Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Apollo Defenders often argue that Apollo was the best documented science and engineering feat in the history of mankind.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


That's because it is, and none of you hoax guys has even the slightest shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

ALL the technology was real...with thousands of individual testimonies, thousands of hours of footage and millions of pages of documents to back it all up...oh, and the actual hardware.

ALL the relevant theory was real, again, with literally millions of pages of documentation, studies done by thousands of scientists and technologists over a period of decades.

What have the hoax crowd got? A bunch of pathetic, lame, hideously ill informed bunch of speculation...at best. The gist of which would fill two printed pages...with no scientific documentation, no testimonies, no footage, no physical evidence of any kind...good grief. Stop being idiotic.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Again, you have made up a theory to argue against - which is a straw man, the Apollo Dog strategy.

That is because you won't tell us what your theory is! We just have to surmise what it might be from the scattershot accusations you throw out. You are very fond of telling us what your theory ISN'T but you haven't told us what it IS. Perhaps because you haven't actually thought of a theory that isn't more full off holes than your beloved Nixon's reputation



That is what I want from Apollo Defenders : FACTS, EVIDENCE, DATES, LOCATIONS, and NAMES of who took the cis-lunar Apollo 12 pictures on the 70mm catalog.

OK.

FACTS. The 70mm catalog includes images taken from just after TLI up to lunar orbit 3. The photos were taken out of the window of the CSM-108 call sign "Yankee Clipper".

EVIDENCE. Primary evidence is always good. Here are all the photos from magazine Q: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here is the index of the whole lot: apollo.sese.asu.edu...

DATES: You should know this one. Launch was November 14 1969 at 16:22 GMT. TLI occurred 2 hours 53 mins later.

LOCATIONS: Here's a pretty one. The Gulf of Mexico. Principal point of this photo is 32°N 88°W. Precise enough for you?



How about one on the moon? Eratosthenes. Principal point here is 15°N, 11.5°W.





NAMES. I can guarantee you that all of the images on the catalog were taken by the following three people: Charles Conrad Jr, Richard F Gordon Jr, Alan L Bean. Can you narrow down the photographs you love to post to three individuals? A simple yes or no will do.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Rob48

 

And if you look at frame 7407, for instance, you can see the moon through the window, with the window frame also in shot. But of course the hoaxers don't mention that, or any of the other 50+ images showing the lunar surface in great detail from this magazine alone...

I don't see anybody in the Apollo 12 capsule. Where are the people?

You mean the people that I've repeatedly shown you TV and 16mm footage of but you always somehow manage never to see because it doesn't fit in to the hyper-narrow definition you have decided on as to what is acceptable evidence?

Rob48

NAMES. I can guarantee you that all of the images on the catalog were taken by the following three people: Charles Conrad Jr, Richard F Gordon Jr, Alan L Bean. Can you narrow down the photographs you love to post to three individuals? A simple yes or no will do.

And if it shows Earth I can give you a time to within about 15 minutes. Given the known speed you could even work that out as a position in cislunar space (hmm...now there's a project). The ones in lunar orbit are pretty easy, I've plotted the position of them all in Google Moon.

Again SJ is deciding for himself what the limits of the debate should be, mainly so that he can get some sense of victory and dictate the terms of discussion. Sadly, the debate is not his to dictate, and he can't ignore the fact the the Apollo images show Earth and moon exactly as they should be.

SayonaraJupiter

Choos, you are the only one on this thread who is disputing the NASA/Kubrick images.

Once again I find that Apollo Defenders are unable to defend their own Apollo 12 70mm photos. Rules of evidence 101: Where is your offer of proof?

SayonaraJupiter, you are the only one on this thread who is disputing the Apollo 12 images.

Once again I find that Apollo Hoax Believers are unable to defend their NASA/Kubrick photos. Rules of evidence 101: Where is your offer of proof?

choos

SayonaraJupiter

Choos, you are the only one on this thread who is disputing the NASA/Kubrick images.

