Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM

The Corona satellite took images using 70mm film on a panoramic camera. The camera then dropped this film in buckets, which were retrieved midair by government planes.

I stand corrected. However, those were spy satellites. And the images from those would have been zoomed in on specific targets and not of whole Earth images.

Maybe so, can you clarify what the point was?

You could also take the time to read it.

edit on 9-5-2011 by jra because: fixed tag

However? Whats the point of saying however?
Are you suggesting that what I provided was the only example of high resolution imagery from space?
That was my second example by the way.

Do you realize that to this day most information regarding satellite imagery is classified?

Very interesting that you can believe that man landed on the moon, but would have difficulty taking high res pictures of a whole Earth. And thats why I asked you the question, do you think they had to send humans up into space for that to happen?

Originally posted by weedwhacker


The above quote is yet another oblique and veiled reference to the often-used meme of "hoaxers".....the "Stanley Kubrick" claim of so-called Apollo footage "fakery".

What complete nonsense. Anyone with at least three neurons to rub together knows this, yet for some reason there is inevitably the same inane claim made....and, for some reason a few actually fall for it. Enough.

Speaking of Kubrick.

Like Hoagland, here is a guy who thinks NASA landed men on the moon, but that the videos and photos that were presented to the public were faked with the help of Stan Kubrick. I have yet to understand the reasoning of people who think this, but ok, he just made a documentary, which I recently watched. He brings up some interesting information but basically part one is a summary of his articles., but I must say, he needed to source his evidence better though.

Here is a trailer:

In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Originally posted by FoosM
However? Whats the point of saying however?

... Because what you linked to was a spy satellite and it would not have taken whole Earth images or even weather patterns of specific regions. I thought what I wrote was rather clear.

Are you suggesting that what I provided was the only example of high resolution imagery from space?

No. I suggested no such thing.

Very interesting that you can believe that man landed on the moon, but would have difficulty taking high res pictures of a whole Earth. And thats why I asked you the question, do you think they had to send humans up into space for that to happen?

When did I ever say they would have difficulty taking high resolution images? I merely stated that I didn't know of any satellite capable of doing that. Most satellite imagery of that time would not be as high resolution as the 70mm film.

One of the main points in that thread I linked to was to show that the cloud patterns on Earth, in the Apollo photos, matched those from Earth orbiting satellites that took images at around the same time as the various missions. Again, I suggest you read through that thread.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
However? Whats the point of saying however?

... Because what you linked to was a spy satellite and it would not have taken whole Earth images or even weather patterns of specific regions. I thought what I wrote was rather clear.

Are you suggesting that what I provided was the only example of high resolution imagery from space?

No. I suggested no such thing.

So then why are you concerned about the Spy Satellite example which only was an answer to your question of satellites not taking 70mm photography, than to my previous post showing that the USSR and US were taking high definition photos of the Earth prior to Apollo 8?

Very interesting that you can believe that man landed on the moon, but would have difficulty taking high res pictures of a whole Earth. And thats why I asked you the question, do you think they had to send humans up into space for that to happen?

When did I ever say they would have difficulty taking high resolution images? I merely stated that I didn't know of any satellite capable of doing that. Most satellite imagery of that time would not be as high resolution as the 70mm film.

How do you know that? I just said many images from satellites at that time are still classified.
You have no idea what they did back in the 60's and 70's during the Cold War. You had both, DoD & Intelligence sending up satellites. Not to mention NASA sent moon probes prior to Apollo.

And even if they weren't capable of doing that.
Have you considered that full Earth photos could also have been stitched together from low flying satellites?

One of the main points in that thread I linked to was to show that the cloud patterns on Earth, in the Apollo photos, matched those from Earth orbiting satellites that took images at around the same time as the various missions. Again, I suggest you read through that thread.

What makes you think I didnt read the thread?
Their main point is that because satellite images matches Apollo images that proves Apollo happened.

This really provides what may be the last nail for the whole moon hoax issue. It has become almost impossible now for anyone to bring up the hoax without a response being found on this forum. The moon hoax is now only in the domain of the "conspiratorially aware" and those of similar persuasions.

Are you saying that because two sets of images of Earth matches each other means that we sent men to the moon?

It was impossible to outfit a satellite with a 70mm camera and sent it do a high enough orbit to take photos? But of course, why do that when you had, for example, ATS weather satellites!

