Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

cestrup
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

edit to add: apparently today the word "window" will give you an "_" for some odd reason. I've seen it in a few responses.

edit on 31-3-2014 by cestrup because: (no reason given)

Its a bug on ATS

Gibborium
reply to post by FoosM

 

Watched the video you posted and I will have to say, it is made up of out of context clips and the very aspect pointed out toward the end of the video on mind control marketing. This video is planting subconscious thoughts into the listeners mind that what is be said is the truth.

I would especially like to see the citations for all the clips that were used. OH, and by the way, where in the world are parts 1 and 3 to this interview?

I don't know this Allan Weisbecker, but a lot of what he is stating is the same garbage of the main HBers like Allen, Rene', Sibrel and the now infamous Jarah White. All bozos in their own right.

Certainly this video is not as polished as well funded government propaganda like the Apollo 13 fiction.
But the points are there, either the air-conditioning in the LM keeps it cool or keeps it warm, can't have it both.

FoosM

Gibborium
reply to post by FoosM

 

Watched the video you posted and I will have to say, it is made up of out of context clips and the very aspect pointed out toward the end of the video on mind control marketing. This video is planting subconscious thoughts into the listeners mind that what is be said is the truth.

I would especially like to see the citations for all the clips that were used. OH, and by the way, where in the world are parts 1 and 3 to this interview?

I don't know this Allan Weisbecker, but a lot of what he is stating is the same garbage of the main HBers like Allen, Rene', Sibrel and the now infamous Jarah White. All bozos in their own right.

Certainly this video is not as polished as well funded government propaganda like the Apollo 13 fiction.
But the points are there, either the air-conditioning in the LM keeps it cool or keeps it warm, can't have it both.

The heaters are used as necessary to keep it warm, and the air conditioners are used as necessary to keep it cool. It depends on whether the cabin of the LM is in sun or in shade.

I'm not understanding the problem here with this that you seem to be having.

IroncladFT
reply to post by Gibborium

 

I see you got a few stars for your post that will be from the hoax believers who don't understand lighting in photographs.

Now lets look at it from a photographic point of view we have 2 planets with an ATMOSPHERE and a Moon WITHOUT one we have the Sun high up in the Earth/Mars pictures and NOT in the field of view of the lens and we have the Moon again with a low level Sun clearly seen in the picture.

The Moon is evenly lit the terrain is not flat so all the bumps craters are seen.

The words in capitals are to help the INEXPERIENCED!!!

Soylent Green Is People

FoosM

Gibborium
reply to post by FoosM

 

Watched the video you posted and I will have to say, it is made up of out of context clips and the very aspect pointed out toward the end of the video on mind control marketing. This video is planting subconscious thoughts into the listeners mind that what is be said is the truth.

I would especially like to see the citations for all the clips that were used. OH, and by the way, where in the world are parts 1 and 3 to this interview?

I don't know this Allan Weisbecker, but a lot of what he is stating is the same garbage of the main HBers like Allen, Rene', Sibrel and the now infamous Jarah White. All bozos in their own right.

Certainly this video is not as polished as well funded government propaganda like the Apollo 13 fiction.
But the points are there, either the air-conditioning in the LM keeps it cool or keeps it warm, can't have it both.

The heaters are used as necessary to keep it warm, and the air conditioners are used as necessary to keep it cool. It depends on whether the cabin of the LM is in sun or in shade.

I'm not understanding the problem here with this that you seem to be having.

edit on 3/31/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Wait, so the LM had a heater? And which did they turn on while on the moon? The heater or the cooler?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Agreed, I can't believe that HBs would use "this photo doesn't look like what I would expect to see on Earth" as an argument that it wasn't taken on the moon.

The photos taken on the lunar surface look strange and other-worldly. The lighting isn't like it is on Earth; the horizon looks oddly close, distant objects look crystal clear. Of course they look strange - they were taken on the moon!

wmd_2008

IroncladFT
reply to post by Gibborium

 

I see you got a few stars for your post that will be from the hoax believers who don't understand lighting in photographs.

