Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

reply to post by Pimander


Man - Wow - We navigiated by the starS but the navigater never saw any stars what a bunch of crock
They messed up on their debriefing oops mean quarantine - I always thought they did go to the Moon now I am highly sceptical - someone is telling porky pies.

reply to post by Pimander

At the Apollo 11 debriefing press conference the Astronauts couldn't seem to agree on whether they could see stars?!?!

Listen more carefully to the comments.....and watch the full un-edited press conference.

Or, perhaps first learn about the process they are discussing. Actually, back in early days of aviation, many large commercial airplanes had an optic sight in the cockpit ceiling, back before Inertial Navigation technology. Back when there actually dedicated "navigators" needed, and they used the precision equipment to determine position, much as mariners did for centuries before that. "Celestial Navigation" using sextants.

In the cockpit, even with most instrumentation lights turned way low, it is STILL hard to see the stars, at night.....and through the relatively large cockpit windows we have. If any bright lights have been on, it destroys your "night vision" right away, and can take up to 30 minutes to re-adapt. Only way to see stars well is to turn off ALL the interior cockpit instrument lights......hard to monitor things that way, though........ ....when you can't see or read them.

Other way is for one person to simply get up close to the window, and wait for the eyes to adjust.


Context matters. And individual personal life experience.

Bonus: Sextant, Apollo Guidance and Navigation System

I guess proudbird must have me on ignore or he is guilty of what many of the hoax supporters are often accused of
ie. reading selective posts ?

I always wonder why people give them so much crap about stars on the moon.

Hey guys we're on the moon!

Who cares man, look at those stars!


Like, seriously.

reply to post by artistpoet


You don't space travel by visual. In fact air force pilots don't navigate by looking out the window, this isn't WW I technology, how do you think Navy pilots land on a small aircraft carrier at night, by looking out the windshield? How naive.

reply to post by artistpoet


And, as in my post, see the FULL interview, not the edited version:

We navigiated by the starS but the navigater never saw any stars what a bunch of crock

Also, as long as the inertial platform was aligned, then there was no need for a sighting to re-initialize the alignment, unless alignment was lost.

But, as a practice exercise, the "shooting a star" procedure was done as a just-in-case. Or, as an inertial nav accuracy check.

But, these are just minor technical details. You seem to have forgotten about the other previous Apollo missions that circumnavigated the Moon, but did not land. As part of more practice, proof of concept, and experience gathering.

Do the research on Apollo 8 and Apollo 10. There is a lot, a lot to learn, and once you do, you begin to see the fallacy of people like Bart Sibrel, and how they deceive with their editing and misinfomation.

reply to post by Phage

Was that the Command module beneath the lander?

Originally posted by Phage

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "co-incidence and chance."

edit on 1/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Mis-understandings, mis-interpretations and mis-representations.

It goes beyond the laws of probability.
Fakery explains everything without the need for all the special pleading.

Have you seen Capricorn One?

Do you believe that, with enough motivation and resourses, that the
Apollo missions in principle could have been faked!

Would you trust your life to this contraption (whatever it is)?


How do you explain the transparent Astro-nought?
(ATS won't allow me to upload the GIF - file size error.)
www.cluesforum.info...
(Scroll down to the end of the post - you can deal with the other
difficult issues raised in the post if you wish).
All valid questions in spite of proudbirds continual diatribe.


All misunderstandings. co-incidence, mis-interpretations, misrepresentations and chance, right?

Stanley Kubrick is intrinsically tied in with Apollo 11.
2001 a space odyssey, with all it's cinematographic innovations was released in 1968.

The shining when decoded exposes the moon landings hoax.
Kubrick insisted that his last film Eyes Wide Shut was released exactly
on the 30 year anniversity of the 1969 'moon landing'.

'Living is easy with eyes shut.
Misunderstanding all you see.'

Fakery Fakery Everywhere

And I think You Know It Only Too Well Phage!

reply to post by artistpoet

Really? There are several references early in the flight but how about page 81? Page 167? Page 227? Page 230?

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by ProudBird


Sure there are optical illusion but if they could see Venus which of course is the brightest planet in the night sky but not to be able to see some of the brightset stars such as Sirius Rigel Pollux Castor Canopus arcturus Vega
Procyon etc - Come on now Sirius the brightest star gives Venus a good run for the money.
I am not saying they never went to the Moon but this is not acceptable to any with a brain in their head - So what is going on - Oh is Venus some kind of cutoff point I think not - And the Sun was not always glaring their view
In the transcript they declare how bright Venus looks so something less bright would and could show

Just watched the full documentary

www.youtube.com...

