Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

oh heres a video comparing weather patterns from Apollo 11 i believe the third broadcast:

similar work to what OBMonkey does but in video format:



pay attention to the 6min 30- ish mark.. and no the clouds dont match exactly but they are similar.. while only being an hour apart..

Turbonium conveniently ignores the obvious rotation of the Earth and the correct positioning of the Earth's terminator in his dismissing of the Apollo footage. he also manages to ignore the fact that the two frames in the gif (that I made, btw) are the opposite ends of a 15 minute continuous sequence. Feel free to check.

If you are going to claim that the Earth is exactly the same in both images then the quality of the video is not going to be adequate. We do, however, have the still images taken at the same time. So, take high resolution two images (AS11-36-5334 and AS11-36-5348) taken at the same level of zoom.

You can quite easily see Hurricane Bernice which, I will remind turbonium, only had that configuration on that particular date - the date of the TV broadcast.

Let's zoom in on a chunk of that hurricane.



You can pick any part of that image and you see that the clouds are subtly different. You'll also notice, if you look at the full images), that the Earth has rotated between the start and end of the photo sequence.

And here is the satellite image taken by NIMBUS 3 about 4-5 hours earlier.



The overall pattern is the same, but the small details are different. This happens for every mission on eery image of Earth. You can watch weather systems develop over time - they are not static. If turbonium bothered to read my website he'd know that.

e2a: Here's Bernice taken from two screendumps of the Apollo TV broadcast about 15 minutes apart. Identical?



No.

Just because much of the photography has mathematical problems with various laws of physics does not mean they did not go to the moon. The "footage" presented on the moon, did not come from the moon, that is what the light physics and gravitational anomalies, easily proven, mathematically suggest.

Of course it does not mean they went to the moon either as far as sending and returning human beings.

More likely the development of missile and satellite technologies was the real goal of the "we gotta get to the moon" phase of distraction. All they really care about is the first couple hundred miles above the earth, that is where the ultimate military positioning potential lay. Of course they have recognized this fact from way back.

Everything else is but a sleight of hand distraction from the real development of nukes and precise energy weapons in space, right over the head of the targets globally. That stuff is there and gettign there more everyday. Of course they aren't just going to advertise it to the average global cow.

a reply to: 4444Winds

what exactly are these " mathematical problems " which you claim plagues the apollo photographic record ???

all the aledged " problems " are the result of scientific ignorance or willfull dishonesty [ IMHO ]

a reply to: 4444Winds

Please explain the mathematical problems to all the photographers on here, I for one will be interested!

a reply to: 4444Winds

Yes, what are these mathematical problems? Do they relate to the medical ones?

a reply to: 4444Winds

Let me guess, no stars, footprints holding their shape and a "waving" flag? In all honesty though, please do provide image numbers and a description of what you believe are issues with the pictures/video/film. Scientific debate will be a nice change of pace from the blatant trolling and missinformation that this thread has devolved into.

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: 4444Winds

Let me guess, no stars, footprints holding their shape and a "waving" flag? In all honesty though, please do provide image numbers and a description of what you believe are issues with the pictures/video/film. Scientific debate will be a nice change of pace from the blatant trolling and missinformation that this thread has devolved into.

You forgot "non-parallel shadows" and "the shade should be completely black".

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm "Dutch moon rock" away from moon hoax bingo!!!

With all the space explorations, I really can't bring myself to believe the moon landing was a hoax. Even if it was faked at that point in time, which I strongly disagree with that theory, look at modern technology. They could do it today with no problem.

One day they will attempt to land somewhere else, maybe another planet, and that will be amazing. One small step for man, right?

originally posted by: choos
how were they eventually caught hiding it?? this webpage has been up several years BEFORE barts movie, there are CD's in existence which represents the website as it was in 1999..

You don't have any proof 'Talk' was ever heard, before Sibrel's film...true?

If the CD had it earlier, why you aren't able to show it in some way, as proof?


You tried this same ruse with the footage, earlier.

No go, once again.

originally posted by: coldbourbon
With all the space explorations, I really can't bring myself to believe the moon landing was a hoax. Even if it was faked at that point in time, which I strongly disagree with that theory, look at modern technology. They could do it today with no problem.

They can't do it today, that's the sad reality here..

Assuming it was already done many years ago, "no problem". They soon had a reality check.

Problems, and how.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
how were they eventually caught hiding it?? this webpage has been up several years BEFORE barts movie, there are CD's in existence which represents the website as it was in 1999..

You don't have any proof 'Talk' was ever heard, before Sibrel's film...true?

If the CD had it earlier, why you aren't able to show it in some way, as proof?

You tried this same ruse with the footage, earlier.

