Apollo 16 floodlight failure?

  • 309 Replies
  • 20649 Views
*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« on: March 16, 2018, 10:03:08 PM »
What's the official explanation for this debunkers?



https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html

To me it looks like something just comes into view in the top right corner of the frame before the light goes out. Maybe the lights were cut on purpose?

It looks exactly like a floodlight blowout but I am sure the debunkers have a good explanation for it.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19209
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2018, 10:10:47 PM »

To me it looks like something just comes into view in the top right corner of the frame before the light goes out. Maybe the lights were cut on purpose?



Illusion caused by the fun-house mirror that is your mind.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2018, 10:12:10 PM »
Are you claiming the NASA video is fake?

Of course you are, you are a flat earther.

What evidence led you to believe the Earth is flat Bullwinkle?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11644
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2018, 10:31:37 PM »
Bullwinkle ain't no flatter.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2018, 10:36:32 PM »
Yet he claims to be, just like mods here.

This is where the accusation of CoIntelPro comes from.

Round earthers running the flat earth society.

2+2=4

Always.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2018, 10:42:34 PM »

2+2=4

Always.

What? Do you think that's like, clever or something?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19209
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2018, 11:04:18 PM »

2+2=4

Always.

What? Do you think that's like, clever or something?

He is in the advanced class.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2018, 11:10:16 PM »

2+2=4

Always.

What? Do you think that's like, clever or something?
No D1 is just pretending that he's studying sums in kindie. Though he had to look it up on Google and copy-n-paste it.

Yes, "He is in the advanced class."
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 11:34:13 PM by rabinoz »

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11644
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2018, 11:48:54 PM »
D1 is a n00b.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2018, 12:06:45 AM »
D1 is a n00b.
Well D1 has 13830 posts "under his belt", while you only have 10619 posts.
Who's the n00b again?

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2018, 12:18:03 AM »
I'm genuinely curious as to what happened to the lighting on the NASA video.

I saw this but haven't found an official explanation.

What do you guys think happened?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2018, 12:19:54 AM »
In 2018 it is a given that all moon footage was staged . So obvious are the flaws and early seventies special effects.
But there is still a small group of Apollo amature enthousiasts that feel it as their personal quest to give all glaring holes in the Apollo footage a pseudo scientific facelift+arguments from authority to maintain their childhood legacy.

I think we’ll have to wait a few years before that generation becomes distinct, before we can all peacefully come to terms with the coldwar propaganda during the spacerace.
Till then we have to endure the enthousiastic supporters defending their fairytale till the very end !
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 12:26:41 AM by dutchy »

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2018, 12:24:08 AM »
I don't think the lunar orbiter footage is fake to be fair. It's pretty compelling evidence that we have orbited the moon imho.

I'm very open minded to NASA faking parts of the Moon landings. This footage seems particularly suspicious.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2018, 12:30:30 AM »
I don't think the lunar orbiter footage is fake to be fair. It's pretty compelling evidence that we have orbited the moon imho.

I'm very open minded to NASA faking parts of the Moon landings. This footage seems particularly suspicious.
Wait till frenat & co arrive at the scene.
I have read every single pathetic excuse they have for the thousends of anomalies in the footage. I leave it to them to explain away your example . Good luck !

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2018, 12:34:42 AM »
I'm genuinely curious as to what happened to the lighting on the NASA video.

I saw this but haven't found an official explanation.

What do you guys think happened?
I have no idea, but I doubt NASA would be so naive to release videos that proved the lunar missions were faked.
After all these "moon hoaxers" claim that they hsd all this money to spend buying the best experts at creating these fake videos.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2018, 12:37:19 AM »
I don't think the lunar orbiter footage is fake to be fair. It's pretty compelling evidence that we have orbited the moon imho.

I'm very open minded to NASA faking parts of the Moon landings. This footage seems particularly suspicious.
Wait till frenat & co arrive at the scene.
I have read every single pathetic excuse they have for the thousends of anomalies in the footage. I leave it to them to explain away your example . Good luck !
;D Mention NASA and lunar hoaxes and look what pops up. ;D

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2018, 12:43:29 AM »
I'm genuinely curious as to what happened to the lighting on the NASA video.

