Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Funny... I could have sworn we've all been through this before. If you want something more exciting, check out the Leonid Elenin interview; much better special effects!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Dark Side of the Moon is more interesting, because it seems to basically tell the truth about Kubrick being involved, yet... its called a mockumentary. I wonder where are the lies?

"....where are the lies?" For most of this thread, coming in YOUR posts.


Oh, you meant in that mockumentary....FoosM the PROOF is everywhere.

Where does the documentary lie Weed?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

The Apollo Defenders have been SILENCED!

[words]

edit on 5/12/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

We haven't been silenced. We're right here. Jarrah is either a hoax, or he's just plain incompetent. He's certainly a fraud as an "expert".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Incontrovertible proof Jarrah used a blatantly false claim. Either he's lying, or he screwed up. Neither speaks well to his credibility.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Dark Side of the Moon is more interesting, because it seems to basically tell the truth about Kubrick being involved, yet... its called a mockumentary. I wonder where are the lies?

"....where are the lies?" For most of this thread, coming in YOUR posts.


Oh, you meant in that mockumentary....FoosM the PROOF is everywhere.

Where does the documentary lie Weed?

A "mockumentary" is false. By definition. You yourself said it was a mockumentary, and I have no doubt you'll try and move the goalposts or avoid addressing the fact.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Dark Side of the Moon is more interesting, because it seems to basically tell the truth about Kubrick being involved, yet... its called a mockumentary. I wonder where are the lies?

"....where are the lies?" For most of this thread, coming in YOUR posts.


Oh, you meant in that mockumentary....FoosM the PROOF is everywhere.

Where does the documentary lie Weed?

A "mockumentary" is false. By definition. You yourself said it was a mockumentary, and I have no doubt you'll try and move the goalposts or avoid addressing the fact.

How is this documentary a mockumentary?

reply to post by FoosM


It is even admitted by the French filmmaker!! It was a joke!

You really fell for it, that hard?? Like....you thought it was real??

It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon.

Maybe you didn't watch the credits?? Here they are, again for your entertainment:

Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality. In a 2004 interview, the director was asked why he would elect to make a film "closer to a comedy than a serious film"; Karel replied that in the wake of having made serious documentaries, the objective was "de faire un film drôle" (to make a funny film).

Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke, and again on 17 November 2008 as part of Kubrick week. It was aired again on 27 July 2009, perhaps to coincide with the anniversary of the moon landing.

Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman, Jack Torrance, and Dimitri Muffley are named after characters from movies directed by Kubrick. There are also references to films by Alfred Hitchcock, as both Eve Kendall and George Kaplan are character names in North by Northwest, and Ambrose Chapel is a location in the 1956 remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Originally posted by FoosM
So then why are you concerned about the Spy Satellite example which only was an answer to your question of satellites not taking 70mm photography, than to my previous post showing that the USSR and US were taking high definition photos of the Earth prior to Apollo 8?

Could you define what "high definition" would be exactly? I've looked at the catalog of colour images from ATS-3. They look good, especially for 1960's tech, but I don't know if I'd call them "high definition"

How do you know that? I just said many images from satellites at that time are still classified.
You have no idea what they did back in the 60's and 70's during the Cold War.

And neither do you. I prefer not to speculate on what they could have / might have / possibly been able to do. I'd rather see some actual evidence.

And even if they weren't capable of doing that.
Have you considered that full Earth photos could also have been stitched together from low flying satellites?

But that would mean it would have to be done way in advance. Which doesn't work. Again, the whole point of that thread was to show that the Apollo photos, which showed Earth and it's weather patterns, matched the meteorological images from satellites like ATS-3. The times and dates match up, some Apollo photos of Earth contain things like Hurricanes/Typhoons that were news worthy. Some Apollo photos of Earth that were taken over a span of time, show that the Earth is not static, but that it's rotating and that the weather was also dynamic.