I think they knew in the future, humans would realize this was all fake. But in 1969, they got away with it. It almost seems like a revolution is in the agenda if you think about all the possible staged events in our history. If everyone suddenly knew.....along with the possibilty of no god.......could this be in the plans? Why risk so many cover ups and public illusions against a human race that keeps getting smarter? Somewhere in the magical book of earth plans, there is a revolution. There has to be. Realising that we cant actually play golf and go-cart on the moon (without alien approval) is a good start.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by artistpoet

 

Really? There are several references early in the flight but how about page 81? Page 167? Page 227? Page 230?

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

ok Phage I will take a look

Originally posted by ProRipp
I guess proudbird must have me on ignore or he is guilty of what many of the hoax supporters are often accused of
ie. reading selective posts ?

Is there an ignore button?
If I had realised, proudbird would have longsince been on my ignore list!

reply to post by Pimander


They were connected nose to nose, after they emerged from the liftoff shell, the hatches on their top is how they got from one to the other. Have you never looked at the diagrams and just shoot from the cuff?

Linky

reply to post by pshea38

It goes beyond the laws of probability.

What laws of probability are those?

Fakery is not necessary when something actually occured.

Do you believe that, with enough motivation and resourses, that the
Apollo missions in principle could have been faked!

Questions are supposed to end with one of these: "?"
I do not believe the vast scope of evidence in favor of the Apollo landings could have been faked.

Would you trust your life to this contraption (whatever it is)?

It's called the LM. Yes. For a chance to land on the Moon I would risk my life. In a heartbeat. Just as the astronauts did.

Transparent astronaut. I guess you are too young to have seen what TV used to be like.

2001 was a good movie but the special effects were not so special.

Stanley Kubrick is intrinsically tied in with Apollo 11.

reply to post by pshea38


That is an old tired fallacy, needs not even to be addressed.

reply to post by henryjonesjr

Just watched the full documentary

Ah yes...the full fictionmentary that the clip in the thread OP is from.

The total film is a mess of junk, false and inaccurate claims, some intentional deceptive editing (as in the thread OP video clip) and is thoroughly discredited by any number of others who have taken the time to do so, and make videos or write blogs or host Forums about it.

And, it is discredited by anyone with a good understanding and knowledge of science and space and aerospace technical matters.

Here, for example.....just one of the latest:

Like a moth to a flame, I just can't help but post again. Some dialogue from the video clip, followed by images they cut from the source film.

Though the federal government would have you believe that this is a view of Earth from a distance out of the space craft's window as it nears the moon, it is not. What they have ingeniously done, is placed the camera at the back of the space craft and centred the lens on a circular window in the foreground...


Not looking so circular hmm, and no crescent shaped black material hmm.

...outside of which it is completely filled with the Earth in low orbit.


I know it's bright, but that's Earth. Not filling the window hmm.

The uncut source film : www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENaLYO_9P3s

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by pshea38

 

All of the multitude of Apollo anomalies unearthed .....

Not one. Not one that isn't chalked up to either poor understanding of science, or intentional deception by using the worst possible resolution materials, whether still or photo.

by the many, many
intelligent and respected reasearchers...

"intelligent" and "respected"??

This is a joke, right? Who, Bart Sibrel??

The contributors to www.cluesforum.info.

Let people listen to Jim Fetzers interview with Bart Sibrel to properly
assess his intelligence and reasoning!
nwopodcast.com...

You proudbirdman are a CHARLATAN, IMHO!

reply to post by pshea38


LOL..

Jim Fetzers interview with Bart Sibrel

Enough said, there. Way to go, I think. There isn't a nutty "conspiracy theory" that Jim Fetzer won't get onboard:

en.wikipedia.org...

Hardly surprising, after his abject failures in other "conspiracy" realms, that he decided to jump on this bandwagon, since the Moon "hoax" nonsense obviously still has a long train behind it. This is due to end soon, however.

The LRO camera photos starting in 2009 are conclusive evidence of the fallacy and fraud of this so-called "hoax". The LRO was lowered in its orbit (last year, 2011) and even higher resolution photos are now available.


Time magazine online, September 2011


Gallery of LRO photos, Apollo landing sites

One of the better YouTube versions done by experts at Arizona State University. The comments notes explain the enhancement processes: