Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

Sigh, you've captured motion blur. Do you have any pictures of entire torsos with the background visible through them? This is rather amateur. Not that Ove's video proves anything but your comparisons are insulting

No, you and Ove clearly do not understand the concept of "frame rate." Commercial broadcast has a much higher frame rate, that is, it scans the image much more quickly than the slow scan system used on the first lunar landing. The reason the astronauts look transparent is because they are moving more quickly relative to the scan rate. It is what you call "motion blur." The astronauts are motion blurred, not transparent.

a reply to: DJW001

I get that. I didn't say Ove's gif was anything. I just didn't think your comparisons were apples to apples. Hand clapping, even at current 120Hz/240Hz frame rate will cause blur. The scan rate of the gif is odd but could be a multitude of things

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

I get that. I didn't say Ove's gif was anything. I just didn't think your comparisons were apples to apples. Hand clapping, even at current 120Hz/240Hz frame rate will cause blur. The scan rate of the gif is odd but could be a multitude of things

My point was that he did not observe the ghosting on the clip he posted to prove there was no ghosting! I could probably find a lot of examples caused by the transmission bouncing off buildings, etc., but that would be even less relevant. The first lunar transmission used a slow scan process that was not compatible with broadcast television standards. The original tapes have recently been digitally remastered and are much less ghost-like.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

I get that. I didn't say Ove's gif was anything. I just didn't think your comparisons were apples to apples. Hand clapping, even at current 120Hz/240Hz frame rate will cause blur. The scan rate of the gif is odd but could be a multitude of things

The main problem is high contrast subjects and how the images are captured, it was common with cameras that used tubes and had low frame rates it's a bit like screen burn on a crt tv/monitor because it has displayed the same image for a while.

The system retains a ghost of an object for a few seconds which makes another object then look transparent.

These threads would be far shorter if people really took in what happens in the world around them!

a reply to: wmd_2008

These threads would be far shorter if people really took in what happens in the world around them!

I think they are a product of today's tech and have no experience with the way electronics worked just 20 years ago.
Not to mention 40 years when most people still used tube tv's.

Maybe an hour of communicating international via single sideband radio might give them an appreciation for the quality of Apollo communication/tv.

Ask you grandfather HAM radio operator how slow scan tv looked.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: wmd_2008

These threads would be far shorter if people really took in what happens in the world around them!

I think they are a product of today's tech and have no experience with the way electronics worked just 20 years ago.
Not to mention 40 years when most people still used tube tv's.

Maybe an hour of communicating international via single sideband radio might give them an appreciation for the quality of Apollo communication/tv.

Ask you grandfather HAM radio operator how slow scan tv looked.

Even in the digital age you can still get ghosting,colour bleed, macroblocking etc just look at how many posts we get on here about lizard people due to low bandwidth satellite and cable tv transmissions.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: wmd_2008
this been explained before on here

only tentatively speculative explanations based upon propagandists conjecture ...

NO FACTS about a subject, facts are unknown to you!

a reply to: Ove38

Why is the same old garbage gets regurgitated time and time again? Why do you uncritically swallow what is spewed out by people like hunchback without questioning whether what they are saying is reasonable? Why don't you have words of your own?

Not only are you seeing the transmission you are also seeing the internal reflections of the transmission. The 'stick' to the right of the flag that hunchbacked uses as an example is a reflection from the lunar module leg. It is not behind the astronaut, it is on the lens itself.

Here, some long words for you to look at:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

ATTENTION!

This thread is now closed.

We have warned several times to keep on topic and to stop discussing each other.

The thread will be reopened after a time in hopes to make sure that all that are participating in this thread see this message, and LAST warning.

Keep on topic. This means discussing the subject not each other!

Post new material, not the same material that is already in the old thread. IF you have a new angle on the old material, or questions about it, that is fine. However, do not repost what is already in the old thread. Continue the discussion instead, introduce new evidence or discuss the evidence that has been brought forth.

Once the thread is reopened, continuing to post off topic, discussing each other, etc, will result in this thread being completely shut down.

The thread is now open again.

Please remember: Everyone stay on topic.

No discussing each other.

No insults.

No snide comments.

Keep your debating civil.

If you can not agree, then agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Do not flood the thread with material from the old thread, unless you have a new take, new angle, or new information to share.

Asking about material that was in the old thread is also fine.

If discussion can not remain civil and on topic, this thread will be shut down and left that way.

Do not reply to this post.

