Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Taggart
Are you saying the year 2012 didn't happen?

I dont think you can fully judge phantom time theory without looking at the positive qualities of the phantom time theorists themselves..they have a long tradition existence & the community at large...

a reply to: Misinformation

What - like smallpox and rabies gave a long tradition of existence in the community?

That is exactly the same line you trot out about apollo hoaxers. It's almost as if you were just trolling.

a reply to: Misinformation

If we were missing three centuries, then ancient astronomical observations prior to that missing time would be off by 300 years -- and they aren't.

For example, in the decades surrounding 150 BCE, Hipparchus measured the Earth's precession with great accuracy and developed very precise star catalogs -- and those recorded observations match what we expect them to be, if they were observed in 150 BCE. If 300 years were missing since then, his measurements of precession and his maps would be off enough to be noticed.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
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.

A person who makes death threats is hardly "of a calibre far above" anyone, that's for sure.

To defend someone like that.... is utterly ludicrous.

It's shameful, on any level.

originally posted by: choos

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.

They say they're moving the camera back away from the window, yes.

But the camera was NOT at the window to begin with, as I told you.

Here's the clip which proves it...

www.youtube.com...

At around 11:45, we see the 'Earth' begins to shrink in size, against a dark (ie: pitch-black) screen, or 'canvas' . An interior light comes into view.

The camera zoomed out.

To physically move the camera like we see here would be impossible. Not a chance.

Your claim... is total nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why is it impossible? What planet do you live on that means it is impossible to move a camera from one position to another?

How are the astronauts able to describe precisely what the view is?

How do they get a live TV picture that matches two different satellite images?

originally posted by: turbonium1

They say they're moving the camera back away from the window, yes.

so you saying so makes it more correct than them saying so?? were you in the command module at the time??

But the camera was NOT at the window to begin with, as I told you.

again.. were you onboard?? why should anyone believe you?? what authority do you have??

Here's the clip which proves it...

www.youtube.com...

you failed to account for the movement before they started zooming out.. why??

The camera zoomed out.

To physically move the camera like we see here would be impossible. Not a chance.

Your claim... is total nonsense.

its because you are blind and completely ignorant with excessive amounts of arrogance,

you have completely ignore the camera moving around prior to zooming out why??

there must be a reason why you would assume that it is clearly impossible for them to move back a metre or two and then zoom out.. but clearly to you this is an impossibility, why??

were you onboard??

At around 11:45, we see the 'Earth' begins to shrink in size, against a dark (ie: pitch-black) screen, or 'canvas' . An interior light comes into view.

you cant even explain how they put a dynamic earth on a transparency and you expect us to believe you when you say it was a transparency on a black canvas??

can you start proving stuff instead of giving your opinion as fact?? why dont you give us your credentials before we start considering your opinions as fact?? otherwise start proving your opinion.. show us a dynamic earth on a transparency on a black canvas..

Here's a screenshot from the point where they stop zooming in on Earth to the last vie we have of it.

It's been rotated to match up the orientation of the clouds (rotated - there's a little clue for you turbonium) and sharpened. Feel free to repeat the exercise yourself and show the results.



Look at the clouds at the terminator and at the opposite side - what happens?

How is this possible in a supposedly still image?

How could this have appeared on the evening news before the satellite images were compiled?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Ove38
Whatever the reason, the moon landing hoax question, was a part of this brand new movie.

It shows up in the new movie Interstellar. A teacher in it thinks the landing was fakes - it was put there to show said teacher was clueless.

I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't comment on this point.

However, I've seen many other films which refer to the moon landings as a hoax, and they do NOT support your contention with this particular film.

'Diamonds are Forever', made during the Apollo-era. A fake moon landing is being filmed on a stage set. And to have these goofy little 'radiation badges'? That's just the topper, really!

'RV', 'The Hoax', and many other films refer to it as a hoax, too.

Even 'The Simpsons' had a recent episode point to Kubrick's film of it!