1966

ATS-1 was the first satellite to use frequency division multiple access (FDMA) taking independently uplinked signals and converting them for downlink on a single carrier. This conserves uplink spectrum and also provides efficient power utilization on the downlink. ATS-1 also carried a black-and-white weather camera which transmitted the first full-disk Earth images from GEO.

and then we had 1967:

ATS-3
The objectives of the ATS-3 satellite was to develop the experimental geostationary techniques of satellite orbit and motion, measure the orbital environment at 23,000 miles above the Earth's surface, and transmit meteorological information (imagery and data) to surface ground stations...
Three meteorological experiments were on board. One was a spin scan cloud camera which provided continuous, full-disk hemispheric images of the Sun-lit Earth every half hour. This camera was modified to produce color images...
with ATS-1 on December 1, 1978. Of the satellite's 11-year life span, useful data was received for the first 8 (1967-1975).

Perfect timing for Apollo, lol.

A planned seventh satellite (ATS-G) was canceled due to budget cuts in early 1973, and NASA directed Fairchild Industries to mothball the spacecraft.

Just like Apollo 18 & 19






www.nasa.gov...
science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM

So then why are you concerned about the Spy Satellite example which only was an answer to your question of satellites not taking 70mm photography, than to my previous post showing that the USSR and US were taking high definition photos of the Earth prior to Apollo 8?

So what you're saying is that you don't believe the US had the technology to send men to the Moon, but they did have the technology to send a satellite thousands of kilometers into space to take 70 mm photos of the entire Earth, then snag it in mid-air when it re-entered.

And even if they weren't capable of doing that.
Have you considered that full Earth photos could also have been stitched together from low flying satellites?

Ah, I see. Now you've set yourself another goal: analyze all the Apollo Earth photographs and show how they were stitched together. You can start on that right after you've found a star trail photograph showing one of the Apollo craft still lurking in near Earth orbit when it should have been on its way to the Moon.

Originally posted by FoosM
However? Whats the point of saying however?

Quoted: FoosM makes a federal case out of word choice.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yeah.....horrible script, so derivative....."unobtanium"??? What a stupid name....sheesh!

Actually, it's quite appropriate. It's an engineering term, not just a joke.
en.wikipedia.org...

Didn't know that, thanks..

Veddy veddy interesting....

Since the late 1950s,[1][2] aerospace engineers have used the term "unobtainium" when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects, except that it does not exist. By the 1990s, the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]."[3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined in the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry. Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.

I can imagine it was used extensively during the "Space race".

I like how you try and turn a minor off-topic digression about an imaginary substance used in an film named after a synthetic blue cat-person into some sort of non-point supporting the claim that the moon landings were hoaxed.

You'll latch onto anything, wontcha?

Originally posted by DJW001

So what you're saying is that you don't believe the US had the technology to send men to the Moon, but they did have the technology to send a satellite thousands of kilometers into space to take 70 mm photos of the entire Earth, then snag it in mid-air when it re-entered.

I dont exactly know where you see the problem.
The Soviets took pictures of the full Earth. But they didnt send men on the moon... unless... you think the Soviets had technology to land men on the moon too right? Who knows, maybe you think they landed men secretly?

And even if they weren't capable of doing that.
Have you considered that full Earth photos could also have been stitched together from low flying satellites?

Ah, I see. Now you've set yourself another goal: analyze all the Apollo Earth photographs and show how they were stitched together. You can start on that right after you've found a star trail photograph showing one of the Apollo craft still lurking in near Earth orbit when it should have been on its way to the Moon.

No not really, I just offered an option.

For example, can you see the stitching? :

This spectacular “blue marble” image is the most detailed true-color image of the entire Earth to date. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public. This record includes preview images and links to full resolution versions up to 21,600 pixels across.

visibleearth.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by 000063

I can imagine it was used extensively during the "Space race".

I like how you try and turn a minor off-topic digression about an imaginary substance used in an film named after a synthetic blue cat-person into some sort of non-point supporting the claim that the moon landings were hoaxed.


Thanks.

But do you got anything important to add to the discussion?
Found any irrefutable evidence supporting the moon landing?
I doubt it.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

I can imagine it was used extensively during the "Space race".

I like how you try and turn a minor off-topic digression about an imaginary substance used in an film named after a synthetic blue cat-person into some sort of non-point supporting the claim that the moon landings were hoaxed.

