Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: turbonium1

And that's your idea of rebuttal is it? Still going to ignore the content in favour of magic and whispers?

The Soviets had weather satellites in orbit during Apollo 10 and beyond, which kind of screws that argument up.

There were no colour satellites up during Apollo. The Apollo images were taken before the satellite ones.

Next.

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

you have no proof of this.. only the word of Bart Sibrel, the same guy that will jump up and down on your vehicle because you took his spot..

here are people talking about the 1999 version on CD-ROM
LINK

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.

NASA or the government wont claim it was dubbed in, people like myself will.. get it?? much easier to debunk, and yet NASA decides to just forget to remove it from their own website..

also you havent answered yet, what kind of level of secrecy is it that you claim NASA to be capable of??
because this right here is proving that NASA are incapable to keeping a secret like hoaxing the moon landing for over 40 years.. they cant even decide to delete a half second audio section..

originally posted by: turbonium1

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

Which is all it is

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

And which is a lie.

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

Already done.

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.

And reproduced in newsreels and newspapers and photographs and the entire audio transcript which exists in its entirety for anyone to listen to.

archive.org...

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

And amazingly, despite all the available evidence, only Sibrel has it. How odd...

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.

Or it never existed in the first place and Sibrel is a liar.

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.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Sibrel is a liar and a fraud and he makes stuff up to con money out of people. His God will punish him.

originally posted by: turbonium1
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.

we are not talking about pictures only..

why do you keep ignoring the LIVE TV BROADCAST which upon close inspection is showing a dynamic Earth??

the live TV broadcast was NOT using transparencies..

I'm going to re-iterate the impossibility of the 'oh well NASA had the satellite' claim yet again.

The US had two geostationay satellites in HEO that could capture whole Earth images. Neither were in colour (ATS-1's colour capability failed long before Apollo), and neither were in orbits that captured exactly the same view as the Apollo images thanks to the trajectory they used.

Neither of these were of the same level of detail as the Apollo image captured, that could only have been done by the geosynchronous satellites in near polar orbit.

Each of these took 24 hours to image the entire surface, so for any Apollo image showing half the Earth this would have taken 12 hours to capture the series of images needed. These images were transmitted over FM frequencies to a series of ground stations around the world and transmitted by FAX if needed. Anyone with an aerial and the technical know-how could intercept these free to air signals, and lots of amateurs did. I worked at a residential field centre for schoolkids in the '80s that had its own dish and we got NOAA and METEOSAT images every day. Anyone could have intercepted the weather transmissions and pointed out that the ApOllo photographs or live TV images were wrong. No-one did. Not even the Russians who had their own weather satellites.

They would then have had to assemble the images, remove any overlaps and render them in colour and make them look like a proper 3D globe with accurate lighting and not a hastily assembled set of individual images. Then they would have had to do this for EVERY SINGLE APOLLO IMAGE. And live TV image. And 16mm film image.

It would be a serious challenge for Photoshop to do it now on a modern high speed computer, never mind back then with no Photoshop, no graphics cards and not much in the way of computer power.

I have newspapers and magazines published within a short time of missions landing back on Earth and all of them are accurate. All of them.

So, if anyone is going to just handwave the evidence away and claim "Oh well NASA must have just fixed it so that the satellite images and Apollo images matched", they need to actually work out how and explain it to people - ideally without making themselves look like they're just making sh*t up.

I am not talking about any images taken from LEO. The LEO images were really done, or could be done, just as they claimed.

I am only talking about their claims of Earth images/footage supposedly taken from halfway to the moon.

They say Earth is being filmed from about 130,000 (iirc) miles away, or about halfway to the moon.

It is totally dark, except for the Earth.

At one point, an astronaut (Armstrong, iirc) notes the position of their camera, while filming the Earth.

The camera pretty much fills up the whole window, he says.

Which makes sense, of course.

But the camera is not at the window, or even close to it.

It is well back from the window, in fact.

That makes no sense, of course.

The window is very small, first of all.

To claim this little window has a perfect view of the Earth, the entire Earth, for over 15 minutes, while halfway to the moon, that's a stretch.

Assuming it is possible, though...

It's bad enough to think they could film the real, entire Earth, so far away from the window.

But even a moron would know how the camera must be close as possible to the window to film anything outside of the g-damn window!!

He said the camera was filling up the window, since that's where to be when one is trying to film something which is beyond the window. He was clearly lying, as he was not near the window, at that time, or at any time whatsoever.

We also see an astronaut in shadow who IS near the small window. He fiddles around with some sort of a strap or band, which matches in exact shape and size to fit to the very same window!!


