Discovery to Air Early NASA Footage In HD

[Indiana627]

"The Discovery Channel next month will air a documentary series featuring restored, high-def video of classic footage from NASA's Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space missions."

I wonder how good the footage will really be? I'll definitely watch to find out.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/discovery050608.htm

[bigwad]

I see nothing about the walk on the moon. Or did that really happen? It has the first spacewalk, etc. Where's the man on the moon footage?

[Lee L]

Well, it takes time to re-fake the footage in HD. ;)

[Richard King]

That footage is in a vault somewhere in Hollywood. ;)

[Mark Holtz]

Capricorn One airs later on this month on TCM.

[jfeheley]

The fake moon landing took over 700 people to pull off. Out of the 700 people not one person has sold the story to the Inguirer for 5 million dollars. Now that is a well kept conspiracy.

[Drew2k]

Someone better add this o the Recording Alerts forum when it gets close to the air date to remind me to record this! :p

[Lee L]

The fake moon landing took over 700 people to pull off. Out of the 700 people not one person has sold the story to the Inguirer for 5 million dollars. Now that is a well kept conspiracy.

Just for full disclosure, I do not beleive any of the several moon landings were faked, in case the sarcastic tone of my previous post was not obvious. :)

[jfeheley]

Just for full disclosure, I do not beleive any of the several moon landings were faked, in case the sarcastic tone of my previous post was not obvious. :)

Sorry Lee,

It was obvious you were not serious. I was just adding to the sarcasm.

[paulman182]

A lot of the footage probably won't look very good, but it will look better than we have ever seen it.

[Lee L]

Well, they did use film for most everything other than the actual live feeds, so any launch pad shots and whatnot have the capability to look really good.

One of the criticisms I have seen put out by the faked landing people was that the pictures that they published were just too good and could have never been actual pictures from teh moon. Of course, they used custom Hasselblad cameras in a place with no atmosphere and bright lighting, which is a good way to get lots of detail.

[TomH]

Well, they did use film for most everything other than the actual live feeds, so any launch pad shots and whatnot have the capability to look really good.

One of the criticisms I have seen put out by the faked landing people was that the pictures that they published were just too good and could have never been actual pictures from teh moon. Of course, they used custom Hasselblad cameras in a place with no atmosphere and bright lighting, which is a good way to get lots of detail.

I've never paid much attention to the fake landing people. What's their logic behind why pictures taken on the moon would somehow be lower quality than ones taken on Earth? Even if they didn't use specially built top of the line cameras would the quality be at least as good? I'm just always curious how these people justify their odd statements of "proof".

[Lee L]

Here is a quote from the first page that came up on a Google search. Lots and lots and lots more here: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm


For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers."

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.



For some real comedy, make sure to read the 8 or 9 points at the end of the page. Even a seconds thought can dismiss most of them.