I saw this but haven't found an official explanation.

What do you guys think happened?
I have no idea, but I doubt NASA would be so naive to release videos that proved the lunar missions were faked.

But it doesn't prove that, it's certainly suspicious footage, it's evidence that they were using artificial lighting in that scene but it doesn't prove we never went to the moon.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2018, 12:49:35 AM »
I'm genuinely curious as to what happened to the lighting on the NASA video.

I saw this but haven't found an official explanation.

What do you guys think happened?
I have no idea, but I doubt NASA would be so naive to release videos that proved the lunar missions were faked.
After all these "moon hoaxers" claim that they hsd all this money to spend buying the best experts at creating these fake videos.
The general public in 1969-1972 had zero abilities to critical examine any supposed ‘moon’ footage.
The authorities of the time didn’t have the foresight of YouTube and the internet.... or even an VHS tape recorder.
And of course they had a schedule to fullfill Kennedy’s ‘before the decade is over’ ‘prophecy’.
All things considered, they did a tremendous job and no one alive could figure out the truth.

But in 2018 our analistic means have come a long way.. and what seemed 100% genuine in those days, doesn’t cut it anymore on 2018.
The real problem is those still defending the moonlandings in 2018 !

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19209
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2018, 12:52:11 AM »
I'm genuinely curious as to what happened to the lighting on the NASA video.

I saw this but haven't found an official explanation.

What do you guys think happened?

I think you were dropped on your head as a baby.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19209
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2018, 01:25:14 AM »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2018, 05:07:57 AM »
I'm genuinely curious as to what happened to the lighting on the NASA video.

I saw this but haven't found an official explanation.

What do you guys think happened?
I have no idea, but I doubt NASA would be so naive to release videos that proved the lunar missions were faked.
After all these "moon hoaxers" claim that they hsd all this money to spend buying the best experts at creating these fake videos.
The general public in 1969-1972 had zero abilities to critical examine any supposed ‘moon’ footage.
The authorities of the time didn’t have the foresight of YouTube and the internet.... or even an VHS tape recorder.
And of course they had a schedule to fullfill Kennedy’s ‘before the decade is over’ ‘prophecy’.
All things considered, they did a tremendous job and no one alive could figure out the truth.

But in 2018 our analistic means have come a long way.. and what seemed 100% genuine in those days, doesn’t cut it anymore on 2018.
The real problem is those still defending the moonlandings in 2018 !
What on earth does "analistic" mean?

A more serious problem is that there are people in 2018 who believe that the earth is flat and somehow that that disproving the lunar landings will some strengthen the evidence for that.

What those people fail to realise, even though it has been drummed into them numerous times, is that NASA had nothing to do with convincing anyone that the earth was a globe.

Not only that but these NASAphobes fail to realise that Russia was had the:
  • First manmade satellite in orbit.
  • First man in space.
  • First man to orbit the earth.
  • First woman in space.
  • First crew of three astronauts on board one spacecraft.
  • First space walk.
  • First two orbiting spacecraft (claimed to) rendezvous - is actually false.
  • First spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon, Luna 1.
  • First spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit, Luna 1 - accidentally, but it still happened.
  • First surface impact on the moon (Luna 2).
  • First photograph of the far side of the moon

    1959: The space probe Luna 3 takes the first photographs of the far side of the moon.
    The radio-controlled Luna 3 was part of the Soviet Union's highly successful lunar program,
    which completed 20 missions to the moon between January 1959 and October 1970.
  • First surface impact on the moon (Luna 2).
  • First soft landing on the moon (Luna 9).
  • First first lunar orbiter (Luna 10).
So please explain why NASA are the big bad boys on the block and not the Russians?