Once again I find that Apollo Defenders are unable to defend their own Apollo 12 70mm photos. Rules of evidence 101: Where is your offer of proof?

SayonaraJupiter, you are the only one on this thread who is disputing the Apollo 12 images.

Once again I find that Apollo Hoax Believers are unable to defend their NASA/Kubrick photos. Rules of evidence 101: Where is your offer of proof?

I have personally encountered this technique many times. You are using DJW's technique ... the mirror-reflector gambit.

In doing so, you have given me a free "tell", as in a poker tell. en.wikipedia.org...(poker)
www.pokerology.com...


Why don't we settle this in the debate forum? It's just a friendly idea. The Debate Forum on ATS is *dead zone* these days. Perhaps we could more people interested in debates if debates were run more efficiently?

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, choos?

Choos? What will your first question be?

onebigmonkey
Again SJ is deciding for himself what the limits of the debate should be, mainly so that he can get some sense of victory and dictate the terms of discussion. Sadly, the debate is not his to dictate, and he can't ignore the fact the the Apollo images show Earth and moon exactly as they should be.

You are correct, I am not dictating the debate. This is a disclosure thread and we wanna talk about disclosures. This is really no place for the Apollo Defenders to stake their claims.

Why don't we settle this in the debate forum? It's just a friendly idea. The Debate Forum on ATS is *dead zone* these days. Perhaps we could get more people interested in debates if debates were run more frequently?

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, OBM?

wmd_2008
Hi SJ I know with the picture above you are trying to make it seem like the picture of the Earth cant look like that if the window is dirty SORRY but like a lot of hoaxer claims it's due to a lack of understanding /effort to find out or both.

Just prove a point that any photographer worth his salt could prove here below are 2 images taken by me a few mins ago!

Dirty Window

I made a mark on the window and set out to photograph it so the mark would show.

Now if I move closer to the window and focus on the house and not the dirty mark.

So NOW do you see it or NOT whichever way you want to look at it.

Please review the rules for evidence here
www.law.cornell.edu...

RULE 1002. REQUIREMENT OF THE ORIGINAL

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

Thanks for going to the effort of taking pictures to prove your point, but those pictures would be inadmissible because 1. they are not evidence for Apollo and 2. they are hearsay.

Nixon is a good lawyer, too. Don't forget he doesn't just play poker.

SayonaraJupiter

Choos? What will your first question be?

given 1960's technology..

how did they fake it and continue to fake it for the next 40+years fooling every single scientist, astronomist, astrophysicist in the entire world for many generations..
which includes faking hours and hours of continuous lunar gravity footage, lunar dust behaviour, colour images of the entirety of earth in one photo some even showing natural phenomena such as a hurricane..

something along those lines..

oh wait.. but you will say you arent trying to prove they faked it wont you?? so i guess you lose before you start then huh?

p.s. also, have you noticed why people use such techniques with you??

why is it that you have your own standards set for yourself and impose separate standards for everyone else??? why is it you like to role-play like you are pretending to be playing poker or being in a court?? why is it you think you are smarter than Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon combined?? are you trolling or are you seriously that arrogant? do you really think you are royalty?
do you seriously not see the double standards you have for yourself???

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Please review the rules for evidence here
www.law.cornell.edu...

RULE 1002. REQUIREMENT OF THE ORIGINAL

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

All of the original film negatives from all of the Apollo missions are on file, and can be requisitioned if necessary. Therefore, all of the Apollo photographs are permissible as evidence. You cannot even explain where the originals of any of the photographs of Nixon , Kubrick, von Braun or Walt Disney are, therefore, by your own rigorous standards, not a single one of them is evidence of anything. Once again, a massive fail on your part.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You post is a shining example of how hoax nuts believers dodge and divert.

seabhac-rua
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You post is a shining example of how hoax nuts believers dodge and divert.

Yes he can't take being proved wrong at least my pictures have exif data attached to check time date etc etc but as we know from JW to SJ to FoosM to quote from a film THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


We are not in a court were are on a web site that tries to DENY IGNORANCE something you and your buddies can't seem to deal with

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Please review the rules for evidence here
www.law.cornell.edu...