Shut down ? that's exactly what the Apollo believers want ! Cause they don't want us to ask any more questions.

a reply to: Ove38

actually - we want you to answer questions .

as you bring the issue up [ ghosting on TV footage ]

how does this show that the footage is hoaxed ?

the reall explaination - frame rate >> scan errors is evidence that the footage is real and was broadcast from the moon using SSTV

given that a common hoax believer claim = " kubrik filmed the footage in a terrestrial studio " why isnt it perfect ?

come on folks - stop JAQing off and actually provide some answers in support of hoax claims

originally posted by: choos
everything supports that the card is NOT linked to the rock.. there is no mention of the word rock or anything related to rock on the card, there was no rocks passed around officially during the good will tour neither.. you are the one trying your hardest to join the two together and failing at it..

I've already explained why there's no description. It's ASSUMED to be a moon rock, that is the goal.

And I've also explained why it was not an 'official' event, for the same point it wasn't described as a 'moon rock'..

originally posted by: choos
how certain are you that he is talking about the drees rock?? his memory of it is fuzzy at best..

He was able to recall the 'little..stone' given to Drees, and he also recalled Drees being 'quite taken' with it. What do you have to support your case?

originally posted by: choos
how do you know that the card and the rock came together at the same time?? the ONLY thing you know is that they were found after the death of Drees in a drawer together..

Both were in the same drawer, true.

A card states - 'With the compliments'. You say this card could be referring to any gift, like chocolates. You are aware It means the card refers to a gift. You even suggest the card itself could have been the gift, to boot!

If you ignore everything else stated on the card, it could refer to any gift....perhaps chocolates...

But the card refers to a gift, and who presented the gift, and what the gift commemorates - and you know it does.

You are blatantly choosing to ignore it, and shows that you are being dishonest.

The card clearly matches up to the fake 'moon rock'.,

originally posted by: choos
but no receiver name?? no mention of what the gift was??

So a counterfeit bill would have the receiver of this bill named on a card, and this card must be found stapled to this bill.... otherwise, it cannot be considered a genuine counterfeit bill!!

These bills are stated to be genuine money, or it was not intended to be taken as genuine money, by your same 'logic'.

Intent to fool someone with a fake bill, or a fake moon rock...do you grasp the whole idea of it, now?

originally posted by: choos
the card doesnt even mention the word gift.. how do you know that the card itself isnt the "gift" to commenmorate the visit?

You realize it refers to a gift, so we can move along..

originally posted by: choos
ONLY Drees was given the fake moon rock..

no one else not the active PM not the queen who were both in attendance during the goodwill tour.. no other country official ever received any rocks as a commemoration gift..

You are correct, in saying "...Drees was given the fake moon rock..".

However, Drees is the only one KNOWN to us. Saying ONLY Drees got a fake moon rock, is one's opinion.

Maybe others exist, but they are not known to us...not yet, at least.

originally posted by: choos
how do you just simply take it out of the display?? have you seen the actual moonstone gifts given to other countries?? do you think they can be taken out of their protective casings??

so you are saying that during the time when the Apollo 11 rocks were still being studied and more or less still under quarantine, they just simply unpacked this one..

No...

Nobody knows how the fake moon rock was presented to Drees, as no photos taken at the time, afaik. The 'official' display cases cannot be any sort of valid comparison, to an unknown display of the fake moon rock.

We don't know why the fake moon was removed from its display case, only that it was..

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've already explained why there's no description. It's ASSUMED to be a moon rock, that is the goal.

No. That is your interpretation of the imaginary event you have created to explain it.

And I've also explained why it was not an 'official' event, for the same point it wasn't described as a 'moon rock'..

Ditto.

originally posted by: choos

He was able to recall the 'little..stone' given to Drees, and he also recalled Drees being 'quite taken' with it. What do you have to support your case?

He was able, decades after the event, when prompted by a journalist, an event involving an old man and a rock. My belief is that he is mistakenly recalling the visit of the APollo 12 mon rock for a Rotterdam exhibition in February 1970. There is more evidence to support my claim than yours.

Both were in the same drawer, true.

A card states - 'With the compliments'. You say this card could be referring to any gift, like chocolates. You are aware It means the card refers to a gift. You even suggest the card itself could have been the gift, to boot!

If you ignore everything else stated on the card, it could refer to any gift....perhaps chocolates...

But the card refers to a gift, and who presented the gift, and what the gift commemorates - and you know it does.

You are blatantly choosing to ignore it, and shows that you are being dishonest.

It can also merely refer the card itself as an introduction. Official gifts were given out It is far more likely to be related to one of those.

The card clearly matches up to the fake 'moon rock'.,

Really? How on Earth do you draw the conclusion that a slightly battered card is a match for a piece of fossilised tree?

So a counterfeit bill would have the receiver of this bill named on a card, and this card must be found stapled to this bill.... otherwise, it cannot be considered a genuine counterfeit bill!!

These bills are stated to be genuine money, or it was not intended to be taken as genuine money, by your same 'logic'.

