NASA's Apollo TV Lies Revealed - PART 1 - The Truth Behind The Tones

[trainedobserver]

The tone thing seems quite a stretch to me. I just don't see it. However, that they could and would have edited the videos to cut out things they didn't want seen or heard, for whatever reason, isn't a stretch though. Did they have something that would detect and instantly edit out anomalous objects appearing in "live" video back then? It seems unlikely to me. I think something like that would have cost as much as developing the Saturn V itself. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the fellow is trying to get across.

 

[Ron Collins]

The tone thing seems quite a stretch to me. I just don't see it. However, that they could and would have edited the videos to cut out things they didn't want seen or heard, for whatever reason, isn't a stretch though. Did they have something that would detect and instantly edit out anomalous objects appearing in "live" video back then? It seems unlikely to me. I think something like that would have cost as much as developing the Saturn V itself. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the fellow is trying to get across.

I kept thinking "What? With exactly what computer systems available in 1962 where they using?" Plus the entrance/exit tones seem to be overly sensitive in parts and under sensitive in others. My iPhone has at least 10x more computational power than was available in the entire world combined in 1962. I think this is extreme cherry picking. Shit man, this is 9 or 10 years before the invention of the microprocessor. Hell in 1962 we were still in the process of moving from magnetic core memory to solid state dynamic memory. NASA was just starting to use the newly invented "integrated circuit" technology.

At the time, there was only one system even aproaching this kind of power necessary to run that kind of a complex algorithm. That was ILLIAC IV. But, it (with the final 256 parallel processors) wasn't ready until 1976. I think it ran FORTRAN or BASIC or something arcane like that. My exposure to FORTRAN was limited but I cant begin to imagine how it could be used to digitize, decode, compare with previously saved frame, differentiate, run a very complex algorithm, render replacement pixels seamlessly, re-encode, and transmit the frame, and then mark the somehow digitized information to be saved for comparison for the next frame.

At this time, programs of any size were "written" using punch cards. No shit! Punch cards. Just like this.
Wikimedia Error

This card would hold 80 columns and each column had a possible value of 0-9. For processing of a program, each card was loosely thought of as being one line of code in FORTRAN. You don't have to be a programmer to understand how many lines of code such a program would have needed. I shutter to think of it. Remember, there were no such things as objects or functions. It would read and compile at the same time. One command at a time.

So... Basically, what he is asserting is freaking impossible in 1962! Today we see this stuf all the time. Take a look at a football game or probably more apropos, a hockey game. Essentially, we are being asked to believe that technology existed in 1962-71 that would have allowed for the little puck follower glow thing to be shown to you in real time. Its the same sort of technology we are talking about only the NASA version of 1962 could actually remove objects all together and instead re-render the pixels containing that object to look like whatever should have been there!

I hope this makes sense. if not, let me know.

 

[Decker]

I kept thinking "What? With exactly what computer systems available in 1962 where they using?" Plus the entrance/exit tones seem to be overly sensitive in parts and under sensitive in others. My iPhone has at least 10x more computational power than was available in the entire world combined in 1962. I think this is extreme cherry picking. Shit man, this is 9 or 10 years before the invention of the microprocessor. Hell in 1962 we were still in the process of moving from magnetic core memory to solid state dynamic memory. NASA was just starting to use the newly invented "integrated circuit" technology.

Shoot Ron, don't ya get it yet? Didn't you ever watch any Terminator movies? Time travel man! They sent some dude back using Time Travel. The whole damned world is screwed up .. and somebody is trying to fix it using Time Travel cept' they are screwing it up worse! Pretty soon there will be damned T-Rex's and Saber Tooth cats running loose. Jus' watch ... ya dig?

 

[trainedobserver]

When you look at the incredibly primitive computers that those guys were working with compared to what we have today, you really do have to scratch your head and wonder why in the hell haven't we gone back? If the guys on Apollo had the processing power we have available today, I'm thinking maybe the LEM wouldn't have looked like a bug with its wings pulled off. But you never know.

 

[Anaximander]

Did they have something that would detect and instantly edit out anomalous objects appearing in "live" video back then?

Yes. That's pretty much it.

*But the system to do this didn't cost as much as a Saturn V. And it doesn't require as much computing power as you want to think. Those men did alot with what they had available, and often what they had available was classified, like the fiber optics used in Apollo:

 

[bbridges]

Raptors?! That should help the overpopulation problem...