Their main point is that because satellite images matches Apollo images that proves Apollo happened.

I personally wouldn't use the word "proves", but it's most definitely compelling evidence.

Are you saying that because two sets of images of Earth matches each other means that we sent men to the moon?

Like I said, it's really good evidence that we did.

It was impossible to outfit a satellite with a 70mm camera and sent it do a high enough orbit to take photos? But of course, why do that when you had, for example, ATS weather satellites!

The ATS images are what the Apollo photos are being compared to. As well as the ESSA satellites.

Last I checked, non of those flew to, orbited or landed on the Moon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is even admitted by the French filmmaker!! It was a joke!

You really fell for it, that hard?? Like....you thought it was real??

It never seizes to amaze me how many times I see people believing this is a real documentary.

I knew this thread would take care of itself.

Originally posted by DJW001
I knew this thread would take care of itself.

Amen.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c7cf78f8c67.jpg[/atsimg]

During the Apollo 11 Moonwalk, President Nixon phoned the astronauts from the Oval Office. This piece shows the television feed on the left and the 16mm motion picture film (from inside the LM window) on the right



Pure propaganda

As-it-happened real actual footage from CBS news with Walter Cronkite reporting on the historic Apollo 11 moon landing in July, 1969. President Nixon speaks to the crew via phone.
Tags Apollo 11 Ray Glasser CBS July 1969 Walter Cronkite Moon Landing
Views: (3480) Duration: (00:09:55) Category: Travel - Events Uploaded: 07-17-09

www.iviewtube.com...

Hey FoosM here is some originally broadcast ABC footage of an ABC News sponsored event for the Apollo 11 moon landing.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0fba78d87f7d.jpg[/atsimg]

and pay special attention at about 1:00 in this video down in the bottom left there are some dudes making some interesting hand signals

Notice that ABC is using TV trickery to create this historical event. This ABC network broadcast INEXPLICABLY converts to a negative image at about 6:30. Hmmmmm. At about 7:20 in the video the negative image reverts back to regular image and there seems to be an actual editing splice at 7:29 in this video just before the NASA PAO says "That's the sample return containers..."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd8898194766.jpg[/atsimg]

In order to really understand Apollo we have to view the source material. In some cases that source material has been DELETED by NASA. With the history of Apollo 11 we are left with only archived TV versions. As we can see here in this original 1969 ABC News broadcast in this video between 3:30 and 3:50 there there is an up/down inversion of the image from the single camera Apollo TV footage. Nobody makes any mention of it.....

At about 4:01 (again at 4:47) in this video there are some very faint digital tones which at first sound like DTMF tones but these tones are distorted and I can't be sure what they really are.

At about 6:15 in this video Neil is changing the lenses on the TV camera and then some very odd EDITING happens where only 15 seconds later Neil is unveiling the plaque. The plaque contains the signature of the President of the United States Richard M. Nixon.

At about 8:26 it sounds like Buzz is reporting that the surface is "powdery". He has already described the surface earlier in the movie but makes the decision again to say it is "powdery" as if we did not understand it the first time.

At about 9:20 in this video the Apollo 11 TV camera is being manually by Neil handled for the upcoming panorama sequence.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Hey FoosM here is some originally broadcast ABC footage of an ABC News sponsored event for the Apollo 11 moon landing.

and pay special attention at about 1:00 in this video down in the bottom left there are some dudes making some interesting hand signals

Notice that ABC is using TV trickery to create this historical event. This ABC network broadcast INEXPLICABLY converts to a negative image at about 6:30. Hmmmmm. At about 7:20 in the video the negative image reverts back to regular image and there seems to be an actual editing splice at 7:29 in this video just before the NASA PAO says "That's the sample return containers..."

All kinds of wrong here.
LM shadow seems to be too short- looks painted on the ground.

How can in one breath Armstrong say that he can barely see in the shadow, but go ahead and describe
blast rays and other curiosities?