Intent to fool someone with a fake bill, or a fake moon rock...do you grasp the whole idea of it, now?

There is no evidence, anywhere, that shows that this rock was presented to Drees by anyone from the Apollo 11 goodwill tour at all. It was never claimed to be a lunar rock, and there is no evidence to support that it was. You have been repeatedly requested to provide support for your claim, but all you have managed so far is "well they would say that wouldn't they?".

You realize it refers to a gift, so we can move along..

You are correct, in saying "...Drees was given the fake moon rock..".

However, Drees is the only one KNOWN to us. Saying ONLY Drees got a fake moon rock, is one's opinion.

Maybe others exist, but they are not known to us...not yet, at least.

Saying Drees was given a moon rock us your opinion, Saying there are others is your opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that he was given it, or that it was claimed, or that he even thought, that it was a moon rock. If you have some proof, cough it up.

No...

Nobody knows how the fake moon rock was presented to Drees, as no photos taken at the time, afaik. The 'official' display cases cannot be any sort of valid comparison, to an unknown display of the fake moon rock.

We don't know why the fake moon was removed from its display case, only that it was..

Nobody knows that he was given this rock. It was never in a a display case, it was never given to him by anyone on the tour,or by the Ambassador.

This whole story is Chinese whispers from an art exhibition and I repeat, once again:

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that this fossilised tree was given to Drees by anyone remotely related to the Apollo 11 goodwill tour, or by anyone else. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever claimed, hinted or implied that it was a lunar rock.

If you have some evidence that is not your wild supposition concerning imaginary events and motives then you should provide it.

originally posted by: Ove38
Shut down ? that's exactly what the Apollo believers want ! Cause they don't want us to ask any more questions.

So in your first post you illustrate exactly why the thread was suspended?

Can you please respond to the comments made about the video you posted.

originally posted by: Ove38
Shut down ? that's exactly what the Apollo believers want ! Cause they don't want us to ask any more questions.

The primary work of the Apollo Reviewer is to ask questions about the Apollo narrative and to elicit answers from Apollo Defenders and Apollo Believers.

Yes, there are two different levels of Apollo Narrative Control... first you have the die-hard believers and secondly you have the die-hard defenders. Both of those groups are guilty of running defense for the other. It is called "brigading" where they all band together in a coordinated effort to minimize the damage caused when Reviewers review the Apollo narratives.

Apollo Reviewers are simply doing a duty to the historical Apollo narrative by suggesting weaknesses in that narrative and by investigating those weaknesses - then exploiting those weaknesses - in effect to undermine the official Apollo narrative, which these people are here to defend by all means necessary, that includes, ad hominem and bullying and brigading.

It would be nice if the Apollo Reviewers could have a thread to discuss the narratives without the constant bullying of Believers and Defenders. But this thread is pretty standard result of what happens in any Apollo thread that gets too close to the truth.

as hoax believers are still harping on the issue of drees and the petrified wood . lets ask you some questions :

1 - why give drees anything ?

2 - if drees was given a gift - why in secret ?

3 - why did drees never publicise his posession of the alledged " moon rock " ?

4 - please show corrolation between the petrified wood and the card ?

awaits replies with interest

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Ove38

actually - we want you to answer questions .

as you bring the issue up [ ghosting on TV footage ]

how does this show that the footage is hoaxed ?

the reall explaination - frame rate >> scan errors is evidence that the footage is real and was broadcast from the moon using SSTV

given that a common hoax believer claim = " kubrik filmed the footage in a terrestrial studio " why isnt it perfect ?

come on folks - stop JAQing off and actually provide some answers in support of hoax claims

I think the 'ghosting' was intentional, as a 'special effect'.

The moon was a mysterious, spooky, alien world...not human.

Astronauts become these 'spectres', slowly 'floating' - very ghost-like - the 'effects on humans', within a very strange, alien, environment.


So strange, that it worked to (near) perfection, as the world believed it was real. Most people still do believe it was real, even now.


But they blew it, when they changed the speed, from 50%, to 66.66%, proving it is a hoax.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
as hoax believers are still harping on the issue of drees and the petrified wood . lets ask you some questions :

1 - why give drees anything ?

2 - if drees was given a gift - why in secret ?

3 - why did drees never publicise his posession of the alledged " moon rock " ?

4 - please show corrolation between the petrified wood and the card ?

awaits replies with interest

1 - drees was a very influential person, well-respected, an honest man. In polls, he was voted best PM ever, by Dutch citizens.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's a pretty good reason for choosing Drees, right?...

2 - It is easy to prove as a fake, so why would they want to make it known to the public? Makes sense, no?

3 - tell Drees that rocks are not supposed to be given out, so never mention it, or we'll both be in big trouble. It's not that hard.

4 - I've already explained the correlation..