Finally the US got a first with the first photograph of the earth from the vicinity of the moon:

The world's first view of Earth taken by a spacecraft from the vicinity of the moon. The photo
was transmitted to Earth by the United States Lunar Orbiter I and received at the NASA
tracking station near Madrid. This crescent of the Earth was photographed August 23, 1966
when the spacecraft was on its 16th orbit and just about to pass behind the moon.

But none of this has the slightest bit to do with the shape of the earth!
Even all the controversy from the time of Copernicus, then Tycho Brahe and Galileo to Kepler was whether the earth was stationary or not.
At that time there was no question raised as to the shape of the earth - it was spherical, no doubt about it!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40275
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2018, 09:58:49 AM »
In 2018 it is a given that all moon footage was staged . So obvious are the flaws and early seventies special effects.
If it was staged, do you honestly think that they would have let such an obvious flaw get by? 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2018, 09:59:49 AM »
D1 is a n00b.
Well D1 has 13830 posts "under his belt", while you only have 10619 posts.
Who's the n00b again?

I didn't think you know what noob means.

Hoppy is ancient compared to D1.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40275
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2018, 10:04:14 AM »
So please explain why NASA are the big bad boys on the block and not the Russians?
Come now.  Every one knows that the so called "Cold War" was just propaganda and the US and the Soviets ran the space flight scam together.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19209
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2018, 10:07:34 AM »
In 2018 it is a given that all moon footage was staged . So obvious are the flaws and early seventies special effects.
If it was staged, do you honestly think that they would have let such an obvious flaw get by?

Because Woo-woo and snack sized brains.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2018, 10:54:22 AM »
In 2018 it is a given that all moon footage was staged . So obvious are the flaws and early seventies special effects.
If it was staged, do you honestly think that they would have let such an obvious flaw get by?
Because back in the days without VHS recorders, the internet and youtube people were not trained to spot and examine the flaws by meticulously playing back and forth the footage or do some photographic testing with the many software programs available today for the consumer.
And the authorities could never forsee these abilities in 2018 due to computing power for the consumers.
Remember that in those days even a bottle of coke on the moon was easy to dismiss.
Shoot the messenger by proclaiming an intention seeking old lady wanted her moment of fame when she decided to proclaim there was a bottle of coke present.
No internet,...... so it was forgotten before it even started.
Ignore the fact that dozens called the tv station with the same observations and focus on the confused old lady instead.
See ? it really didn't  matter in the early seventies.
When 'photoshop' entered the scene NASA updated many of the footage in the nineties and conveniently destroyed many of the original footage.
This 'updating' has been perfected for what it's worth, but luckily the glaring holes are to obvious after real examination.
Despite all attempts to update the storyline, it is over..... and i am convinced if i may live for a decade or two , the official disclosure about the fake moonlandings will be made public !

And during that announcement we will also part with many annoying forum members at last.......
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 10:59:25 AM by dutchy »

*

rvlvr

  • 1962
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #26 on: March 17, 2018, 11:35:04 AM »
Here’s hoping! It’d be cool something like that popped up.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40275
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #27 on: March 17, 2018, 12:01:18 PM »
In 2018 it is a given that all moon footage was staged . So obvious are the flaws and early seventies special effects.
If it was staged, do you honestly think that they would have let such an obvious flaw get by?
Because back in the days without VHS recorders, the internet and youtube people were not trained to spot and examine the flaws by meticulously playing back and forth the footage or do some photographic testing with the many software programs available today for the consumer.
And the authorities could never forsee these abilities in 2018 due to computing power for the consumers.
That's nice, but the alleged floodlight failure isn't some subtle anomaly that you need to meticulously scrub footage to find.  It's a major gaffe that should have wound up on even the most incompetent director's cutting room floor.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

nickrulercreator

  • 244
  • It's round. That much is true
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #28 on: March 17, 2018, 12:59:45 PM »
One thing you have to wonder is why NASA would allow this to be publicly released to the masses. Why didn't the astronauts stop when the lights went out? Why wouldn't they do another take? Why didn't the astronauts even comment on it at all?