Hey, who forgot to turn up that spotlight ! I mean talk about your hotspots!
But yes, if this was live from the moon, that edit is a clear indication of fakery.
How can you jump cut in the middle of a live feed?

Why the cut and the negative? Well listen to what Neil said.
He said it was dark, and he was going to work his way into the sun.
But as you can see, it seemed he couldnt walk past the shadow line of the LM ( I guess the wires wouldnt go so far). And when the picture went back normal, he was still in shadow with a few highlights of light on his PLSS.
Coming from... above?

So what did they do? CUT!

And what was that that moved around 7:50 under the ladder. Rope?
Who made it move? Buzz coming down?

Another ABC News live coverage of Apollo 11 moon landing.

At about 2:40 in this video segment Neil has finished adjusting the TV camera after completing the panorama sequence. Please note that the landing occurred at July 20, 1969 20:17:40 UTC but the TV broadcast of the actual moonwalks were much later in the evening.

The first step was 7 hours LATER.

First step: 02:56:15 UT July 21, 1969
(10:56:15 p.m. EDT July 20, 1969)

At about 4:49 in this video there is a possible editing transition and the PAO states that "Neil Armstrong has been on the surface now almost forty five minutes."

Listen closely at 5:23 in this video when "Houston this is Columbia on the Hi-gain over". Houston acknowledges "Columbia".

At about 6:00 in this video some guy named Mike asks "How is the quality of the TV?"

"Oh, it's beautiful Mike it really is."

At about 6:13 the guy named Mike asks "O Jeez that's great is the lighting half way decent?"

"Yes indeed they've got the flag up now and you can see the Stars & Stripes from the lunar surface."

At 6:18 in this video Mike says "Beautiful, just beautiful."

Originally posted by DJW001
I knew this thread would take care of itself.

Yeah we will go on poking holes into NASA's story.

dbl post

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Pure propaganda

yes it was , and ??

the nixon / oval office radio link had no scientific merit , or mission value

it was pure propaganda - no one has ever denied that

but it was an act of propaganda that happened , exactly as the archive material shows it

you may wish to actually look up and understand what propaganda is - because you seem confused

propaganda can be , and often is true - its the way it is presented and the importance ascribed to it that defins it as propaganda

reply to post by FoosM


the only thing you have poked any holes in so far is your crebibility and the icredibility of those you parrot

feel free to actually attempt to start poking holes in the NASA evidence any time you feel ready

Now we see how the Nixon telephone call to Apollo 11 was portrayed on ABC News television original broadcast from July 21, 1969. Interesting to note that ABC does not have a camera at the Oval Room while CBS does. Therefore ABC does not do a split screen with Nixon.

Remember that this telephone call is happening very late in the evening on the continental US.

"We'd like to get both of you in the field of view of the camera for a minute."

"Neil and Buzz the President of the United States is in his office now and would like to say a few words to you over."

At 00:40 "Go ahead Mr. President this is Houston out"

At 1:37 in this video Nixon says "For one priceless moment in the whole history of man all the people on this Earth are truly one. One in their pride in which you have done. And one in our prayers that you will return safely to Earth."

By 2:40 in this video the Nixon telephone call is over. It was a 2 minute call.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Pure propaganda

yes it was , and ??

the nixon / oval office radio link had no scientific merit , or mission value

it was pure propaganda - no one has ever denied that

but it was an act of propaganda that happened , exactly as the archive material shows it

you may wish to actually look up and understand what propaganda is - because you seem confused

propaganda can be , and often is true - its the way it is presented and the importance ascribed to it that defins it as propaganda

I've read Jaques Ellul I know what propaganda is. Class dismissed.

Please notice in this video that propaganda is not only in the pictures themselves as physical objects or mass media images... but that propaganda is even found in the INTENSE FURY of the sounds made as dozens of cameras are taking pictures as the photographers desperately try to capture one more fleeting moment in human TV history.