Bart Sibrel on Coast To Coast AM last night: Wow! Just... Wow!

Originally posted by GoldenFleece[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a1d6cc9881e3.jpg[/atsimg] Photo AS11-40-5845 (No description.) Hmmm... still no stars. That Hasselblad's exposure setting must've been heavily center-weighted!

Three things: you don't know anything about apollo hasselblads or you'd know that they were incapable of doing long exposures to capture stars. You also don't realize that it's impossible to hand hold a hassleblad still enough to capture point-like stars in a long exposure. Lastly, you don't realize that the mostly-full earth's brightness would result in a massive overexposure if you tried to capture stars in that photo.

Check out this video, proves that the moon landing was fake.

Moon Landing

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Here is irrefutable proof that Bart Sibrel is a liar, and not a very bright one.

Two television cameras will be carried aboard Apollo 11. A color camera of the type used on Apollo 10 will be stowed for use aboard the command module, and the black-and-white Apollo lunar television camera will be stowed in the LM descent stage for televising back to Earth a real-time record of man's first step onto the Moon.

history.nasa.gov...

Sibrel chose to omit some interesting footage from that movie camera. He also failed to consider that there could be other information available that would show how silly his "cutout" on the window claim is.
lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by ngchunter
Three things: you don't know anything about apollo hasselblads or you'd know that they were incapable of doing long exposures to capture stars. You also don't realize that it's impossible to hand hold a hassleblad still enough to capture point-like stars in a long exposure. Lastly, you don't realize that the mostly-full earth's brightness would result in a massive overexposure if you tried to capture stars in that photo.

You're not even seeing the right third of that photo which has been cropped. The earth is a small dot in the center that doesn't even comprise 1% of the picture. So there's enough of an exposure to distinctly capture a tiny earth in the center without blurring, but not enough to capture what must've been massively bright stars everywhere around it? Not even a single speck of light? Yeah, right -- I don't buy it.

And I notice you failed to comment on my main point. There are consecutive photos of the approach to the lunar surface taken immediately before and after this one, but the geological features, even the color, looks totally different. They don't even appear to be the same planet.

Originally posted by Phage
Sibrel chose to omit some interesting footage from that movie camera. He also failed to consider that there could be other information available that would show how silly his "cutout" on the window claim is.

When you can't refute the claims, attack the source. This isn't about Sibrel. It's about the Apollo 11 astronauts very plainly and obviously faking footage of the earth. All your pedantic links and vague accusations about "interesting footage" and "other information" won't change that fact. NASA screwed up big time when they accidentally released this footage:

reply to post by GoldenFleece

The Moon is a planet (a small one). Does the Earth look the same everywhere on its surface? When you look at the full moon is the whole surface the same?

The second photo is taken over Mare Fecunditatis, on the way toward the landing site.
www.lunarrepublic.com...
Mare are the smoother areas of the Moon (like Mare Tranquillitatis, where Apollo 11 landed)

The first photo is taken to the east of the second.

Note the difference in the terrain.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

The claims are easily refuted. The source is attacked when he demonstrably distorts the facts.

The video was not "accidentally leaked".

These transmissions are a test broadcast at GET 10:32 and the live footage seen on TV by millions at GET 33:59. However there is a second Test footage segment and NASA provids all three on the same tape. What happened to the Test Transmission at GET 30:29? Why has Sibrel not used it in either of his videos?

lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

You can find the "leaked" footage here.
www.amazon.com...


[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

The Moon is a planet (a small one). Does the Earth look the same everywhere on its surface? When you look at the full moon is the whole surface the same?

Does the earth look the same EVERYWHERE? No. Is the WHOLE lunar surface the same? No. But when two photos of a landing approach are taken within seconds of each other (you can tell by the planetary curvature in the background), I don't expect the two photos to look so radically different that it doesn't even look like the same planet.

This is my own observation, but it's just one of thousands of photographic anomalies, e.g. undisturbed sand and pebbles under the LEM's rocket engines, no rover tracks, multiple light sources, faked background composites, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention smoking-gun footage of Apollo 11 astronots faking shots of the earth, NASA's 13,000 "lost" tapes, etc., etc., etc.

Try as you might, there's just way too much to refute.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

The claims are easily refuted. The source is attacked when he demonstrably distorts the facts.

The video was not "accidentally leaked".

These transmissions are a test broadcast at GET 10:32 and the live footage seen on TV by millions at GET 33:59. However there is a second Test footage segment and NASA provids all three on the same tape.

Oh, I see -- it's just "test" footage of a "test" broadcast of "test" faked shots.

Yep, you've easily refuted the claims -- in a "test" sort of way.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
You're not even seeing the right third of that photo which has been cropped. The earth is a small dot in the center that doesn't even comprise 1% of the picture.