These films/ TV episodes have nothing to do with the subject of moon landings in any way.
So - why would they mention a moon hoax, so many times, when it is not even relevant to the plotline?

They go out of their way to tell us that it was a hoax, obviously.

Imo, they probably know that it was really all a hoax, and they reveal to us knowledge of the hoax, with referencing it in their films, and TV shows.


The Apollo-ites say they are not qualified to know about a moon landing, that only the scientists and/or engineers in fields related to space travel, and its environment, are qualified experts.

Apollo-ites won't say the scientists/engineers are NOT qualified as experts on the authenticity of the Apollo photos, or the Apollo footage.


These experts are in the film industry, or professional photographers, etc.

They made these films, which refer to a moon hoax, from being experts in film, they would be able to determine the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the Apollo footage.

So we know what they think about it, as the experts.

A hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1
'Diamonds are Forever', made during the Apollo-era. A fake moon landing is being filmed on a stage set.

Obviously you have never even watched that movie.... it was not a movie set....

Just more crap from a moon hoaxer.

Oh look, here it is the evening news

originally posted by: turbonium1

I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't comment on this point.

Lack of knowledge or understanding hasn't stopped you so far.

However, I've seen many other films which refer to the moon landings as a hoax, and they do NOT support your contention with this particular film.

'Diamonds are Forever', made during the Apollo-era. A fake moon landing is being filmed on a stage set. And to have these goofy little 'radiation badges'? That's just the topper, really!

Have you seen the SFX quality in that film?

'RV', 'The Hoax', and many other films refer to it as a hoax, too.

Even 'The Simpsons' had a recent episode point to Kubrick's film of it!


These films/ TV episodes have nothing to do with the subject of moon landings in any way.
So - why would they mention a moon hoax, so many times, when it is not even relevant to the plotline?

They go out of their way to tell us that it was a hoax, obviously.

It's mostly to mock people like you.

Imo, they probably know that it was really all a hoax, and they reveal to us knowledge of the hoax, with referencing it in their films, and TV shows.

No. Your opinion means nothing, and you are not in a position to speak for the motives of anyone else.

The Apollo-ites say they are not qualified to know about a moon landing, that only the scientists and/or engineers in fields related to space travel, and its environment, are qualified experts.

No. I am happy to claim expertise in the subject having spent a lot of time researching it and matters relating to it. What I do say is that you are not qualified to speak on the subject because you have never done any research on it. You also manage to exclude those people who are genuine experts on the subject because they have been to the moon or were involved in the missions to send people to the moon.

Apollo-ites won't say the scientists/engineers are NOT qualified as experts on the authenticity of the Apollo photos, or the Apollo footage.


These experts are in the film industry, or professional photographers, etc.

Does that include experts in the film industry and professional photographers who understand the subject and have produced material completely vindicating the Apollo missions, or are you just cherry picking the ones who tell lies for money?

They made these films, which refer to a moon hoax, from being experts in film, they would be able to determine the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the Apollo footage.

psst - fiction is not real.

So we know what they think about it, as the experts.

A hoax.

The experts know Apollo happened as described. Only liars and fraudsters claim otherwise and you fall for it every time.

originally posted by: choos

you failed to account for the movement before they started zooming out.. why??

Where is the camera before the movement, then?

Is it filling up the window at that point?

You do, from what you're saying here.

So is it filling up the window when the clip starts, right up to the movement?

Is that your take on it?

originally posted by: turbonium1

Here's the clip which proves it...

www.youtube.com...

I'm just going to back to this because Turb has really shot himself where the sun don't shine on this one.

Not only does it show a picture of Earth exactly as it should appear on the live TV broadcast, an Earth that is clearly not in LEO, an Earth that show demonstrable rotation even in the short period of time over which it is in view, and for which there are matching still images taken before and after the TV transmission, that matches exact;y the satellite record before the satellite record was available, and where these images appeared LIVE ON TV and in later news bulletins (to which I provided a link), but it also features footage - in a continuous sequence - of the astronauts making the broadcast in zero G conditions.

