Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

You have the mission and PAO transcripts and the mission audio tapes, all of which are time stamped and freely available. Work it out for yourself, I'm not your servant, do your own legwork.

YOU claimed it was in the transcripts....

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Read my posts again: The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes - it's all there in the transcripts.

Why should I do the work, when it is YOUR OWN CLAIM?

That's why I asked you to cite the specific point in the transcripts YOU said mentions the transmission dropping for a few minutes.

So what about it?

a reply to: turbonium1

ok i misunderstood, apologies..

however you are using an over exposed image to try to prove there is a gold pane.. its basically the same thing as changing the brightness..



heres an over exposed image and look space has a golden tint and so does the lunar surface.. in a still photograph.. why did they need a golden pane for space and the lunar surface to fake this still image??

p.s. also if this is never before seen footage, given that the astronauts believed that no one should have ever seen this footage they never make a mistake with what they are saying.. no hint of faking it or hoaxing it or mention of transparency of earth..

p.p.s. Sibrel claims they couldnt go half-way to the moon because the VAB was too deadly.. if NASA knew this then obviously the Soviets would have known this.. so why does Sibrel paint the picture of the communist ENEMY outdoing the US?

a reply to: turbonium1

Read back through the thread, I already did it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
How about you look at it on context as a moving image, where the camera resolves it into the images you see in the other frames, instead of pretending it is a single shot taken in isolation

I said they are frames from the clip, so who is "pretending"?

Still frames show the 'terminator'....is no such thing.

Except they do show the terminator, exactly where it should be seen at the time of the broadcast and using the clouds as a reference point exactly what should be on view at the time of the broadcast. The terminator does not move, but Earth does.

Have another view of Earth



It's from a broadcast on the home from the moon (Sibrel lies about it and claims it's from the way out) and is taken by kinescope from a TV screen to appear in the newspaper. Like all the other images of Earth it matches exactly what should be on show.

Obsess about the metadata all you like, the images of Earth are time and date specific and prove that they were taken exactly where they were claimed to be taken.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Yes, it shows Hurricane Bernice. You know full well it does, as I've posted it many times before and you also ignored it then.

Here's the NIMBUS 3 view on the 16th

Here's the progression over time:

and here's the TV view of it compared with ESSA's view and the still Apollo image

Any sensible explanations?

Apollo footage doesn't show Hurricane Bernice.

No 'eye'.

A real hurricane couldn't be shown.

No, since it was all being faked.


Imo, Apollo footage shows an image of Earth, taken earlier on, with unmanned craft(s).

To match similar images is easy....unlike matching up to a well-known hurricane!


That is Apollo's 'Earth'.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Apollo footage doesn't show Hurricane Bernice.

No 'eye'.

A real hurricane couldn't be shown.

No, since it was all being faked.


Imo, Apollo footage shows an image of Earth, taken earlier on, with unmanned craft(s).

To match similar images is easy....unlike matching up to a well-known hurricane!


That is Apollo's 'Earth'.

Wrong> Every single word of it wrong.

It is a hurricane. it was called Bernice. Hurricanes are not classed as hurricanes based on what they look like.

I have shown you that same image on TV screens, I have shown you the same TV broadcast on the front pages of newspapers and even my own personal copy of the dated TV image taken from the first Apollo test broadcast. There are actual images in that post showing the development of Bernice over time that actually calls it Hurricane Bernice (a couple of which actually show the eye!!) and there's even a timestamped satellite image of it! It only looked like the Apollo pictures on that specific day and it was filmed and photographed and described on that day by Apollo 11 astronauts.


Which bit of that is a problem for you?

Have a link detailing the hurricane and the storm warnings given:

www.usno.navy.mil...

Have a wikipedia page:

en.wikipedia.org...

and more

www.tropicaleastpacific.com...

books.google.co.uk... 0o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FxqVVOPPN8T0UKWQg6gL&ved=0CGQQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=hurricane%20bernice%201969&f=false



Once again your obsession with metadata fails you: use your eyes, the cloud formations are there no matter what you want to call them.

And just to keep providing the information that proves turbonium to be completely ignorant of anything remotely resembling facts here is the Monthly Weather Report for July 1969 from which the Bernice images originate.

www.dropbox.com...

The NOAA website that originally hosted it is down so I put my own copy up. It also contains images of Tropical Storm Claudia, which also features in some Apollo 11 images later in the mission.

This MSc thesis contains pictures of Caribbean storms that were photographed by Apollo 11:

dspace.mit.edu...