Doesn't matter. It's in the frame. If you increase the exposure to the 30 seconds it will take to capture stars, the earth will be dramatically overexposed to the point that you won't see a thing.

So there's enough of an exposure to distinctly capture a tiny earth in the center without blurring, but not enough to capture what must've been massively bright stars everywhere around it?

LMAO! Massively bright stars? Stars are never "massively bright" - the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT to visible light, they aren't any brighter from space!

Not even a single speck of light? Yeah, right -- I don't buy it.

That's because you're ignorant about basic photography and now that you've been informed of the truth you're willfully ignorant. Go read some very basic astrophotography primers and deny your own ignorance:
www.geocities.com...

And I notice you failed to comment on my main point.

That's because it was so silly it wasn't worth mentioning. This was at least something generally misunderstood by most.

There are consecutive photos of the approach to the lunar surface taken immediately before and after this one, but the geological features, even the color, looks totally different. They don't even appear to be the same planet.

No duh. They're in orbit so they're always moving. The moon looks dramatically different between highlands and maria. And yes, even the moon has changes in color from region to region:
apod.nasa.gov...


[edit on 26-3-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
But when two photos of a landing approach are taken within seconds of each other (you can tell by the planetary curvature in the background), I don't expect the two photos to look so radically different that it doesn't even look like the same planet.

LOL, I think I'll sim the landing again tonight just to prove to you how very quickly the terrain can change, but more importantly, the curvature doesn't tell you a darn thing if they're actively maintaining a constant attitude which they would be doing until late in the landing.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Does the earth look the same EVERYWHERE? No. Is the WHOLE lunar surface the same? No. But when two photos of a landing approach are taken within seconds of each other (you can tell by the planetary curvature in the background),

Just how does the curvature show this? As long as the photo is taken from the same altitude the curvature will be the same.

Unless you can provide the timestamps for the images there is no way to tell how far separated in time they are. The image I linked shows the clear distinction in the terrain which the LM covered on its approach to landing.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by ngchunter

Your arrogance and condescension is breath-taking. So you think stars don't appear any brighter from space without atmospheric ground pollution and industrial lighting, and it would take a 30-second exposure to capture stars on film, but I'm the one who's ignorant? I'm an Emmy award-winning photographer. What are your credentials, besides tireless defender of innumerable Apollo moon hoax anomalies?

Would you like to continue making your ridiculous claims that the 13,000 original tapes that NASA "lost" were really found and the only "lost" tapes were from Apollo 11?

Yesterday, I heard that NASA was planning a return to the moon "by 2020." So 40 years later, the GAO says every aspect of this new lunar program faces knowledge and technology gaps and even the original Apollo heat-shielding material can't be recreated? Something is seriously wrong. American taxpayers are being scammed big-time -- again.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


This picture was taken at 104,000 feet from a weather balloon launched by students doing an experiment. It used a regular digital camera with no special features. You can clearly see into space with it, but there are no stars. Why is that then? Did they fake it?

www.vpr.okstate.edu...
www.rocketeers.co.uk...
www.ineedashop.com...

This one is from 117,000 feet.
cache.gizmodo.com...

Here's one taken from the ground that should see stars but doesn't. Faked too?

www.ltu.se...!balloon_launch_esrange.jpg

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

This picture was taken at 104,000 feet from a weather balloon launched by students doing an experiment. It used a regular digital camera with no special features. You can clearly see into space with it, but there are no stars. Why is that then?

Uhhh, because it's only 104,000 feet instead of 250,000 miles and the earth takes up two-thirds of the photo instead of a dime-size marble that's

reply to post by GoldenFleece


So what you're saying is that pictures from earth orbit won't have stars, but pictures from the moon will? That makes no sense at all.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Uh, no, what I'm saying is there won't be stars in a photo taken during daylight from 100,000 feet, especially when the earth comprises two-thirds of the photo. Is that too difficult to understand?

I'm looking for a photo I took years ago of a friend in middle-of-nowhere rural Mexico. The stars were so bright, they were clearly visible in the background, even with automatic flash exposure metering at a distance of less than 10 feet. Anyone who claims it takes a 30-second exposure to capture stars or says it's not possible due to contrast ratio is being disingenuous.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


You just showed why there wouldn't be stars in the moon photos! The astronauts were on the moon during DAYLIGHT hours. The reflection from the moons surface was too bright to see stars on the light side of the moon.

reply to post by Zaphod58

But I never claimed stars should be seen from the lunar surface during daylight. I'm claiming stars should be seen in the photo posted above, taken in total DARKNESS.

Nice deflection.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


It's NOT "total darkness". It might be outside the capsule, but there are still light sources inside the capsule that can block the stars out. I can take a picture out my window of the night sky, and not get any stars in it, because of internal light sources. If the capsule had been totally blacked out then I MIGHT expect to see stars, but there was still too much light to see stars.