Thanks.

But do you got anything important to add to the discussion?
Found any irrefutable evidence supporting the moon landing?
I doubt it. You mean stuff you won't ignore or distort? I doubt it as well.

Originally posted by FoosM

Speaking of Kubrick.

And Jay Weidner recently stated (March 6) in a Red Ice Radio interview that his new documentary on Kubrik's filmography ... in Jay's own words here "devastating evidence" about the front screen projection used in the Apollo film record.

www.redicecreations.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by backinblack
Seen Avatar weed??

Yeah.....horrible script, so derivative....."unobtanium"??? What a stupid name....sheesh!

Oh.....and that film or ANY HOLLYWOOD film???

Ever heard of editing??

Ever actually SEEN how a film is really produced??

When you go to the cinema, to see the "finished product" you have NO IDEA of the craft behind it.....apparently.

THAT is just one of the many, many reasons that the Apollo footage COULD NOT BE FAKED!!!

(no "cuts").....no editing......

Weed... it's gonna be ok. Ok?

We're here to help you understand the reality that Apollo was really.....

...a HOLLYWOOD MOVIE!!!!!!!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Jay Weidner and his "redice" interview....both full of crap. He is in the same crackpot category as Hoaglund. Just look at the things he "believes" in!! He's so far gone into paranoid delusion land, he even thinks that Kubrick was murdered! That's nuttier than squirrel poop...



Weidner is yet another of your sort of RAPIDLY diminishing "hoax-nuts"....desperately clinging to the same old thoroughly discredited scripts....

Did you know that there is word that one particularly (past) idiotic User on YouTube finally learned how wrong he was, all this time? Just saw a recent vid, where it is referenced.....from April, 2011.

NOW......before you embarrass yourself any further, would you please explain HOW the Apollo equipment, and the LM descent stage are on the Moon, IF the whole thing was "faked"?

The photos (many) are irrefutable. And, there will be more and more, in years to come.

The mind reels at the realization that one's deeply-held religious beliefs have been wrong, for so long. But, like others who have successfully shrugged off the mind control of hoaxers (ex-mormons, "recovering" catholics, etc) it can be done.......

reply to post by weedwhacker

The photos (many) are irrefutable. And, there will be more and more, in years to come.

So we know they may have got some equipment up there..
I'll wait for the more you speak of before calling it irrefutable thanks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Jay Weidner and his "redice" interview....both full of crap. He is in the same crackpot category as Hoaglund. Just look at the things he "believes" in!! He's so far gone into paranoid delusion land, he even thinks that Kubrick was murdered! That's nuttier than squirrel poop...



Weidner is yet another of your sort of RAPIDLY diminishing "hoax-nuts"....desperately clinging to the same old thoroughly discredited scripts....

Did you know that there is word that one particularly (past) idiotic User on YouTube finally learned how wrong he was, all this time? Just saw a recent vid, where it is referenced.....from April, 2011.

NOW......before you embarrass yourself any further, would you please explain HOW the Apollo equipment, and the LM descent stage are on the Moon, IF the whole thing was "faked"?

The photos (many) are irrefutable. And, there will be more and more, in years to come.

The mind reels at the realization that one's deeply-held religious beliefs have been wrong, for so long. But, like others who have successfully shrugged off the mind control of hoaxers (ex-mormons, "recovering" catholics, etc) it can be done.......

edit on 11 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

It took 38 years for the truth to be revealed about Gulf of Tonkin.

Weed the Apollo defender - your mind is reeling at the possibility that you are the one with deeply-held Church of NASA beliefs for your TV GOD APOLLO and the 12 Apostles of Luna.

Apollo was a TV show (or a movie, whichever) in other words it was : Cold War Propaganda.

The Apollo Defenders have been SILENCED!

Jarrah White has been accused of fraud in this thread. The definition of fraud one may review at Wiki en.wikipedia.org...

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain or of damaging or depriving the victim.

Jarrah White has been accused of hoaxing in this thread. The definition of hoax one may review at Wiki
en.wikipedia.org...

