone and a 711K military walkie-talkie, how then was contact made with a spaceship at a distance of almost 400 thousand km? And not only that, the NASA people talked regularly with the spacecraft people throughout their journey and their separation from the mother spacecraft above the moon and during the landing, etc. But they also received from them a live broadcast of a video (!) or maybe it was a film (because then you have to develop)... in short... no landing and no shoes. No live broadcast and no intergalactic communication. There is a fraud here as clear as day.
And why does this "Ben Moshe" think that proofs and symposia must be presented to him by the spoonful for something that is self-evident, that has already been discussed countless times in the various media, not to mention YouTube? It is better to let him believe in one of the countless conspiracy theories (and maybe all of them). After all, it makes him feel "special" and "understanding" and "superior" to the ignorant crowd, and maybe even "one who is not gullible, and which some crooks (like the US government and NASA) cannot fix".
There are many more problems with the photographs that he did not address. for example. There is no crater under the spacecraft. The legs of the spaceship are dust free. It doesn't make sense for a body that landed from such a great height. And the worst. The lost technology. How the hell did they manage to fly something with less computing power than the Gameboy we played with in the innocent eighties.
how??
Amazing article!
My father - "You played her"! ?
Fascinating, not that it will satisfy all conspiracy theorists.
Really sorry from the writer of the learned article. I can't deal with him, because I'm not an expert in cinematography. But I have several questions that I would love to have answered:
A. Why do the original films of the moon landings not exist? NASA claims that they needed the coils for other purposes. It's interesting that an organization like NASA suddenly skimps on a few reels of film.
B. I'm not a film expert, but in England, the country of the author of the article, a three-hour film was made by a photography expert explaining why the photographs are fake. So who exactly should I believe, as an ignorant person in the field of photography?
third. During the period in question, several films were made on the subject of landing on the moon, such as "Moonraker" by James Bond. Was a comparison made between the films and the photography techniques? Those who deny the landing claim that it is! Indeed the same techniques were used.
d. Maybe there is a possibility to hold a symposium on the subject, so that the uneducated public can understand things?
Correction - in the picture it is not Buzz Aldrin but James Irwin (Apollo 15)