Now lets look at it from a photographic point of view we have 2 planets with an ATMOSPHERE and a Moon WITHOUT one we have the Sun high up in the Et equalarth/Mars pictures and NOT in the field of view of the lens and we have the Moon again with a low level Sun clearly seen in the picture.

The Moon is evenly lit the terrain is not flat so all the bumps craters are seen.

The words in capitals are to help the INEXPERIENCED!!!

When i was a view hundred post back saying things about apollogist giving stars to other apollogist my post was quickly removed becuase of t&c. So why are you allowed to do the same thing against moonhoax believers ?

Please ATS remove the post from wmd_2008 (and mine) about this, otherwise you are no equal honest.

reply to post by webstra


Why don't you scurry off and find something to actually post ie some evidence you have done NOTHING here but post your FLAWED opinions!!!

reply to post by FoosM

Why do you say "wait" as if this was some kind of new revelation? All this information is there in the public domain if only the hoax proponents would take the time to look it up.

Yes the LM had a heater and an air conditioner. If you were going to send a spacecraft to the moon, what would you do? Advise them to pack an extra jumper and hope for the best?

When it landed on the moon in sunlight, cooling was required so the air conditioning system was running.

The people who cry hoax never seem to know half as much about the Apollo program as those who acknowledge it was real. Doesn't that tell you something?

Well guys, another year and a quarter plus of imminent disclosure de-imminented. This imminent disclosure could go on for ever by the looks of things. In this case all over a really dedicated piece of work, that ended up in dusty bin. The reality is that it just goes to show the immense effort that was Apollo..people were like that in the 60's.

wmd_2008
reply to post by webstra

 

Why don't you scurry off and find something to actually post ie some evidence you have done NOTHING here but post your FLAWED opinions!!!

Hi wmd_2008, sometimes a lie is just a lie.

webstra

wmd_2008
reply to post by webstra

 

Why don't you scurry off and find something to actually post ie some evidence you have done NOTHING here but post your FLAWED opinions!!!

Hi wmd_2008, sometimes a lie is just a lie.

And sometimes a troll is just a troll.

There can be no 'moderate' Moon Hoax believers. It can only be all or nothing. If you think that they sent men to the Moon but the LM was not up to the task of landing, then you are admitting that it was possible to go to the Moon and that the actual landing is a mere detail. If you believe that NASA constructed functional robotic spacecraft, you are admitting that NASA could have placed men in them, and their presence is a mere detail. If you believe they were launched into near Earth orbit, you are admitting that manned space travel is possible. If they were in near Earth orbit, they would have been seen and their communications would not have been continuous. Therefore they were not in near Earth orbit. The only way that you can believe that the Apollo program was fake was to believe that every single detail of the entire program was fake. Everything must have been filmed in a studio, including the launch of the Saturn V. If the Saturn V launch was not faked, it would be tantamount to admitting that it is possible to send equipment that can support human life to the Moon. No, everything, every little detail must be completely fake, otherwise there is some doubt that they might have been real.

Soylent Green Is People

I can't be sure exactly why the people pushing this hoax theory would choose to ignore the evidence that does NOT support their claim, but one of the only reasons I can think of is that they are being intentionally disingenuous about their claims.

There it is in a nutshell SGIP.

Imagine you are pushing the hoax claim for some reason, this is exactly how you should go about it, scan every available piece of film and try to find something that looks 'wrong', build an argument that fits in with your thesis(it's all fake) around each little anomaly you find and ignore anything and everything that that doesn't support your claims, which is 99.99% of the material. If somebody cops on to what you are trying to do(deceive people), drop that and move on to another 'anomaly', repeat this over and over till you run out of anomalies, then go back to the start, keep this up for a few years and you'll begin to have a hardcore following of deluded numpties for whom the truth is irrelevant, these people will parrot your claims and also use the 'merry go round' tactic, hey presto a self perpetuating myth! Thankfully most of them will never find a mate and reproduce.

That is to me the irony of the whole moon hoax claim: it's believers are actually the ones being hoaxed themselves, by deceptive weasels like JW.

