Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

Originally posted by Vitruvian
There are several other questions you might want to ask yourselves.

Why is there no (apparant) input on the part of NASA in the planning of a second version of Chandrayaan named Chandrayaan 2.

Did they ask? Have they asked? Can you show where they have and NASA refused?

Is NASA unwilling to share with the Indians (and the Russians) the wealth of technological/logistical information gained from their enormously successful Apollo flights to the moon ?

Speculation on your part? Can you show where they have refused to to do this?

Why is there Russian collaboration with the Indians but no American involvement?

Lack of funds? NASA was planning it's own manned moon missions until it was nixed by president Obama. NASA has since had it's budget reduced even further. Involvement often involves money.

Why is it merely a "hardware" hi tech mission..........after all wouldn't NASA have been cooperative with a friendly government in the sharing of vital information towards a successful mission? In other words - ALL the necessary information is already there for a MANNED flight - right? So why not?

Manned space flight is overall more expensive than unmanned probes. Space craft is larger, more fuel for lift for much heavier payload and a life support system.
All information is there, correct. Again: where is your proof that it's not being shared?

Why was Chandrayaan I incapable of mapping HR images of the Apollo landing site that would have conclusively put the matter to rest?

It carried a CCD camera with a resolution of 5m/pixel. In order to obtain even higher resolution pictures than it did, would have required it to pass over the landing sites much, much lower than it could sustain without crashing. India had much more important things for their probe to do (a probe that cost them about $90 million). The probe also had payloads on board that belonged to other organizations (UK, ESA, etc). Putting it at risk to try and get pictures of landing sites to prove to a small minority of people that the US landed there in the 60's was not high up on their list.

Will the new mapping planned by Chandrayaan II be capable of such HR imaging - if so will they take the pictures - or has NASA claimed the site off limits from above and well as on the moonground?

The distance limitations that NASA asked to help preserve the landing sites would in no way keep HR cameras from getting detailed pictures. As to whether or not India is planning on doing that, I suggest you ask them.

Interesting twist from Apollo 15 to Chandrayaan.

en.wikipedia.org...

And with Chandrayaan we also have to look at Stewart Nozette.

This is basic conspiracy research.

Nozette worked as a technical consultant for Israel Aerospace Industries between 1998 and 2008. After he left the government job, Nozette was heavily involved in India's extraterrestrial Moon probe, Chandrayaan-1. He was a principal investigator of the Mini-RF instrument on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and a co-investigator on Chandrayaan-1. Source en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

And with Chandrayaan we also have to look at Stewart Nozette.

Spell it out for us, please. Random factoids do not a conspiracy make.

reply to post by Vitruvian

Green Screen is a figure of speech here

I have mentioned previously that when I say/write "green screen", this is a figure of speech. By "green screen" I mean perhaps this was done by way of some type of layering or other image isolation method where components of the total field of view can be added/subtracted/moved, independently of others. For me, thinking of green screening in literal terms was/ is a good way to simply get going, to begin to think how they may have done something like this, as with a sheet/layer(for example literal green screening). But there of course are other techniques to consider that they may have employed, something more "complex" than simple green screening where isolated objects such as Scott, outside the context of his being part of a layer, may be manipulated, added, subtracted, moved, with respect to the "background".

The stuff is obviously fake, and it is important for us to deconstruct it. It is one of the tougher tasks which we face. Certainly for myself Vitruvian, being a physician, the low lying fruit for me is picking apart the phony stories the astronaut malingerers tell about their bogus illnesses.

Thank you for your assessment/analysis, will be sure to give it a look over and see what I think, might be able to add.

reply to post by decisively

Green Screen is a figure of speech here

"Figures of speech" are all you have. You use walls of words to distract from your lack of substantive thought. You refuse to debate me because you do not believe the rubbish you post. If you did, it would not matter how "rude" I was to you, you would positively drool at the chance to cut me to ribbons logically. You are nothing more than an insecure poseur.

reply to post by decisively


figure of speech?? why are you saying the green screen is a figure of speech now??

originally posted by decisively
He would have been shot with nothing but GREEN behind him and then when layered, the only thing one would see from that filming would be Scott, the green having been subtracted out.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this layering technique requires the use of a green screen.. why are you even trying to weasle out of saying they used a green screen???

is it because a hoax believer doesnt believe they used a green screen where you said they used one? using ambiguity to save yourself

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Green Screen is a figure of speech here

I have mentioned previously that when I say/write "green screen", this is a figure of speech.