No go, once again.

why is it in the audio but not in the transcript?? why did they remove it from the spacecraft films version as you claim??

why didnt they just remove it from the audio and spacecraft films version and people can say that Bart manipulated his??

is this the level of secrecy we are to expect from the same organisation that has hidden the truth of the moon landing for over 40 years??

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: coldbourbon
With all the space explorations, I really can't bring myself to believe the moon landing was a hoax. Even if it was faked at that point in time, which I strongly disagree with that theory, look at modern technology. They could do it today with no problem.

They can't do it today, that's the sad reality here..

Assuming it was already done many years ago, "no problem". They soon had a reality check.

Problems, and how.

why is it impossible to do today?? what is the impossible part??
you have yet to prove this claim.. the only thing you can prove is that prolonged stays in deep space is too dangerous, not impossible.. and therefore short term stays is very much possible..

originally posted by: choos

why is it impossible to do today?? what is the impossible part??
you have yet to prove this claim.. the only thing you can prove is that prolonged stays in deep space is too dangerous, not impossible.. and therefore short term stays is very much possible..

The things that make a manned lunar landing impossible in 2014 have nothing to do with whether it was done in 1969.

Let's start with the lack of a heavy-lift booster with sufficient payload. The Saturn V was a one-trick pony. Admittedly, it was a really good trick (manned lunar landings!), but once we stopped doing that trick, we didn't need the pony any more. Some folks will point to the Skylab program as evidence to the contrary, but that program was only possible because long-lead hardware had already been built for later (cancelled) Apollo flights.

So, why can't we just fire up the production lines and start building Saturn Vs again? The jigs and tooling needed to fabricate them was far too large and expensive to leave sitting around unused...it's long gone, as are the skilled craftsmen who built the Saturn boosters. Even if we still had the tooling, good luck fabricating the rockets. We don't use that technology any more....when's the last time you saw a discrete transistor? A vacuum tube? It's the same problem that the Commemorative Air Force faces keeping our World War II planes flying...the technology isn't used any more, and repairing or replacing the old stuff gets really complicated and really expensive. By the time you pay for all the work-arounds and custom fabrication, you'd save money designing a new vehicle from scratch. This leads into the big reason that manned Lunar missions are a no-go currently.

Money. Pure, simple cash flow. It's what killed the program in the first place (at least three more missions were planned, with some hardware already built..see references to Skylab, above), but NASA's budget was cut, and the program terminated early. In today's political climate, good luck getting NASA the funding needed to a) Design and build a new booster and spacecraft, b) refurbish the KSC facilities, and c) sustain the engineering support for the program for the better part of a decade. The space program doesn't have the popular support enjoyed by the various wealth-transfer programs, or the emotional appeal of such things as Education or family subsidy programs (FOR THE CHILDREN!!!).

In short, the reasons aren't technical, they're financial and political. If the American people would get behind a renewed manned space program, and do so loudly and enthusiastically enough to influence our Elected Political Heroes (tm), we could probably be on the Moon again by 2020...in the immortal words of Alan Jackson, "Don't be downhearted, I can fix it for you, sonny. It won't take too long, it'll just take money."

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Turbonium conveniently ignores the obvious rotation of the Earth and the correct positioning of the Earth's terminator in his dismissing of the Apollo footage. he also manages to ignore the fact that the two frames in the gif (that I made, btw) are the opposite ends of a 15 minute continuous sequence. Feel free to check.

If you are going to claim that the Earth is exactly the same in both images then the quality of the video is not going to be adequate. We do, however, have the still images taken at the same time. So, take high resolution two images (AS11-36-5334 and AS11-36-5348) taken at the same level of zoom.

You can quite easily see Hurricane Bernice which, I will remind turbonium, only had that configuration on that particular date - the date of the TV broadcast.

Let's zoom in on a chunk of that hurricane.

You can pick any part of that image and you see that the clouds are subtly different. You'll also notice, if you look at the full images), that the Earth has rotated between the start and end of the photo sequence.

And here is the satellite image taken by NIMBUS 3 about 4-5 hours earlier.

The overall pattern is the same, but the small details are different. This happens for every mission on eery image of Earth. You can watch weather systems develop over time - they are not static. If turbonium bothered to read my website he'd know that.

e2a: Here's Bernice taken from two screendumps of the Apollo TV broadcast about 15 minutes apart. Identical?

No.

Our specific issue was about those two still images, to start with.

You have these detailed photos - to show the difference(s) over a 15 minute span!

Well done.

But you forgot something, in your comparison..

They are not equal in image quality (or lack thereof).

So the photos must be changed to a similar (lousy) quality...


Do you think the photos would then appear to be the exact same, in every detail?