If that's the best proof of your hoax Turbonium I'd disappear from the internet for a while and wait for this thread to move on a bit before posting some irrelevant nonsense that will bury it for you.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you failed to account for the movement before they started zooming out.. why??

Where is the camera before the movement, then?

Is it filling up the window at that point?

armstrong says it is near the window so they have no clear view of earth, so im inclined to believe it is near the window..

this occurs around the 11min mark on jarrahs video you linked to.. houston asks them to move back at around 11.25.. the camera movement im talking about occurs around 11.40 are you trying to tell me there is no movement??

You do, from what you're saying here.

So is it filling up the window when the clip starts, right up to the movement?

Is that your take on it?

he is at the window at the 11min mark, and there is clear camera movement at the 11.4 mark even cutting out..

you claim that it is impossible for the astronauts to have moved at any point during this period.. were you onboard at the time??

and why are you ignoring the dynamic earth?? its almost like you realise you are wrong but CHOOSE to ignore it because it is against your belief?? do you know someone that is making money from pushing the hoax theory??

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

It's mostly to mock people like you.

The radiation badge protects you on a fake moon landing.

If you think it isn't mocking Apollo, you go right ahead with that.

Nice try, anyway.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you failed to account for the movement before they started zooming out.. why??

Where is the camera before the movement, then?

Is it filling up the window at that point?

armstrong says it is near the window so they have no clear view of earth, so im inclined to believe it is near the window..

this occurs around the 11min mark on jarrahs video you linked to.. houston asks them to move back at around 11.25.. the camera movement im talking about occurs around 11.40 are you trying to tell me there is no movement??

You do, from what you're saying here.

So is it filling up the window when the clip starts, right up to the movement?

Is that your take on it?

he is at the window at the 11min mark, and there is clear camera movement at the 11.4 mark even cutting out..

you claim that it is impossible for the astronauts to have moved at any point during this period.. were you onboard at the time??

and why are you ignoring the dynamic earth?? its almost like you realise you are wrong but CHOOSE to ignore it because it is against your belief?? do you know someone that is making money from pushing the hoax theory??

If he said it is up to the window, that is where it would be from the start of the clip, right?

If the camera was in the window, they would not be able to block out the left side of the 'Earth', which someone does at 2:30 in the clip, and more than one time, too.

So the camera was not up to the window, at that point.

When was it at the window? Perhaps it never was at the window?

It goes to your other point, as you'll soon see...

originally posted by: turbonium1

If the camera was in the window, they would not be able to block out the left side of the 'Earth', which someone does at 2:30 in the clip, and more than one time, too.

So the camera was not up to the window, at that point.
.

Really.

SO you can think of no scenario at all where a camera is up at a window, is moved, and ends up filming part of a window frame instead? A mount like this:



That's totally beyond your comprehension? You can't possibly workl out any kind of way that a camera mount could be moved? Or even an astronaut holding a camera or even the spacecraft itself might move a bit? That's your dealbreaker?

originally posted by: turbonium1

If he said it is up to the window, that is where it would be from the start of the clip, right?

If the camera was in the window, they would not be able to block out the left side of the 'Earth', which someone does at 2:30 in the clip, and more than one time, too.

someone?? are you taking Sibrels word for it again?? are you able to prove this?? were you on board??

what if i said it was the edge of the window blocking the earth and not someone arm?? have you even considered this??

So the camera was not up to the window, at that point.

When was it at the window? Perhaps it never was at the window?

It goes to your other point, as you'll soon see...

are you assuming the camera was pressed up against the glass?? or just near the window??

it was at the window around the 11min mark in jarrahs video, armstrong clearly states this..

but go on

Here's how the camera attaches to the CSM window (the previous one I posted is from the LM)



Hey look - it's a small porthole and camera is movable!!