RULE 1002. REQUIREMENT OF THE ORIGINAL

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

All of the original film negatives from all of the Apollo missions are on file, and can be requisitioned if necessary. Therefore, all of the Apollo photographs are permissible as evidence. You cannot even explain where the originals of any of the photographs of Nixon , Kubrick, von Braun or Walt Disney are, therefore, by your own rigorous standards, not a single one of them is evidence of anything. Once again, a massive fail on your part.

I'm just theorizing here but... I don't think NASA would ever allow the APOLLO negatives to leave the secured controlled environment facility. A competent NASA lawyer would attempt to prevent the negatives coming out of the facility by claiming "they are too precious", "national treasure", or some other patriotic excuse (like national security).

That leaves only expert witness testimony. In the case of Apollo 12, which would be Dick Gordon and Alan Bean. Calling them as experts would place Gordon & Bean in the position of being cross-examined by the adverse party.

Of course, a competent NASA lawyer would never allow them on the stand because it might cause "undue embarrassment" to the astronaut witness. They would bring some other experts who could testify on the content of the original negatives, most likely NASA people with CIA background. The NASA experts are not going to suddenly find faces of the Apollo 12 crew in the 70mm catalog, are they? No, they are not!

This one simple fact I would use to try to sway a jury to the possibility of doubting the authenticity of the Apollo 12 70mm catalog. And it's gonna hit a grand jury like the freight train that killed Thomas Baron and his family.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Ironically, Baron and all his family died in a car-train crash only a week after this exposure to congressional questioning.

NASA would be scrambling at a trial, like the Apollo Defenders in this thread, to bring out other evidence, 16mm or TV tapes, for pictures of Apollo 12's faces. However, those evidence are not being disputed here, only the Apollo 12 70mm.

The number of images on 14 magazines of film was; 1438 images on black & white film, 571 on color film, and 104 on infrared film.

Continuing on, the NASA photo expert witnesses can only testify to the content of the negative or it's certified copy and NOT as you might think on the claims of the conditions under which the negative was allegedly snapped. Think about that. The experts won't be able to tell us who snapped what picture or where (in space), because they don't know, they can't know - because no record of that was ever made, picture by picture.

By going down the complete Apollo 12 70mm image list, shot by shot, eventually we'll come to this picture, AS12-50-7373, the one that Apollo Defenders rely on to prove that there were people inside the Apollo 12 capsule taking pictures during the time they say Apollo 12 was in cis-lunar.


I'm sure a good NASA lawyer would be anxious to put this image in front of the jury and say "Look people, it's a reflection of an astronaut in a window which proves Apollo 12 was real".

Reality is not being questioned... it's the offer of proof which stinks. Without Gordon & Bean to take the stand as expert witnesses I could argue to the jury that Apollo 12 astronauts didn't take the pictures. If you put them on the stand I have the added benefit to cross examine both of them. I know it's a Bart Sibrel strategy... but he was a goof off that didn't approach the situation as well as he could have. Still, he was a pioneer in the realm of getting the astronauts to say unscripted things on video tape.

After the Apollo 12 70mm images have been looked at, and "expertized", we can move on to the Hasselblad 70mm cameras. The cameras they took with them, the cameras they brought back, the equipment inside the cameras, including the reseau-pattern plates, the Biogon lenses , the alterations made by the manufacturer, and the alterations made by NASA.

What happened to the Apollo 12 Hasselblad cameras? They took 7 of them to the "moon". Where are they now?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I'm just theorizing here but... I don't think NASA would ever allow the APOLLO negatives to leave the secured controlled environment facility.

Well your theorising is totally wrong, making the rest of your screed moot.

The original negatives of the Apollo missions are currently in the process of being rescanned at Arizona State University. Arizona State University is, I think you will find, not contained within NASA's "secure, controlled environment facility".

If your initial premise is bogus, any conclusions you draw from it are also bogus. In sure your court of law would agree.

