Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 4
105
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Field of view and focal length is limited by simple physics, perspective, and vantage point.

External Image




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by artistpoet
 


Van Allen belts have a hole at the poles, where it is very weak. The numbers the narrator gave are equivalent to 6 years in space, the Apollo missions were 2 weeks, a half an hour exiting the belts by way of the North Pole, the diagram in the video EVEN ILLUSTRATES THE VIODS!


what do the holes at the poles have to do with any thing. Apollo didn't take that course so how is what you said relevant at all?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
So far we have these possibilities:

1.The original "leak" is a fake. (seems not plausible, since debunkers seem to have taken the approach of using the same vid, instead of claiming it to be a fabrication)

2. The debunking videos are fake (the parts aimed at debunking the original vid, mostly)
Nasa or Hollywood could easily manipulate the footage with later adds attempting to "debunk" their original "mistakes".
This can be disproved by a certified copy of the complete, unedited original copy, with timestamps.

3. The OP vid is heavily edited, omitting the debunkable parts and adding features such as the "Talk" moment.
This seems like the most plausible at the moment.

4. The OP vid is infact all there is to the original leak, everything else in this thread is fabrications.
This seem highly unlikely.

So far im leaning to number 3 here. Heavily.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
The moon landings was a hoax because by now...

1) The elite would all be living on the moon in their lunar mansions. Leaving us peasants to try our best to survive in this crazy world whilst they blast us with scalar weapons everyday.
2) Mad scientists would be doing many wierd experiments using low gravity.
3) At least one moon crater would have been painted red with a giant yellow 'm' for McDonalds.

What has happened since the lunar landing. Nothing.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


OOh thanks for this! sorry I haven't watched it yet but I'm going to watch the full documentry!

I love the moon and I am facinated about the whole "did we go" argument.

just wanted to say thanks and S+F! look forward to it.


+47 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Disclaimer: I post as "Count Zero" on the ApolloHoax board (and used to on BAUT, before it went fascist).

Bart Sibrel's video argues that this television footage was made in low Earth orbit, rather than on the way to the Moon. The images of Earth, he claims, are either black cardboard with a round hole cut out, or a transparency. Note right there that these are mutually exclusive - If he doesn't know, then he is just guessing without evidence. In fact, there is evidence, but it doesn't support either of Sibrel's conjectures.

The website & videos Phage referenced show that the behavior of the Earth images is in no way consistent with something attached to the window itself. I looked at the content of the Earth images.

In the first day-and-a-half of the mission there were three live television transmissions from the Apollo 11 spacecraft, which showed the Earth out the _ At about the same time as each of these transmissions, the astronauts also photographed the Earth using a 70mm Hasselblad camera. These provide exceptionally high resolution images. Here are frame grabs from each of the three transmissions, with a photograph taken at about the same time for comparison.

Note that the cloud patterns match:


AS11-36-5341 (HR)


AS11-36-5366 (HR)


AS11-36-5373 (HR)

(Image courtesy of Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center.)

As you can readily see, the photographs show the whole planet with spherical shading rather than just a portion. In the hi-res versions you can see features - most of North America appears in all three images. Were these images prepared in advance and hung out the window to stage a hoax? This is a testable question. If this was an authentic transmission, and the TV transmission was going out live, and the hi-res photographs match the TV images, then the weather patterns visible in the photographs must match the local weather measured across the country at the time the images were taken.
So, do the weather patterns match?

Here is the precipitation map for the continental United States on July 17, 1969 (the date of the 2nd & 3rd transmissions):


Source: NOAA


Here is a cropped version of a hi-res scan of AS11-36-5373 showing North America:



The features I highlighted are:
A.) Summer monsoons over Arizona
B.) Rain over the Midwest
C.) Rain over western Canada
D.) A cold front moving down from Canada into the northcentral and northeastern US.
E.) Summer thunderstorms over the southeastern states
F.) A separate storm cell over southern Florida
G.) A separate storm system over the Texas gulf coast.

The features match. The photographs and the live video from the spacecraft were definitely taken on the afternoon of July 17, 1969 and both cameras were a long, long way from low Earth orbit.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Saint Exupery because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


I'm a bit suspicious if this isn't just mashed together clips at different times.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


You sir are a true journalist!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Rapha
 





3) At least one moon crater would have been painted red with a giant yellow 'm' for McDonalds.


Almost spit my coffee all over the keyboard thanks to this statement. Very true, and very, very funny my friend.