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,[1] or rumors and urban legends that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes. The essential characteristic of a hoax is that it convey information that is, although false, at least somewhat credible. The subjective intent of hoax perpetrators varies, with the intent determining the content the perpetrator chooses and/or the content affecting the perpetrator's intent regarding whom to deceive:

Jarrah White has been accused of telling lies in this thread. The more accurate word is 'prevaricate'. One may review the definition of prevaricate here
www.thefreedictionary.com...

prevarication
noun evasion, lies, deception, pretence, deceit, quibbling, misrepresentation, falsehood, untruth, falsification, equivocation, cavilling.

These claims against Jarrah White remain unproven in this thread after 450 pages.

The great characteristics of Jarrah White is that he goes directly to the source material ....

He owns multiple copies of books that were ghost written for astronauts and he reads them ....
He has the source material to back up his claims years before the haters in this thread found out ....
He spent money on the lunar regolith "simulated" material and performed the experiment on video ....
He went to the Buzz Aldrin media event and asked him a pointed question about moon rocks .... and Buzz Aldrin is now on the video record with his response ....
He produces detailed videos of Apollo anomalies that are a skillful synopsis of all the Apollo anomalies ....
He attended the conference in which Phil Plait desperately declared "Bring It On!" whereafter Phil Plait doesn't stand true to his bravado statements ....

450 pages of Apollo apologies. 450 pages of Apollo denial. There are only a small handful of NASA drones in this thread but they have made such an awful stink here ..... 450 pages of it in fact.

Jarrah White is merely the genius who has skillfully collected all of the Apollo anomalies into a single channel. That's why he is hated by the Apollo defenders.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9529dc8cfaf3.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,

No shield?! I didn't hear Jarrah say anything about the dose the astronauts would get if they weren't shielded, did you? In order to prove his "radiation argument," Jarrah had to calculate the dose they would have received if they were floating in the radiation belts stark raving naked! If they were floating up there naked, they would have much more pressing concerns than radiation. Hm, perhaps this was an honest mistake... after all the table Jarrah showed us didn't mention that the readings were for an unshielded craft. The problem is, this paper by Frantiszek Spurny contains a second table, identical in format to the first:


This table shows the dosage received inside a spacecraft with "shields," ie, "walls" one millimeter thick! It is obvious that both tables come from Kovalev's original paper. If Jarrah had the original paper in his possession and has actually read it as he would have us believe, he consciously chose to suppress the table showing the dosages in a spacecraft with much thinner walls than the Apollo. Why? Let's repeat Jarrah's calculations using this data:

390 rem/day = 16.25 rem/ hour

Using Professor Van Allen's estimate of two hours out and two hours back gives us a total dosage of 65 rem, well below the dreaded LD50 of 450 rem. Now bear in mind that, contrary to Jarrah's repeated insinuations, the CSM had walls much thicker than 1mm. More like 1.25 centimeters, ten times the thickness of the shielding in the table, reducing the dosage by a factor of ten, yielding a total exposure of 6.5 rem. This is very close to the 1% guesstimate that Professor Van Allen made in the e-mail Jarrah cites. The actual exposure would have been much less because we assumed that the maximum value extended throughout the radiation belts....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b5bf3ab094a.jpg[/atsimg]

Returning to the issue at hand, I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false. I submit that Jarrah White's "MoonFaker" videos are by any reasonable definition a HOAX, and humbly suggest that this thread be moved to the proper forum.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah White has been accused of telling lies in this thread. The more accurate word is 'prevaricate'.

No, Sayanara, FoosM prevaricates; Jarrah White full on lies
The "polar orbit" lie.

The "expert" lie.

The "ham radio" lie.

These claims against Jarrah White remain unproven in this thread after 450 pages.

Which thread have you been reading?

By the way, I'm sorry if I haven't been paying much attention to this thread lately; it always seems to be the same stupid games over and over again and the topic is of little importance. Right now I have my hands full trying to convince people that a comet isn't going to destroy the world. I will be starting a thread that exposes the hoax and the frauds behind it when I've finished a bit more research. It's going to be fun... I name names and everything. There's even a mug shot and rap sheet on AstrolPatriot!

Originally posted by MasterToker42088
It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Do you think every ham radio operator was in on the conspiracy ?

The kid is a joke. The people, who believe we didnt land on the moon, are a joke. Accept it move on and be happy, that man has landed on another planet.

Of course the hams were in on the conspiracy, just as the amateur astronomers are hiding the truth about comet Elenin, lol

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FoosM

Speaking of Kubrick.