DJW001
There can be no 'moderate' Moon Hoax believers. It can only be all or nothing. No, everything, every little detail must be completely fake, otherwise there is some doubt that they might have been real.

Agreed, in fact an excellent and insightful summary. I know, to my satisfaction that Apollo 11 was so far out of LEO that to presume otherwise is plain silly. The funny thing is, not once have I seen a post from someone who believes that the Moon landings never happened say that they went out of LEO for at least a quarter of the distance to the Moon, then turned round and came back. No, it was always they only stayed in LEO, and then returned to Earth, and that everything else was a pretence.

FoosM

onebigmonkey

cestrup
reply to post by FoosM

 

I went and read your debates on the old "Aussie Whips.." thread (link in your sig). Very impressive and I tend to side with you. It all seems so fabricated IMO. I'm not completely shut off to men walking on the moon but the more I dig into it; it becomes more clear. Especially the video of the astronauts in LEO but were claiming to being 130,000mi out using a window to portray an earth from near lunar orbit. I mean, WTF? Armstrong is even stating to be 130k out when it's totally obvious they're using trickery.

That video gets it completely wrong on that one.

You can't get an entire Earth in shot from LEO - it's not possible. You have to be waaaaay out in space to do that.

Satellites can do that, and the astronauts could have been in one of those planes that simulate zero gravity.
Jarrah W. made a video about this.

Thing is, Jarrah doesn't know what he's talking about. I do because I've carried out extensive research into the subject. he hasn't, and he hopes you won't either because then you'll find out how ignorant he is.

Let's deal with your bit about being in a plane first - nonsense. These planes run on a precise arc and you get about 20-30 seconds of weightlessness at a time. The broadcasts from space were much much longer than this.

You also state that satellites could take a shot of Earth. Well, yes, but you obviously didn't read any of my post. The view of Earth are much further out than the geostationary satellites of the time. There were two, and they clue is in the name: they don't move, they always show the same part of Earth from about 24000 miles out. The repeated photographs of Earth I strung together in the video I posted showed that they are not taken from the same spot above Earth. There were no colour satellite photos available.

The TV broadcasts by Apollo also show Earth from much further out than these satellites. You also miss the fact that this is a TV broadcast, not a photograph, and there is a measurable difference between the Earth at the start of the footage and the end, showing that there is rotation of the Earth, as this shows.



You can try that for yourself - I took two frames from the start and end of the first sequence and animated them. Prove it isn't true.

Now here's what Jarrah said about weather satellites (from your subsequent post):

Secondly: As stated above, these videos have been compared with photos of earth taken by weather satellites in orbit at the time. Naturally, the pro-NASA side has been quick to call this "evidence". This trait is typical among propagandists: they present a piece of data or video that they don't know how to fake, and they assume that anything they don't know how to fake must be evidence that Apollo was real. Considering that NASA had many weather satellites in orbit long before and during Apollo, and that meteorologists had been using such satellite photographs to predict cloud formations and thus make forecasts for the week's weather, I'd say that's how NASA was able to get the cloud positions right in these videos.

I am quick to call comparing satellite photos with pictures of Earth from space evidence because it is. Saying it isn't doesn't suddenly stop it being evidence, you need to explain why it doesn't prove a point.

NASA did indeed have many weather satellites during Apollo. The Soviets had a few too. There were no colour images being broadcast from space and the only geostationary satellites gave coverage of the US, Atlantic and part of the Pacific. They did not give global coverage.

The only global coverage came from polar orbital satellites in LEO that took 24 hours to cover the entire surface. This means that every time you see a picture of the Earth taken in a fraction of a second or a video taken over a few minutes it would take a satellite 12 hours to cover what you can see. You then have to stitch it together so you can see the entire pattern and then reproduce it. When there is a live broadcast of Earth and photographs from that broadcast end up on newspaper front pages before the entire satellite picture could have been assembled I'd say you're clutching at straws to say that NASA somehow faked it.

Jarrah has very obviously started from a standpoint of "It is fake" and come up with absolutely nothing to prove his point other than "well they faked it so they would know how to fake it". This is garbage.