I certainly don't...

originally posted by: turbonium1

Our specific issue was about those two still images, to start with.

You have these detailed photos - to show the difference(s) over a 15 minute span!

you are ignoring the screen captures from the live TV Broadcast, if the TV Broadcast was using transparencies the screen capture would not show a difference even if it is lower quality.

[But you forgot something, in your comparison..

They are not equal in image quality (or lack thereof).

and what about the screen capture from the live TV Broadcast?
the two images at the bottom of hurricane bernice show a difference between them given they are about 15mins apart, screen captures that OBMonkey took from the same video from the same live TV Broadcast..

the image quality are the same, you will need to find another goal post to move..

So the photos must be changed to a similar (lousy) quality...

Do you think the photos would then appear to be the exact same, in every detail?

I certainly don't...

are you deliberately ignoring that the two screen captures 15mins apart show a change therefore proving that transparencies were not used??

either way, OBMonkey has proven to you that transparencies were not used.. and you yourself have also agreed that it was not video from a circle window or circular cutout.. so then where will you move your goalposts to now regarding the live TV Broadcast showing the Earth??

originally posted by: turbonium1

Our specific issue was about those two still images, to start with.

You have these detailed photos - to show the difference(s) over a 15 minute span!

Well done.

But you forgot something, in your comparison..

They are not equal in image quality (or lack thereof).

OK so what image quality differences? What specifically are you talking about?

You can search for those two images at the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth,

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

where these pages have 18-19Mb scans of the images. What quality issues are there?


I also have a book I purchased recently published in 1970 ("This Island Earth"), which has a glorious and very good qualioty reproduction of one of those images and it looks absolutely fine to me.

You conveniently ignore:

- The fact that they are colour images taken from space at the same time as a live TV broadcast whose images appeared on that evening's news and the next day's newspapers
- The fact that they contain a well documented Hurricane that only looked like that on that particular day
- The fact that the terminator is in the exact position it should be in for the time the images were taken
- The fact that the two separate weather satellites verify the weather patterns you can see.
- The fact that it would not have been possible to produce a colour photograph or TV image from those satellite images because they did not have an entire Earth's image collection until after the broadcast was made
- The fact that there has been obvious rotation of the Earth over time entirely consistent with how much should have happened
- The fact that there are differences in the weather patterns between the images, which Turbonium previously claimed were not there.

In fact, you ignore pretty much everything and can only resrt to "well the pictures are different because they are different quality". Which isn't true.

So the photos must be changed to a similar (lousy) quality...

Nope, as stated above, not true.

Do you think the photos would then appear to be the exact same, in every detail?

I certainly don't...

Oh well that clinches it - Turbonium hath spoken, and no matter how flimsy his case or how lacking his evidence he must be right. You claimed the clouds were the same in each image, they aren't. The photos are not exactly the same - there are subtle differences between them consistent with the passage of time.

Just for fun, here's a sequence of the images strung together - I've stretched them to make the Earth the same size (I did another one where the Earth recedes. Every single image in it corresponds exactly with what should be on show at the time it was taken.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
how were they eventually caught hiding it?? this webpage has been up several years BEFORE barts movie, there are CD's in existence which represents the website as it was in 1999..

You don't have any proof 'Talk' was ever heard, before Sibrel's film...true?

If the CD had it earlier, why you aren't able to show it in some way, as proof?

You tried this same ruse with the footage, earlier.

No go, once again.

why is it in the audio but not in the transcript?? why did they remove it from the spacecraft films version as you claim??

why didnt they just remove it from the audio and spacecraft films version and people can say that Bart manipulated his??

is this the level of secrecy we are to expect from the same organisation that has hidden the truth of the moon landing for over 40 years??

It is impossible for us to know their reasons for choosing option A, over option B, or whatever.

To speculate on that issue, I'd say ...

Sibrel said this footage was never seen by the public before that time, as you know.


If all of the Apollo 11 footage was released to the public, it would be easy to prove.

Apollo 11 footage is in countless public libraries. Reels and reels of footage, in metal (ie: tin) storage cans, and archived in libraries, all around the world.

You would have proof of the footage Sibrel said was never seen before.

That was their major problem here. "Talk" being said by a third party would be much less of a concern, in the overall scheme of things.

They removed "Talk", before it was heard in Sibrel's film. They didn't (yet) release the specific footage it was heard in, nor was it put in the official transcript.

Why would they want to make a point about Sibrel dubbing it in, anyway? It would just draw more attention to the issue, which is not at all wanted.

Only NASA had satellites to take all those images.

So NASA images would probably match up perfectly with any other NASA images, right?

That's your idea of solid proof, is it?

Not.