The satellite images were taken at a specific time and date. You can't take pictures of weather systems before the weather systems exist. Turbonium is claiming that this is what Apollo 11 did.

Imo, Apollo footage shows an image of Earth, taken earlier on, with unmanned craft(s).

This is a) impossible and b) made up.

And one more for the road, here is Bernice mentioned in the Mariners Weather Log, a monthly journal of weather observations for seafaring folk:

babel.hathitrust.org...

Not bad for a weather system Turbonkum thinks no-one had heard of.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Except they do show the terminator, exactly where it should be seen at the time of the broadcast and using the clouds as a reference point exactly what should be on view at the time of the broadcast. The terminator does not move, but Earth does.

Have another view of Earth

It's from a broadcast on the home from the moon (Sibrel lies about it and claims it's from the way out) and is taken by kinescope from a TV screen to appear in the newspaper. Like all the other images of Earth it matches exactly what should be on show.

Obsess about the metadata all you like, the images of Earth are time and date specific and prove that they were taken exactly where they were claimed to be taken.

Using the same image would look like a 'perfect match', indeed.

But they screwed up, big time.


A still frame shows us how the 'terminator' was faked.


Put it another way - let's assume it really is the Earth.

Where is the camera at the time Earth is being filmed, then?

It is dark/black all around the Earth. Part of Earth is also dark/black.

You think the Earth is surrounded by the blackness of space, during this footage?

Earth is partially dark/black, being in shadow... right? Earth's terminator.

If Earth appears at first as the bright white object in that one still frame, how could space/Earth shadow look almost GOLD in color?

It's impossible.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Except they do show the terminator, exactly where it should be seen at the time of the broadcast and using the clouds as a reference point exactly what should be on view at the time of the broadcast. The terminator does not move, but Earth does.

Have another view of Earth

It's from a broadcast on the home from the moon (Sibrel lies about it and claims it's from the way out) and is taken by kinescope from a TV screen to appear in the newspaper. Like all the other images of Earth it matches exactly what should be on show.

Obsess about the metadata all you like, the images of Earth are time and date specific and prove that they were taken exactly where they were claimed to be taken.

Using the same image would look like a 'perfect match', indeed.

It's not the same image. What are you babbling about? That image is taken from a live TV broadcast taken before any satellite images were available to do it.

But they screwed up, big time.

Your failure to pay attention to any posts that prove you wrong is where things are screwed up.

A still frame shows us how the 'terminator' was faked.

All you're doing is proving you don't understand what the terminator is and how it works.

Put it another way - let's assume it really is the Earth.

It is

Where is the camera at the time Earth is being filmed, then?

Inside the command module of Apollo 11 in cislunar space.

It is dark/black all around the Earth.

That would be space.

Part of Earth is also dark/black.

That would be night time.

You think the Earth is surrounded by the blackness of space, during this footage?

I don't think that, I know it.

Earth is partially dark/black, being in shadow... right? Earth's terminator.

Yes, you're doing well.

If Earth appears at first as the bright white object in that one still frame, how could space/Earth shadow look almost GOLD in color?

It's impossible.

It doesn't, you're seeing things.



The image of Earth at the end of that broadcast shows time and date specific weather patterns. The press image is dated the 23rd, just like that TV broadcast.

And while I'm here, if you're still claiming it was done by your imaginary unmanned spacecraft (the one no-one saw launch, the one no-one knows existed but you, then why and how would they be faking the terminator.

Your arguments are not only nonsense they contradict each other.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

It doesn't, you're seeing things.

But Choos also noticed it, as well.

Ya figure both of us must be "seeing things", then?

Perhaps many more people are "seeing things", who knows?

originally posted by: turbonium1

If Earth appears at first as the bright white object in that one still frame, how could space/Earth shadow look almost GOLD in color?

It's impossible.

impossible you say?? explain why space is golden in colour in this one photo..

But Choos also noticed it, as well.

Ya figure both of us must be "seeing things", then?

Perhaps many more people are "seeing things", who knows?

you misunderstand..

i never agreed space/earths shadow was gold in colour.. i said the frame you posted is OVER-EXPOSED making the darkness of space appear golden in colour.. similar to the photo i posted.. therefore, space/earth's shadow is NOT golden in colour as per your claim..

