These would then need to be put together. If we apply this to 12 frames per second film (as close to ten as we can get with standard film) running for 143 minutes (this is how long the Apollo 11 footage lasts), you would need six and a half reels. A typical reel of 35mm film – at 24 frames per minutes second – lasts 11 minutes and is 1,000 foot long. Then they converted the film to be shown on TV.’īut shooting it on film would require thousands of feet of film. You can have as much film as you like to do this. Claim 4: ‘They shot it on film and slowed down the film instead. Well, maybe they did have a super secret extra storage recorder – but one almost 3,000 times more advanced? Doubtful. Everyone knows NASA gets the tech before the public.’ Claim 3: ‘They could have had an advanced storage recorder to create slow motion footage. To capture 143 minutes in slow motion, you’d need to record and store 47 minutes of live action, which simply wasn’t possible. Photo by NASAĪt the time of the broadcast, magnetic disk recorders capable of storing slow motion footage could only capture 30 seconds in total, for a playback of 90 seconds of slow motion video. If you can’t overcrank your camera, but you record at a normal frame rate, you can instead artificially slow down the footage, but you need a way to store the frames and generate new extra frames to slow it down.Īpollo Lunar Television Camera, as it was mounted on the side of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module when it telecasted Armstrong’s ‘One small step’. When this is played back at the normal frame rate, this footage plays back for longer.
Slowing down film requires more frames than usual, so you start with a camera capable of capturing more frames in a second than a normal one – this is called overcranking. Some people may contend that when you look at people moving in slow motion, they appear to be in a low gravity environment. Claim 2: ‘They used the Apollo special camera in a studio and then slowed down the footage to make it look like there was less gravity.’ However, we know that video from the first moon landing was recorded at ten frames per second in SSTV (Slow Scan television) with a special camera.
Moon landing fake tv#
If we go along with the idea that the moon landings were taped in a TV studio, then we would expect them to be 30 frames per second video, which was the television standard at the time. READ MORE: How many people does it take to keep a conspiracy alive? A standard motion picture film records images at 24 frames per second, while broadcast television is typically either 25 or 30 frames, depending on where you are in the world. With video, you can also broadcast to a television receiver. Another is video, which is an electronic method of recording onto various mediums, such as moving magnetic tape.
Moon landing fake series#
One is film, actual strips of photographic material onto which a series of images are exposed. There are two different ways of capturing moving images. Claim 1: ‘The moon landings were filmed in a TV studio.’ Here are some of the most common beliefs and questions – and why they don’t hold up.
I am a filmmaker and lecturer in film post-production, and – while I can’t say how we landed on the moon in 1969 – I can say with some certainty that the footage would have been impossible to fake. I’m not a space travel expert, an engineer or a scientist. A common theory is that film director Stanley Kubrick helped NASA fake the historic footage of its six successful moon landings.īut would it really have been possible to do that with the technology available at the time? Conspiracy theories about the event dating back to the 1970s are in fact more popular than ever. It’s been half a century since the magnificent Apollo 11 moon landing, yet many people still don’t believe it actually happened.
0 kommentar(er)