By now every major corporation in the world would have tried to find a way to exploit the Moon and any resources it may hold.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


It's fantastic to see extremely high standard and accurate research being produced as usual from fellow 'Apollo Believers' that the Apollo hoax crowd could only dream of. Well done sir!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


phage, isnt it so that radio transmissions from and to earth should be more paused by the traveltime of this broadcast, and shouldnt the transmission take longer to reach us/them the closer they get to the moon, im not seeing any longer delay time then when there are astronauts in earths orbit talking to us

if im wrong, then im sorry



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
reply to post by Rapha
 



3) At least one moon crater would have been painted red with a giant yellow 'm' for McDonalds.


Almost spit my coffee all over the keyboard thanks to this statement. Very true, and very, very funny my friend.


It may be funny, I agree, but it is not anything close to true.

How many McDonalds are there in Antarctica, or in the middle of the Sahara desert? What about the ocean floor? Is there one on top of Mt. Everest?

No, because all of these places are difficult to get to, dangerous to work in, and there are no customers to make the effort worthwhile.


By now every major corporation in the world would have tried to find a way to exploit the Moon and any resources it may hold.


What resources? You're putting the cart before the horse. What is on the Moon that would promote investment? California & Alaska are lovely, but people didn't start going there in large numbers until gold was discovered. Going to the Moon costs billions for each flight. If it was made of solid gold, it would not be profitable to fly there to mine it.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
reply to post by Rapha
 



3) At least one moon crater would have been painted red with a giant yellow 'm' for McDonalds.


Almost spit my coffee all over the keyboard thanks to this statement. Very true, and very, very funny my friend.


It may be funny, I agree, but it is not anything close to true.

How many McDonalds are there in Antarctica, or in the middle of the Sahara desert? What about the ocean floor? Is there one on top of Mt. Everest?

No, because all of these places are difficult to get to, dangerous to work in, and there are no customers to make the effort worthwhile.


They're not talking about building restaurants there, but having a giant advert in the sky that everyone around the world can see



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Thanks for clearing that up for the users who will refuse to listen to phage or watch the ENTIRE unedited clip. That said, this douche's movies are actually funny, as long as you understand that it's funny to see a man making up a bogus conspiracy that he doesn't even believe in himself, then going about trying to prove it.

I got them as a set. A funny thing happened on the way to the moon (the video the OP posted is from that) and Astronauts behaving badly (video of Buzz punching Bart is from that one). The latter is the best as these men who actually went to the moon aren't willing to take much of his crap. The interviews are heavily edited, but not enough, you can still get a feel for the prodding and inciting Bart does to get the reactions from the people being interviewed.

What I took from his first movie, and this scene specifically, was that he was saying they were in low earth orbit, making the earth fill the entire window, using a crescent insert to fake the shadow, and also having the camera far at the other end of the module while claiming it's right in the _

Of course, if you watch the entire clip you see there's nothing nefarious going on, but if you only watch the edited version, there are some things that seem suspicious, but only because they are taken out of context.

the images and video are legit, taken when and where they are claimed, which is easily proven by anyone interested in the TRUTH (as several posters here have shown including you)

As well, someone inevitably brought up Van Allen Belts. Well, lets see what Van Allen, you know, they guy who discovered them, has to say about this conspiracy that the belts would have killed anyone traveling through them:




"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen



The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts on the way to the Moon; however, exposure was minimized by following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the strongest areas of radiation.[18] The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be much less than the five (5) rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[19]

Source


The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[70] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[71] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[72] The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[73] At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.[74]

Source

I guess he was in on it too. and all those fake astronauts are really involved in making this seem legit, getting fake cataracts and all.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
yeah! i like the original post a lot ... makes it even more possible that our history concerning a lot of things is staged and fake! but why are they doing so, that is the interesting part and I assume we will get the answer when it is already too late to change or correct something ... great post! cheers!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I find it extremely hard to believe that Apollo 11 succeeded in reaching the moon. The only thing that makes me think they actually did reach the moon is this. It's pretty hard to argue with evidence like that, despite all the inconsistencies with the official data.


The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging retroreflector array could been sent up the moon without people, and it doesnt need to look like that in the picture its from the stuido


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Adyta
 
Amen to that. And not only does he take info from google but he actually has contacts in NASA and many of us knows that NASA isnt known for giving out the truth exactly. Just see some previous threads and you see hes close relations with NASA.
And people so believes everything he says..it gets me pissed sometimes, but to know that theres people like you sir, warms my heart




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Adyta
 


I don't think he's being an elitist prick, I think he is just usually right. He doesn't post unless he's reasonably sure he knows the correct answer or information. That is what make's his replies legit. Not saying I think he's infallible, but he's due his credit.

On a side note, I don't believe the moon landing was a hoax. Too many people worked on it for a hoax to be kept secret for so long.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


I like how they got the earth to scale down the size of North America in these shots.

It also looked neat by having the clouds to band north and south rather than east and west. That makes it look like the craft is turned on it's side relative to the picture.






top topics



 
105
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join