And choos wrongly accused me of creating our shared delusion of a gold-colored outer space, which means he could be in 'Stage 3' delerium!!!

originally posted by: turbonium1
And choos wrongly accused me of creating our shared delusion of a gold-colored outer space, which means he could be in 'Stage 3' delerium!!!

and apologised for it.. but you seemed to have ignored it and taken offence?? strange

i thought you claimed to be quite civilized and would never be offended with what people say to you?? if i called you a liar and you are offended by it, does that mean that you know you are a liar?? like how you claim buzz was offended and so he must have been a liar??

originally posted by: choos

impossible you say?? explain why space is golden in colour in this one photo..

i never agreed space/earths shadow was gold in colour.. i said the frame you posted is OVER-EXPOSED making the darkness of space appear golden in colour.. similar to the photo i posted.. therefore, space/earth's shadow is NOT golden in colour as per your claim..

You say black areas appear gold-colored because the image was 'over-exposed', in some way.

There's no evidence for your claim, it's just your prattling, so far.

Describe what you did here, so we can test it out for ourselves.

If it's verified on that point, we can go on..


It is more than just the gold coloring.

Texture...

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
And choos wrongly accused me of creating our shared delusion of a gold-colored outer space, which means he could be in 'Stage 3' delerium!!!

and apologised for it.. but you seemed to have ignored it and taken offence?? strange

i thought you claimed to be quite civilized and would never be offended with what people say to you?? if i called you a liar and you are offended by it, does that mean that you know you are a liar?? like how you claim buzz was offended and so he must have been a liar??

I didn't know you apologized, so don't take offence. Anyway, where is that post? I must have skipped over it.

Being falsely accused of being a liar is never a good feeling, of course.

But it may be an honest mistake, which can be correctable.

An outright falsehood is very different, meant only to harm.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

impossible you say?? explain why space is golden in colour in this one photo..

i never agreed space/earths shadow was gold in colour.. i said the frame you posted is OVER-EXPOSED making the darkness of space appear golden in colour.. similar to the photo i posted.. therefore, space/earth's shadow is NOT golden in colour as per your claim..

You say black areas appear gold-colored because the image was 'over-exposed', in some way.

There's no evidence for your claim, it's just your prattling, so far.

Describe what you did here, so we can test it out for ourselves.

If it's verified on that point, we can go on..


It is more than just the gold coloring.

Texture...

no evidence?? did you miss the image that i have posted?? ive posted it twice already this will be the third time:

also why am i describing what i have done to this image exactly?? the image is how it is as i found it.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

when something is over-exposed the glare becomes more obvious.. basically you are claiming the glare to be some magical golden pane..



oh look is space golden coloured again? (this picture isnt strictly over-exposed so to speak, just using it as an example)

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
And choos wrongly accused me of creating our shared delusion of a gold-colored outer space, which means he could be in 'Stage 3' delerium!!!

and apologised for it.. but you seemed to have ignored it and taken offence?? strange

i thought you claimed to be quite civilized and would never be offended with what people say to you?? if i called you a liar and you are offended by it, does that mean that you know you are a liar?? like how you claim buzz was offended and so he must have been a liar??

I didn't know you apologized, so don't take offence. Anyway, where is that post? I must have skipped over it.

Being falsely accused of being a liar is never a good feeling, of course.

But it may be an honest mistake, which can be correctable.

An outright falsehood is very different, meant only to harm.

ok i misunderstood, apologies..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

dont know why i have to prove to you that i did apologise for it when its right there.. but anyway..

i do find it curious that you say its never a good feeling to be falsely accused of being a liar though..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

impossible you say?? explain why space is golden in colour in this one photo..

i never agreed space/earths shadow was gold in colour.. i said the frame you posted is OVER-EXPOSED making the darkness of space appear golden in colour.. similar to the photo i posted.. therefore, space/earth's shadow is NOT golden in colour as per your claim..

I's quite easy for you to see for yourself that the camera settings have changed. Space does not change colour, the amount of light entering the camera changes.Watch the video you yourself took frames from, settings are being adjusted, that was the whole point of the broadcast - it was a camera test, you know, to test the camera.

biggest reason i dont believe we went there is because we havent went back since with all our new tech, when u consider that an iphone has more computer power than some of the apollo missions, surely we should have colonised it by now if it was easy enough to do 40 years ago, were planning missions to mars that are 1 way trips, why cant we visit the moon instead? finally end this conspiracy theory? if we did infact go to the moon in the first place that is.

im 50/50 on it though, i havent seen anything that makes me 100% sure we didnt or 100% sure we have.