In news:Xns987577DBDDC80kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

The footage I was referring to, was what was going on inside the
Command module, in which the video and audio clearly has the
astronauts faking that they were further out, 1/2 way to the moon,
and sticking
a transparency onto the window, setting the camera inside - faking
the whole thing - that this footage exists, shows something totally
amiss.
If the documentary makers, do have the original film, then obviously
this can be scrutinised for authenticity and age.
Without that film - the case for the faking, is much much weaker,
with no proper evidence at all, and only circumstantial.
Only experts debating two sides of an argument.

The problem with using transparencies on glass though is you would need even
backlighting and some form of diffusing screen as you would have on a light
box. You could certainly achieve that effect by sandwiching a transparency
with a sheet of frosted acetate though, and by using the Earth as a light
source when in close orbit.

However I do have serious doubts about that footage, it appears to me there
is something obstructing the camera lens which is extremely blurred because
it is very close to the lens, which has caused optical distortion which
gives the illusion that you have some form of flat transparency over the
window. But I think it is a purely accidental effect

The other possibility of course is it was shot during a training session in
which case they could very well have been using backlit transparencies over
the glass.

But to be honest to me it simply looks like optical distortion caused by
something close to the camera. One can get a similar effect by placing a
hand near to one eye and focusing on something distant, you should see
optical distortion close to the burred edge of your hand. Such effects can
of course be more pronounced using a camera depending on the aperture used,
depth of focus etc.

I think that footage is a complete lie to be honest an example of conspiracy
mongers taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge of photography and
optics to create a total falsehood.

Besides if NASA had set out to fake the Moon landings with all the billions
of dollars spent on building and launching those Saturn 5 rockets into orbit
and all that the state of the art technology I'm certain they wouldn't have
been daft enough to have the astronauts sticking transparencies over windows
in weightless conditions with bits of Sello or Bluetack LOL

Obviously if there were moon rovers, these can go to the sites, and
check out the rubbish/junk left behind.
[For NASA to cover this up, would be for them, to send junk to the
 moon, to authentic history - which is a huge task in itself, so the
 junk is already there, or not?]

Note - apparently with the first screening of Apollo coverage, this
was sent and aired in Australia first - and an Australian woman does
recall seeing a coke bottle on the lunar surface - but this was later
edited out.

The TV pictures of the 1969 Apollo 11 landing were of appallingly poor
quality to be honest it was hard to see anything. Particularly on a PAL
system. I dare say PAL TV would have been just coming into use in Australia
in preparation for the switch to colour TV as it was in the UK and most of
Europe. I would doubt anyone would have been able to see something like a
Coke bottle on the Lunar surface. In my experience it was difficult to
recognise the astronauts let alone anything else. On the BBC they had a
commentator telling us what we were supposed to be seeing and one could just
about see the astronauts jumping about doing their lunar walk dance :)

I have listed documentaries at
http://truthbox.blog.co.nz

I haven't checked out YouTube - but if you can find these
documentaries there - they are worth watching.
I can send you a DVD with a lot of these documentaries on it, if you
wish? I have already grouped them together, in their specific groups.

Thanks for the offer, but as I say I don't seem to be finding any problems
finding copies of most of these films on the Net. But thanks all the same :)
-- 
Amanda