Then you go on to "theorise", again with not a shred of proof, that NASA lawyers would not allow the astronauts to be cross-examined. What were you saying about straw men? Your double standards are breathtaking.

I'm sure a good NASA lawyer would be anxious to put this image in front of the jury and say "Look people, it's a reflection of an astronaut in a window which proves Apollo 12 was real".

No they wouldn't, because nobody other than you seems to think there is any problem with the 70mm cameras being used for their intended purpose, namely taking pictures from the CSM rather than grinning happy snaps. If they wanted proof that Apollo 12 was real, they would simply show a few dozen of the photos that could only have been taken on the moon, a few of the samples that were picked up on the moon and photographed in situ beforehand, not to mention the camera and other components from Surveyor 3 which were brought back by the mission and could be independently expertised as genuine.

I somehow don't think they'd bother wasting people's time with a fuzzy reflection, do you?

If you wanted to be picky and limit it to the 70mm photos for whatever warped reason you have then that would still be no problem. Any of the images of the Earth taken from the CSM can easily be shown to have been taken from the right place in space, at the right time, to perfectly fit with the known, publicly available flight path of the mission.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So, what about the missions where we DID see candid pictures of astronauts in the CM and LM?

Those pictures prove those missions were real, right?

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So, what about the missions where we DID see candid pictures of astronauts in the CM and LM?

Those pictures prove those missions were real, right?

In SJ land you're not allowed to point out the giant mountain of evidence if it's not the single sliver that he is quibbling about.

The goalposts move so fast it's hard to keep pace. I think his argument now is that it's not enough to have a photo of the earth from cislunar space, it also has to have Al Bean making rabbit-ears above Pete Conrad's head in the foreground.

SayonaraJupiter

What happened to the Apollo 12 Hasselblad cameras? They took 7 of them to the "moon". Where are they now?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here or if you simply don't know what you're talking about. Seven? Yes technically there were seven but six of those weren't available to take happy snaps inside the CM.

There were two Hasselblad EDCs (Electric Data Cameras). These were stowed in the lunar module and so weren't available to be used in the command module. They were chest-mounted on the EVA suits to take photos on the surface, and, like all the EDCs used on Apollo, they are still sitting on the surface of the moon. And, of course, the two crew members who landed took plenty of photos of each other. Conrad, who you single out for not taking any, took this rather iconic shot, which doesn't look like a Mobot to me:




Of the remaining five Hasselblads, four were mounted in a block to form the S-158 multispectral experiment. They were fixed in position at the hatch window on a ring mount so were also not available to take photos of the module interior: they were mapping cameras, aimed at the lunar surface. They were only used by Dick Gordon while he was alone in the CM in lunar orbit, as per the mission objectives.

That just leaves one Hasselblad EL camera, carried on the command module and used to take the photos of the Earth, the moon and the S-IVB separation.

Presumably the S-158 block and the EL camera returned to Earth aboard the CM. I don't know where they are now. If you really want to know, why don't you ask an expert? Looks to me like the person to ask is Dr David R Williams. Why not drop him a line and let us know what he says? (You might want to keep your Nixon/Mobot theories under wraps though if you want a serious reply.)

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NASA would be scrambling at a trial

There's an idea: why not band together and sue NASA for misappropriation of funds? All you need to do is present all your evidence in court. Oh, wait, you don't have any evidence. Here is my challenge to you: sue NASA. Put up or shut up, this is getting repetitive and dull.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Um excuse me but you are the worst lawyer ever. See in court you have whats called a chain of evidence. As long as people sign off on custody its admissible in court no testimony involved.As far as accessing the negatives They in fact can and are being access ed there just not allowed to leave the building but again a museum doesnt let you walk out the door with there priceless artifacts either so your just showing the depths of your insanity. No one in there right mind is going to allow those films to leave the building under any circumstance. Just like you cant go to the natural history museum and ask to borrow the constitution for a couple of days.

Your grasp on how the world works is surprisingly limited but i suggest you go to your local museum and ask to borrow some of their exhibits im sure theyll hand them right over.