It is very clear, is it not?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Sibrel is a liar and a fraud and he makes stuff up to con money out of people. His God will punish him.

The astronauts who said they went to the moon are the liars who made stuff up, who got rich and famous based on lies. They are a group of lifelong frauds.

I should add that they were not always liars.

They were honest, brave men, before Apollo.

They were forced to live a lie, imo

a reply to: turbonium1

Actually you're just like Sibrel turb.

In the name of your beliefs, based on the claims of proven frauds, you call a group of people, who you obviously know little about, a group of men that were of a caliber far above your intellect and capabilities, you call them liars and claim their lives were ones of shame? Easy isn't it?

Your arrogance surpasses anyone I have ever met personally, just like that oaf Sibrel.

Your whole paradigm is founded on the lies of a small group of egotistical charlatans, and your failure to recognise this is something that belies the fallibility of the human condition, but also shows that as a species we have truly detached ourselves from the consequences of irrational thought and stupidity in general, just as organised religion clearly demonstrates.

My sympathies.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Sibrel is a liar and a fraud and he makes stuff up to con money out of people. His God will punish him.

The astronauts who said they went to the moon are the liars who made stuff up, who got rich and famous based on lies. They are a group of lifelong frauds.

So you've obviously met these people and been able to judge their accounts in person rather than swallow other people's lies about them whole?

I've met 5 of them and listened to what they had to say. How about you?

Why don't you start with Buzz...

a reply to: turbonium1

The camera was movable.

Sometimes it was in the window, showing us the Earth. Sometimes it was farther back, showing us the window (and occasionally the earth beyond the window).

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: turbonium1

The camera was movable.

Sometimes it was in the window, showing us the Earth. Sometimes it was farther back, showing us the window (and occasionally the earth beyond the window).

They also had a monitor so they could view what the camera was transmitting.

Armstrong spent a good deal of time describing exactly what he could see on the monitor in terms of the cloud formations on view and so on, something he could not have done without actually being able to see it with his own eyes.

01 10 01 31 CDR
Roger. You're seeing Earth, as we see it, out our left-hand window, just a little more than a half Earth. We're looking at the eastern Pacific Ocean, and the north half of the top half of the screen, we can see North America, Alaska, United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America. South America becomes invisible just off beyond the terminator or inside the shadow. We can see the oceans with a definite blue cast, see white bands of major cloud formations across the Earth, and can see coastlines, pick out the western U.S., San Joaquin Valley, the Sierra mountain range, the peninsula of Baja California, and we can see some cloud formations over southeastern U.S. There's one definite mild storm southwest of Alaska, looks like about 500 to 1000 miles, and another very minor storm showing the south end of the screen near the - or a long ways off of the equator, probably 45 degrees or more south latitude. Can pick out the browns in the landforms pretty well. Greens do not show up very well. Some greens showing along the northeastern - northwestern coast of the United States and northwestern coast of Canada.

01 l0 03 44 CC
Roger, 11. It's a pretty good picture on clarity here. We're having - can you tell us - It appears to us that there are two distinct cloud- formations trending east/west, one approximately about along the equator, and one around 30 or so south latitude. Could you tell us exactly where those cross the landmasses? Over.

01 10 04 13 CDR
Yes. They cross just south of the lower part of Mexico, probably through Central America. That is the equatorial band which we assume to be the intertropical convergence zone. The other band, which stands about 30 south, correctly appears to join the equator at the far left, or just beyond the horizon on the left edge of Earth, or at least it looks like it's going to join it. We don't have an explanation for that banding.

Turbonium can't to grasp that his disbelief and incredulity does not automatically mean that something is impossible.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The camera pretty much fills up the whole window, he says.

Which makes sense, of course.

But the camera is not at the window, or even close to it.

It is well back from the window, in fact.

That makes no sense, of course.

so like im guessing you have never ever ever heard of moving a camera before??

034:10:36 Armstrong: Unfortunately, we only have one window that has a view of the Earth and it's filled up with the TV camera, so your view now is probably better than ours is.

034:10:47 Duke: Roger. We copy.

034:10:51 Duke: 11, Houston. If you could comply, we'd like to see little smiling faces up there, if you could give us some interior views. I'm sure everybody would like to see you. Over.

034:11:06 Armstrong: Okay. We'll reconfigure the TV for that.

034:11:08 Duke: Roger.
[Comm break.]
034:12:31 Duke: Apollo 11, Houston. It appears to us that we're seeing a view from outside plus a little of the inside. It appears you've taken the camera away from the left window now. Over.
034:12:45 Armstrong: That's correct. We're moving it back and reconfiguring for interior lighting.