 

[Anaximander]

Raptors..... You're alive when they start to eat you.

 

[bbridges]

The preceeding message brought to you by the W.H.O., 2042, "Making A Better Yesterday For A Better Tommorow"

 

[Anaximander]

I should also add that it would probably not be necessary to use computers to track an object across the frame. That could be done with a guy and a joystick. Having machines detect where an object is entering the frame and moving the 'cursor' into place for the person to better track it would suffice. This could be supplemented by an overlay which indicates the predicted path of any anomalous thing. Plus a couple other guys helping out.

So I don't think it would have to be totally automated.

And with control over where it is pointed and zoomed etc, there would be other ways of getting anomalies out of view.

 

[Ron Collins]

I should also add that it would probably not be necessary to use computers to track an object across the frame. That could be done with a guy and a joystick. Having machines detect where an object is entering the frame and moving the 'cursor' into place for the person to better track it would suffice. This could be supplemented by an overlay which indicates the predicted path of any anomalous thing. Plus a couple other guys helping out.

So I don't think it would have to be totally automated.

And with control over where it is pointed and zoomed etc, there would be other ways of getting anomalies out of view.

NO, NO, NO. That is NOT what these videos are saying. These videos try to make a case for an automated "system" that detects things entering/exiting the field of view and then dynamically identifies them and removes anything that shouldn't be there and replaces it with what was in that same location from the previous frame. You need to watch all three videos and think about this. A guy with a joystick cant do that from frame to frame. It's not possible. Even merely identifying objects entering/leaving the field of view at 1 frame per second is too fast for humans to respond. These images were certainly shot at a much higher frame rate than 1/sec.

I don't expect most people to understand how difficult this is to do even today. Much less looking back to a time when electronic and computational technology was in embryonic stages. But I can assure you that it was absolutely impossible at the time. Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone with a solid technical background and a good understanding of the history and evolution of technology. I can assure you all that my assessment will be correct.

Seriously, sit down and spec this out. Think about all the things that have to happen to pull this off. Then, I challenge the ubiquitous "you" to show me how it can possibly be done before 1985.

 

[manxman]

Raptors..... You're alive when they start to eat you.

If its of any comfort to you, your not alive for very long.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I kept thinking "What? With exactly what computer systems available in 1962 where they using?" Plus the entrance/exit tones seem to be overly sensitive in parts and under sensitive in others. My iPhone has at least 10x more computational power than was available in the entire world combined in 1962. I think this is extreme cherry picking. Shit man, this is 9 or 10 years before the invention of the microprocessor. Hell in 1962 we were still in the process of moving from magnetic core memory to solid state dynamic memory. NASA was just starting to use the newly invented "integrated circuit" technology.

At the time, there was only one system even aproaching this kind of power necessary to run that kind of a complex algorithm. That was ILLIAC IV. But, it (with the final 256 parallel processors) wasn't ready until 1976. I think it ran FORTRAN or BASIC or something arcane like that. My exposure to FORTRAN was limited but I cant begin to imagine how it could be used to digitize, decode, compare with previously saved frame, differentiate, run a very complex algorithm, render replacement pixels seamlessly, re-encode, and transmit the frame, and then mark the somehow digitized information to be saved for comparison for the next frame.

At this time, programs of any size were "written" using punch cards. No shit! Punch cards. Just like this.
Wikimedia Error

This card would hold 80 columns and each column had a possible value of 0-9. For processing of a program, each card was loosely thought of as being one line of code in FORTRAN. You don't have to be a programmer to understand how many lines of code such a program would have needed. I shutter to think of it. Remember, there were no such things as objects or functions. It would read and compile at the same time. One command at a time.

So... Basically, what he is asserting is freaking impossible in 1962! Today we see this stuf all the time. Take a look at a football game or probably more apropos, a hockey game. Essentially, we are being asked to believe that technology existed in 1962-71 that would have allowed for the little puck follower glow thing to be shown to you in real time. Its the same sort of technology we are talking about only the NASA version of 1962 could actually remove objects all together and instead re-render the pixels containing that object to look like whatever should have been there!

I hope this makes sense. if not, let me know.

When ever I think of how much power a smart phone has, compared to even my desktop computer from 10 years ago, I'm amazed.