And Jay Weidner recently stated (March 6) in a Red Ice Radio interview that his new documentary on Kubrik's filmography ... in Jay's own words here "devastating evidence" about the front screen projection used in the Apollo film record.

www.redicecreations.com...

edit on 5/11/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/11/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

LIke I said, I watched the movie, and Jay tells a good story.
However, Jay does make many assumptions, for example:

DoD was impressed by Kubricks ability to replicate the bomber in Dr. Strangelove in great detail to the real thing.
pay close to attention to the style of the shots in the cockpit of the bomber:

to


As proof its neither here nor there.

Of course Jay goes into how Kubrick managed to produce the landscapes that we see in Apollo footage. Using special effects what he learned from 2001. Of course here is where Apollogists will claim that 2001 and Apollo footage look nothing alike. Of course not! They serve different purposes! 2001 also does not look like Barry Lyndon.

And of course the number of references in The Shining to the space programs is incredible.
I mean, why would Kubrick put this information in there if he wasn't trying to say something about Apollo?

Dark Side of the Moon is more interesting, because it seems to basically tell the truth about Kubrick being involved, yet... its called a mockumentary. I wonder where are the lies?

The tone of the documentary begins with low key revelations of NASA working closely with Hollywood at the time of the Moon landings. Over the course of the tale, Karel postulates that not only did Kubrick help the USA fake the moon landings but that he was eventually killed by the CIA to cover up the truth. First hand testimony backing these claims come from Rumsfeld and Dr. Kissinger seems to lend credence to the story.The very fact that they were able to get a member of Mr Kubrick's family to be in this spoof film and cover up mocker of the truth is important to show the fear of the NASA conspirators of the truth ever getting out so they made this hack film. The truth that is feared is that, indeed, Stanley Kubrick was the design and film/photographer genius for many of the moon landing films of NASA and still images of NASA astronauts on the moon. What an amazing tour de force, Kubrick hid the truth of his NASA Moon Landing conspiracy involvement to Lie to the World his entire Life but left clues to his work with NASA//Apollo in a 1980 film : The Shining. see Jay Weidner film maker and Researcher for more information on the truth...the information has only been out about one year since 2010 and not many even now are aware of Weidner's research findings...thanks to the cover up by NASA and the ufo cover up criminals inside the US Secret Govt, a section not even the US Congress is aware of. Huge amounts of USA taxpayers money goes to CIA black ops and secret projects to fund these types of activities, and some are needed for national security but the NASA actions in faking Moon films and photos is a serious offense to the people of the world and the American People and the managers of NASA must be held to account for these crimes. Blondeignore (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

reply to post by FoosM

Dark Side of the Moon is more interesting, because it seems to basically tell the truth about Kubrick being involved, yet... its called a mockumentary. I wonder where are the lies?

"....where are the lies?" For most of this thread, coming in YOUR posts.


Oh, you meant in that mockumentary....FoosM the PROOF is everywhere. You are getting desperate, now, if you just keep spewing your own lies, over and over.

Hence, in recent years, the fake or mock-documentary--better known in the abridged form of mockumentary--has become increasingly popular and recognized as a genre in its own right. Presenting fiction as fact, or at least to some extent appropriating classical documentary techniques such as the Classic Objective Argument, and traditional documentary observational techniques including hand-held camerawork as well as characters' direct address, in recent years there has been a growing sense of the codification and conventionalization of these (often made-for-tv) fakes.

goliath.ecnext.com...

This mockumentary film by William Karel has interviews with Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, and Donald Rumsfeld. There are actors making strange assertions and then short clips of these famous men commenting out of context. The film tells the tale of how Stanley Kubrik was involved in a vast government conspiracy regarding the moon landings. It is quite entertaining.

thepiratebay.org...(William_Karel_mockumentary)

"What really made me think that something is really odd was when an interviewed nutjob started talking about how there is no wind on the moon and the flag and all that… without anyone opposing that view. Then I knew that this must be a really badly researched documentary, or something like that…

I didn't realize that it was a mockumentary, however (in fact, I didn't even realize such a thing existed), and I really did buy into the idea that Stanley Kubrick had been involved in making that video recording. When they started talking about assassinating everyone who was present when it was shot, however, that just got too weird...."

bulletins.iwantabro.com...


FAIL, FoosM


You are exposed, yet again. Over and over and over.....