The window is very small, first of all.

To claim this little window has a perfect view of the Earth, the entire Earth, for over 15 minutes, while halfway to the moon, that's a stretch.

your lack of knowledge is appalling.. why is this so hard for you to believe?? why is is so hard to believe to maintain an attitude for over 15 minutes??

It's bad enough to think they could film the real, entire Earth, so far away from the window.

because you think they are in LEO, which they are not, you wont even consider them being 130,000 miles out. so thats your own problem if you think this.

But even a moron would know how the camera must be close as possible to the window to film anything outside of the g-damn window!!

dark interior
dark outside
very bright object outside

whats so impossible about that? when you are in a very dark room looking at a distant window and outside is also very dark, can you see vehicle lights?? or even the reflections from the vehicle lights?
i dont know about you but any normal person can be 20 meters away from the window and still see the vehicle lights.. it has nothing to do with how far you are from the window

He said the camera was filling up the window, since that's where to be when one is trying to film something which is beyond the window. He was clearly lying, as he was not near the window, at that time, or at any time whatsoever.

thats because you are basing your views on Bart Film and ONLY barts film.. barts film has been edited alot to show what he wants only.. this has been explained to you many times but you have no problems believing him even though you know he has deceived you..

034:12:31 Duke: Apollo 11, Houston. It appears to us that we're seeing a view from outside plus a little of the inside. It appears you've taken the camera away from the left window now. Over.
034:12:45 Armstrong: That's correct. We're moving it back and reconfiguring for interior lighting.

We also see an astronaut in shadow who IS near the small window. He fiddles around with some sort of a strap or band, which matches in exact shape and size to fit to the very same window!!

It is very clear, is it not?

most people will be able to understand that its mike collins mic..

so umm?? did you drop your transparency theory and gone back to the circular cutout to view earth from LEO theory??

I don't mean to get off subject, here... but, the theory I'm understanding by the information I've gathered over the years was one of the Apollo crashes on the moon was because of aliens... We even shot at the moon and it was described as "It rang like a bell" meaning the moon is hollow. I don't know what we shot it with... probably something from the Star Wars Project. They said it was a missle but how could a missle reach into space? Could happen but I digress. Apparently, there's crystalline structures on the moon and we left a peace symbol (just in case there happened to be another species living on the moon in my opinion, think what you want.)

My friend whom tripped '___' said he went to the moon and there were these white creatures who were shakey and had these metal head devices. (My guess is the magnetic frequency was making them shakey) he said they were tall and telling him to go back, and that he didn't belong there.

Also, I heard there was a downed space-craft with an asian looking woman who had something like the metal devices my friend said they were wearing on their head, except hers was in the middle of her head (third-eye position.)

I think we've been to the moon, but there's some crazy stuff happening there, and in my opinion the moon was created to watch over us.

Who knows, maybe we just wanted to beat the Russians in the space-race.

a reply to: Sholafar

he theory I'm understanding by the information I've gathered over the years was one of the Apollo crashes on the moon was because of aliens

There was no Apollo crash on the Moon.

We even shot at the moon and it was described as "It rang like a bell" meaning the moon is hollow

No. It means the reverberations of the impact of a booster lasted for a long time. A solid piece of iron also "rings like a bell".

Also, I heard there was a downed space-craft with an asian looking woman who had something like the metal devices my friend said they were wearing on their head, except hers was in the middle of her head (third-eye position.)

Do you believe everything you hear?

Apollo problems, crash I'm not too educated on that part.

It depends on what they shot the moon with, they use the term rung like a bell. To me personally it signifies the moon is hollow.

No, I don't believe everything I hear.

But, judging by your quote about logic you're not very open-minded.

Leading me to believe we both will never have any evidence to support this any further...

a reply to: Sholafar

But, judging by your quote about logic you're not very open-minded.

I'm open minded, as long as something makes some sort of sense when all the actual facts are considered.

Not so open minded that speculation becomes fact. Not so open minded that distortions of fact become fact. Not so open minded that my brains fall out.

Good point, the open-minded I mean is that anything is possible, in which case you have to let things go or you can make yourself crazy, I understand that. It's just that what-if type of open-mindness that keeps me wondering in the back of my mind.

a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Sholafar
Apollo problems, crash I'm not too educated on that part.

It depends on what they shot the moon with, they use the term rung like a bell. To me personally it signifies the moon is hollow.

No, I don't believe everything I hear.

But, judging by your quote about logic you're not very open-minded.

Leading me to believe we both will never have any evidence to support this any further...

A blacksmiths anvil strike it with a hammer it will ring so does that make it hollow