Now, you know it isn't a floodlight going out for a few reasons. First, when it does "go out," the top of the tire on the rover is still fully lit, and appears to be lit in the direction of the supposed floodlight. Why was one floodlight so powerful to be able to light up the whole thing, yet the second isn't; and for some reason lights up only the wheel and no surrounding area? The explanation in the description as to why you can still see the astronauts' suits is that the light is coming from their helmet lights. The funny thing is, no Apollo spacesuit had lights on the helmets. The explanation for the wheel cover being visible is a "light patch," but then you have to wonder, why is no surrounding land lit up? Why is no other part of the rover lit up?

Your supposed "object" in the upper right corner is quite obviously just the mountainside. You can see it briefly just before the light goes out.

Going back through all the footage from the Lunar Surface journal, the phenomena happens quite often. It's very obviously just the camera's exposure settings being adjusted by mission control back on Earth. They must have accidentally set the exposure too low, and then corrected it when they noticed the error.

Unfortunately, there is no sound in the youtube video (odd, isn't it?), nor does the maker of the video give us any indication as to WHEN this happened in the mission, and during what spacewalk, so that doesn't help at all. I will make an effort to identify exactly when this occurred, but until then, I hope this answer satisfies you.

No, a floodlight did not go out. The camera's exposure was just adjusted incorrectly. It's a much more logical, and realistic answer, and when Occam's razor is applied, the better answer.

Edit: finally found it. occurs here: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.sta8.html#1473136 at about 2:16 into the video. No comments made on the dimming, but in that whole catalog of video, as I sat through it all, skimming through it, I saw many similar occurences. There was even one when the camera was pointing at the sun. It is only the exposure being changed.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 08:02:59 AM by nickrulercreator »
he puts his penis in the mouth of the other one and FORCIBLY GIVES HER A BLOWJOB OF TRUTH and then his penis ERRUPTS IN AN EXPLOSION IF TRUTH and she is INSTANTLY DECAPITATED

?

frenat

  • 3591
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #29 on: March 17, 2018, 04:50:17 PM »
One thing you have to wonder is why NASA would allow this to be publicly released to the masses. Why didn't the astronauts stop when the lights went out? Why wouldn't they do another take? Why didn't the astronauts even comment on it at all?

Now, you know it isn't a floodlight going out for a few reasons. First, when it does "go out," the top of the tire on the rover is still fully lit, and appears to be lit in the direction of the supposed floodlight. Why was one floodlight so powerful to be able to light up the whole thing, yet the second isn't, and for some reason lights up only the wheel, and no surrounding area? The explanation in the description as to why you can still see the astronauts' suits is that the light is coming from their helmet lights. The funny thing is, no Apollo spacesuit had lights on the helmets. The explanation for the wheel cover being visible is a "light patch," but then you have to wonder, why is no surrounding land lit up? Why is no other part of the rover lit up?

Your supposed "object" in the upper right corner is quite obviously just the mountainside. You can see it briefly just before the light goes out.

Going back through all the footage from the Lunar Surface journal, the phenomena happens quite often. It's very obviously just the camera's exposure settings being adjusted by mission control back on Earth. They must have accidentally set the exposure too low, and then corrected it when they noticed the error.

Unfortunately, there is no sound in the youtube video (odd, isn't it?), nor does the maker of the video give us any indication as to WHEN this happened in the mission, and during what spacewalk, so that doesn't help at all. I will make an effort to identify exactly when this occurred, but until then, I hope this answer satisfies you.

No, a floodlight did not go out. The camera's exposure was just adjusted incorrectly. It's a much more logical, and realistic answer, and when Occam's razor is applied, the better answer.

Edit: finally found it. occurs here: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.sta8.html#1473136 at about 2:16 into the video. No comments made on the dimming, but in that whole catalog of video, as I sat through it all, skimming through it, I saw many similar occurences. There was even one when the camera was pointing at the sun. It is only the exposure being changed.
You are correct of course.  And not only did they not have light on the helmets the light on them is on their back which was brightest before and after.  Very clearly a change of exposure or apeture on the camera.