Who is producing the fake images? How? Where? How are they getting these fake images into the public domain? He is at least admitting that the weather satellite images are genuine, but sadly for him he can't work out the rest of the picture: they prove that the Apollo images are genuine.

Jarrah is also wrong about the satellites being used to forecast the weather. They were used, as they are now, to confirm ground observations. The science was still in its infancy and most of the research papers you'll see in meteorological journals are centred around trying to rationalise these photographic observations with instrument readings on the ground and from weather balloons. You can not predict cloud formations from a weather satellite photograph. This just shows how little he knows. You might be able to predict weather patterns, but you can not look at today's weather image and draw a precise picture of tomorrow's that will match.

onebigmonkey

The TV broadcasts by Apollo also show Earth from much further out than these satellites. You also miss the fact that this is a TV broadcast, not a photograph, and there is a measurable difference between the Earth at the start of the footage and the end, showing that there is rotation of the Earth, as this shows.

This image alone ought to make the hoaxers realise that they're utterly wrong. It's as 100% convincing as you can get unless you're being wilfully ignorant and deluded.

Just what would NASA have to have done to make the Earth appear this way in the TV broadcast? It's not a still image projected into the background, because it rotates. It's not even a model Earth suspended, rotated at just the right speed and lit perfectly so that the terminator is in just the right spot for the time of day, because even that still wouldn't account for the fact that the cloud patterns on it are moving!

The only logical conclusion anyone can draw is that it is, indeed the real Earth filmed from well outside LEO. And yet still the hoax theory won't die!

DJW001
There can be no 'moderate' Moon Hoax believers. It can only be all or nothing.

The same thing can be said about Apollo Defenders, touché. Your straw man arguments (I counted four of them) are straight out of the late 1960's, man, so like, lighten up with the glittering generalities man, because it's like ruining my high, man. Touché.

Why do you refer to your adversaries as "Moon Hoax believers" because the simple matter of fact is... we are non-believers.

The only way that you can believe that the Apollo program was fake was to believe that every single detail of the entire program was fake. Everything must have been filmed in a studio, including the launch of the Saturn V.

Nixon attended the Apollo 12 launch on November 14, 1969 from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, therefore, the Apollo 12 launch was not filmed in a studio. Touché.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Ok then, prove to me that the Kennedy Space Center is real and not an elaborate sound stage somewhere. I've never been there, so I don't believe it's real. And prove to me that the photographs and TV footage of Nixon visiting it haven't been faked. And each time you demonstrate that one aspect of it is genuine, I will pick a different aspect and claim that that is fake instead, ad infinitum.

Ridiculous, isn't it? And yet that is the level of argument that the hoax believers (and yes you ARE believers, because you are adhering to a minority, fringe viewpoint) are reduced to.

Time and time again I asked, OK, so what one piece of evidence would convince you that the Apollo program was genuine? And I still haven't received an answer. I can only surmise that this is because the hoax believers don't want to lay themselves open to the possibly that their whole worldview could be shattered in the future.

If you were taken up to the landing sites and shown, in person, that everything is still up there just as it should be, the LMs, the rovers, the instruments, the footprints, every rock just where the photos show it is, would that convince you? Or would you just say "It's all been planted by some secret robotic mission that NASA somehow managed to keep hidden from the whole world"?

I think I can guess. And it would be like you taking me to the Kennedy Space Center and me saying "ok, it's here NOW but was it here in 1969? And who's to say all those buildings are really what they claim to be?"

In short, it's impossible to argue against anyone who won't accept any evidence because "it could be faked". It makes any form of debate pointless.

SayonaraJupiter

Nixon attended the Apollo 12 launch on November 14, 1969 from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, therefore, the Apollo 12 launch was not filmed in a studio. Touché.

And here is the launch of Apollo 12, from the cape, complete with Nixon



Here's an even better one



and more



here's another featuring lots of your favourite pin up



and do check out this page for observations of Apollo 12 higher up

www.astr.ua.edu...

So the logical conclusion from this is

a) Nixon attended a launch at the cape or
b) No rocket was launched it was in a studio and Nixon wasn't there