Everything you say is a figure of speech then none can take your claims seriously when you
keep changing your mind...

Define dementia for us

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Green Screen is a figure of speech here

I have mentioned previously that when I say/write "green screen", this is a figure of speech".

The stuff is obviously fake, and it is important for us to deconstruct it.

Get to it then and stop spilling unwanted chakra's all over my favourite site with
Figures of speeches

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by decisively

 

is it because a hoax believer doesnt believe they used a green screen where you said they used one? using ambiguity to save yourself

Proof he dosen't believe his own mantra regarding his premise
Well done choos good find. Since the doctor is off duty perhaps he can be so kind as to provide the evidence
Instead of wiggling out of it like a wiggling worm does when cornered with the truth..

For the sake of clarity I am "bumping" the post I made that stated that the use of the so-called "Green Screen" technique as contended by "decisively" was improbable with respect to the video news conference involving the three astronauts - Dave Scott, Al Worden and Jim Irwin who also appear in that order in the video L to R.

As you re-read "decisively's" comments (below) as to the possible use of a "green screen" please note that he states it in terms of a probability, but not as an absolute. He goes on to say that IF a "green screen" had been used then this is the way they would have done it etc etc.

All I was trying to accomplish in my analysis of the video was to say that a "green screen" probably wasn't used without refuting the notion of fakery in NASA’s portrayal of the astronauts during the interview, AND my examination might also preclude the notion of “layering” of any kind having been employed.

As I examined the video more closely I could see that Scott's movements in relation to the others in the scene appeared to be separated from his companions – as though he were on another plane, so to speak. He isn't interacting with them in a natural manner, and the separation looks and feels "physical" and not merely due to the fact that he's emotionally detached from his comrades. Scott’s “floating” movements surely appear faked, which then gives the appearance of the entire scene having been FAKED, regardless of the facts of no "green screen" or layering having been used.

Originally posted by Vitruvian
FROM HERE - second vid in the post -------> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by decisively

The Apollo 15 In Flight Press Conference

1) Only Scott Bobs around like he is in outer space. Obviously they are trying to "fool" us into thinking that this is a genuine space mission by having Scott float up and down as you see him doing there. Worden and Irwin are sort of painted on there, glued if you will, to the CM backdrop. Bit of an exaggeration, but not much. This is an example of a "weightless scene" which we may have "figured out". Keep in mind, all weightless scenes were NOT done the same way. This one more likely than not employed a layering technique, like green screening or something similar. Scott is the overlay. He would have been shot with nothing but GREEN behind him and then when layered, the only thing one would see from that filming would be Scott, the green having been subtracted out.

The Gif is in the Extenal link below............
RE: Apollo 15 In Flight Press conference part Two www.youtube.com...

I copied the vid into V Downloader and I also opened it for viewing in Virtual Dub so as to
examine it very closely. At frame 2:41 or so Worden goes for his nose. In doing so so as his hand comes down he momentarily rests it on an upright object in front of all of them. As he’s doing that it appears as though his hand brushes against the pocket of Scott’s left arm. Here is a Gif of that incident.

Code for forums for the Gif - GIFSoup

Direct link for the Gif gifsoup.com...

In Virtual Dub I slid the cursor bar rapidly back and forth and the fakery of Scott’s “floating” antics become quite apparent. Its possible that he’s merely ‘jumping’ up and down from a seated position OR there is a device under the seat that accomplishes the up and down motion.

The fact that Worden’s hand goes between the vertical object and Scott’s arm leads me to believe that there is not a green screen involved. BUT it’s still a faked scene in spite of that fact. They are deliberately creating an illusion of him floating.

reply to post by Vitruvian


His collegue wipes a bogie on scotts sleeve when he was not looking, a classic.
He was not emotionally attached, as he did not see that crafty bogie placement .
No fraud there

reply to post by denver22


denver22 I wish you could begin to compete properly in this thread. But what you continue to do is fight this losing battle. You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.

In Jim Irwin's 1991 video (see my OP) you can see this man four months before he died. Jim's slickly rehearsed NASA script is nearly an exact replay of the staged TV news conference on the Apollo 15 video that was posted by decisively. (The A15 video at 270:21 MET has become a major point of agitation in the Apollo narrative.)

Watching Jim's 1991 video, and with great sympathy for Irwin, who had been doing the same presentation for years, it's possible to catch a glimpse of what the man was really about. He's a preacher. He makes you want to believe, that he believes what he's talking about is true, so you end up believing what he says. When I watched the video I truly wanted to believe every word he said.

One of the best parts of Irwin's 1991 video is when he is handed the green sheet of paper with the superior articulate questions. When Jim get's tired of answering such well written queries he majestically goes to the children, to answer the simple questions of the children and to comfort them in their childish ignorance.

Jim Irwin has C I A connections without a doubt via the "cover job" at Howard Hughes working on secret space planes. I believe that Jim Irwin was brainwashed by the C I A. The details of his plane crash have been covered extensively IN THIS THREAD by ATS decisively.

The details of Jim Irwin's memory loss and use of hypnosis have yet to be covered sufficiently in this thread. I noticed in the 1991 video that Jim doesn't walk with any kind of limp. For a man his age, with a history of his injuries, I might expect him to walk with some kind of impediment. But he walks with ease and his gait is completely normal to my untrained eyes.

I'm looking for some substance from you, denver22. Are you ready to compete at this level? Should you hit the SCE to AUX button to get your main A/ B busses back online? Or should you hit ABORT and fail the mission?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

And with Chandrayaan we also have to look at Stewart Nozette.

Spell it out for us, please. Random factoids do not a conspiracy make.

Random factoids are the bloody heart of conspiracies, mate. Thought you'd have that figured out by now.

Chandrayaan had US Navy gear on it. Stewart Nozette was the NASA guy who went to India to oversee the gear. Stewart Nozette was also caught on video trying to make a deal with FBI agents posing as Israeli intelligence agents.

Discoveries by Chandrayaan do not automagically infer that India confirmed the Apollo program.

reply to post by Vitruvian

Thanks Vitruvian, obviously a scholar you are, and hopefully, a new friend

You accomplished a great deal with your thoughtful analysis. I'll be looking into the points you've made. I appreciate how respectful you were in your post, carefully noting the specifics of my language, carefully noting my choice of words.

We can use your help brother Vitruvian. There is much at stake here, so very very much.

Best to you.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Chandrayaan had US Navy gear on it. Stewart Nozette was the NASA guy who went to India to oversee the gear. Stewart Nozette was also caught on video trying to make a deal with FBI agents posing as Israeli intelligence agents.

Therefore Nozette had no dirt to plea bargain with.

reply to post by decisively

We can use your help brother Vitruvian. There is much at stake here, so very very much.

Yes. Someone needs to have the courage to meet me in the Debate Forum. Decisively has weaseled out twice now. Some patriot. Sayanara is afraid, too. I propose that anyone who debates me properly be crowned "King of the Apollo Truth Movement."

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Firstly sayonara i have competed at this level, secondly for once i will agree i haven't for this thread..
I hold my hands up i am tired etc makes me more of a man than you lot,because you never admit
when you are in the wrong so i am better than 10 of you guys..

I noticed in the 1991 video that Jim doesn't walk with any kind of limp. For a man his age,
with a history of his injuries, I might expect him to walk with some kind of impediment.But he walks with ease and his gait is completely normal to my untrained eyes.

I had a car accident smashed my tibia and fibia and needed external bar fittings screwed
into the bonesTo hold them together etc.20yrs down the line and i walk fine...
So what you are saying is not constituting proof of fraudulence in the sense of faith healing.
sorry but that's how i see it.

One of the best parts of Irwin's 1991 video is when he is handed the green sheet of paper with the superior articulate questions. When Jim get's tired of answering such well written queries he majestically goes to the children, to answer the simple questions of the children and to comfort them in their childish ignorance.

Why do you see that as proof is beyond me but then again you yourself say it best
"he gets tired of answering the same questions" i would get tired as well so what ?
That is pure speculation so far ...

I believe that Jim Irwin was brainwashed by the C I A.

Can you prove it sayonara can you? on this level ..

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by denver22

 

denver22 I wish you could begin to compete properly in this thread. But what you continue to do is fight this losing battle. You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.

Sure, i will make this one count.So here goes, your right hand
man gets caught lying and here is the proof to add to choos find..

Green Screen is a figure of speech here

I have mentioned previously that when I say/write "green screen", this is a figure of speech

really why did you say this then doc

David Scott is green screened in

I have caught your glorious leader out! and showed just how much a lying perp he is on this
thread quite a few times already.This is what i do as well as contribute when i need to.
That is my job, and i am good at it.I did my job, and have shown everyone his lies .
I would say, that is contributing to the thread sayonara.I can tolerate you as at least
you reply, ill give you that! but only sometimes that is.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

All I was trying to accomplish in my analysis of the video was to say that a "green screen" probably wasn't used without refuting the notion of fakery in NASA’s portrayal of the astronauts during the interview, AND my examination might also preclude the notion of “layering” of any kind having been employed.

The idea of any layering or green screening, as decisively likes to call it, being used was proven to be false in part one of his four part video as shown here: Above Top Secret. Scott's entrance into the scene and his position change in relation to to the device sets up the coup. First Scott is in front of both the device and Worden, then the device is in front of him after he enters. Worden then interacts with the device and his hand not only casts a shadow on Scott's sleeve, but Worden's hand actually goes in front of Scott's arm showing that Scott is in the scene with Worden and Irvin.

As I examined the video more closely I could see that Scott's movements in relation to the others in the scene appeared to be separated from his companions – as though he were on another plane, so to speak. He isn't interacting with them in a natural manner, and the separation looks and feels "physical" and not merely due to the fact that he's emotionally detached from his comrades. Scott’s “floating” movements surely appear faked, which then gives the appearance of the entire scene having been FAKED, regardless of the facts of no "green screen" or layering having been used.

I don't understand what sliding the time indicator has anything to do with determining whether Scott, or any of them is in a weightless environment or not. However, Scott's horizontal entrance into the scene carries a lot of weight (pun intended) in showing a weightless environment.



Screen grabs from: Above Top Secret video part one.

reply to post by denver22

I have caught your glorious leader out!

Whoa man. You are delusional.

The thread is titled Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

DO NOT DISCUSS OTHER POSTERS IN MY THREAD

This is what i do as well as contribute when i need to.
That is my job, and i am good at it.I did my job, and have shown everyone his lies .
I would say, that is contributing to the thread sayonara.

No. What you have done is wasted my time again and again by gossipping in various Apollo threads 99% of the time. You tried to focus on "green screen" but you have yet to acknowledge that NASA was running the Apollo 15 TV signals over to Hollywood for "video enhancement".

It's important for you to acknowledge the Hollywood Connection because you have indeed wasted so much of my precious time already.

This following screenshot is taken from a Hollywood-produced, NASA Tv press conference (very heavily scripted) during the Apollo 15 mission, allegedly filmed in cislunar space, supposedly en route back to Earth, from the Moon at 270:21 MET.

Now find me some floating objects other than the imaginary boogers you say you see. I don't see boogers. I don't see floating flashlights, space pens, or empty fruit bar packages. Nothing in the video has convinced me that these guys are in Zero G. Make yourself useful.

There was a very good reason for Richard Orloff to leave this out of his Apollo 15 time line. He didn't want people to know this press conference existed. If they knew it existed, they would want to watch it. If they watched it, they would immediately see, that there are n o f l o a t i n g o b j e c t s !