Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Really, DJW??? Holocaust in an Apollo thread? You have surrendered the thread. That much is clear.

Really Sayonara? Gulf of Tonkin in an Apollo thread? You have surrendered the thread. That much is clear. Both of us can make up our own rules as we go along.

I've just been reading over some of this thread from before I joined ATS and my goodness, it's like a time warp!

Go back in time 12 months and SJ is still pretending there's some big cover-up of the Nazi role in Apollo.

What the Apollo believers try to do is cover up the fact that the men who built those Saturn V's were Nazi's.

Erm, they do? I don't think I've met any "Apollo believer" who denies that Wernher von Braun was the major driving force behind the Saturn V development.

a reply to: Rob48

Yes, Rob48, you have discovered SayonaraJupiter's super powers. He takes a non significant fact of history related to Tricky Dick, that has no relationship to Apollo and then repeats it over, and over, and over, until it sounds important. He will never give you any facts or put himself on the spot by stating anything relevant to Apollo, just innuendos and vague hearsay.

originally posted by: Gibborium
a reply to: Rob48

Yes, Rob48, you have discovered SayonaraJupiter's super powers. He takes a non significant fact of history related to Tricky Dick, that has no relationship to Apollo and then repeats it over, and over, and over, until it sounds important. He will never give you any facts or put himself on the spot by stating anything relevant to Apollo, just innuendos and vague hearsay.

Apollo Reviewers Win Thread

It says in the ATS user agreement that you are not supposed to talk about other posters like this. Even Gibborium is an experienced ATS poster so he should know this. Rob48, I treat you as a newbie only because of your registered date. That does not mean that I treat you as a newbie with regard to Apollo because you have proven in this thread that you know your stuff.

Yet, A lot of us here in this thread just wanna share some Apollo facts and some Apollo interpretations and Apollo Disclosures...

But you Apollo Defenders are acting like the Schutzstaffel for Apollo. Should I start acting like Richard Nixon and make my "enemies list" with you two at the top?

I cringe everytime I see a post which doesn't include a reviewing of Apollo history along with it. Simply put, I have to say it, the Apollo Defenders have been shown to be ignorant of many things in this thread. I shall not name them all because there are too many to count. But let me say this - this is a Disclosure Thread. Please keep your posts on the topic of Apollo moon hoax disclosures, and please refrain from discussing other posters.

Where is FoosM? We need some source material to dig into. FoosM always has the good source materials

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Really, DJW??? Holocaust in an Apollo thread? You have surrendered the thread. That much is clear.

Really Sayonara? Gulf of Tonkin in an Apollo thread? You have surrendered the thread. That much is clear. Both of us can make up our own rules as we go along.

Mirror techniques. So predictable man. That's an easy poker tell and it tells me that... you don't have a good hand. Please explain why you introduced the idea of the Holocaust into an Apollo thread DJW can you at least do that?

Oh don't worry. We all know that you surrendered the thread with that cheap reference to the Holocaust.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But let me say this - this is a Disclosure Thread. Please keep your posts on the topic of Apollo moon hoax disclosures

Perhaps you could agree to do the same then? Mentioning things which are not "disclosures", such as that Nixon was president in 1969, or that Nazi rocket scientists were the main designers of the V5, are irrelevant. It's like saying "And all the Apollo missions were launched from FLORIDA" over and over in the hope that it will sound sinister.

For a few pages back there we actually had a decent technical discussion of Apollo images and videos, from which I actually ended up learning something. Now it's back to NixonNazigate.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter Please keep your posts on the topic of Apollo moon hoax disclosures, and please refrain from discussing other posters.

Where is FoosM? We need some source material to dig into. FoosM always has the good source materials

aslo adding to what rob48 just said in the above post, you really do have a problem of being a hypocrite dont you?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Please explain why you introduced the idea of the Holocaust into an Apollo thread DJW can you at least do that?

With pleasure: they are both well documented historical events which are denied by individuals for purely political reasons. What is your motivation for denying a well documented historical event?

a reply to: Rob48


Hey, Rob - I didn't forget you. I'm looking into techniques of how that could have been fabricated (your photo analysis) but I haven't come up with anything I can link.

Anywho, I was reading my favorite thread of all time - "The Aussie Genius Whipping..." - and I noticed a poster in there called "Tomblvd" who shared the same passion as you in regards to defending Apollo. That wasn't you was it?? I hope this isn't a T&C violation because I mean no harm - but the resembalence in posting style was uncanny. Sorry, that's a bit off topic.

a reply to: cestrup

No, not me. I only registered on ATS this year, well after that thread had died a death. I've dipped in and out of it but I doubt I'll ever make it through all 600+ pages!

a reply to: Rob48

The thread was a masterpiece, if you can set aside all of the insults flung around. But, I'm straying too far off of topic so; what did you think of Sibrel's piece of unedited film of the astronauts faking being half way to the moon when it was all to obvious that they were in LEO? The lights off, camera pretending to be up against the window when that was not true, some sort of transparency on the window, and the entire cabin filling with blue, luminous light as whatever was on the window is peeled off (this is observed too). When I saw this - it really puts a damper on believing we went to the moon when it's completely obvious they were using manipulative techniques. Now, I'm talking about this piece, not any other video cut. Just this one so please don't say "you didn't watch the entire footage" because I'm not concerned with that.

www.youtube.com...

I'm sure you're familiar with this video but you have to skip ahead a couple minutes. Thanks, dude!

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

The thread was a masterpiece, if you can set aside all of the insults flung around. But, I'm straying too far off of topic so; what did you think of Sibrel's piece of unedited film of the astronauts faking being half way to the moon when it was all to obvious that they were in LEO? The lights off, camera pretending to be up against the window when that was not true, some sort of transparency on the window, and the entire cabin filling with blue, luminous light as whatever was on the window is peeled off (this is observed too). When I saw this - it really puts a damper on believing we went to the moon when it's completely obvious they were using manipulative techniques. Now, I'm talking about this piece, not any other video cut. Just this one so please don't say "you didn't watch the entire footage" because I'm not concerned with that.

www.youtube.com...

I'm sure you're familiar with this video but you have to skip ahead a couple minutes. Thanks, dude!

I don't have sound on this computer so I can't listen to any specific claims at the moment but could you point me to the moment when "whatever was on the window was peeled off"?


You went through this "fake Earth" claim 40-odd pages ago back here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

For one thing, this is not "unedited footage" - it is composed of separate transmissions (of which Sibrel for some reason hid one out of the three because it showed things he didn't want to be shown!)

Note the cut at 7:44 in that video. We are now switching to a view with the camera moved back from the window, as confirmed in the transcript:

034:10:51 Duke: 11, Houston. If you could comply, we'd like to see little smiling faces up there, if you could give us some interior views. I'm sure everybody would like to see you. Over.

034:11:06 Armstrong: Okay. We'll reconfigure the TV for that.

034:11:08 Duke: Roger.

[Comm break.]
034:12:31 Duke: Apollo 11, Houston. It appears to us that we're seeing a view from outside plus a little of the inside. It appears you've taken the camera away from the left window now. Over.
034:12:45 Armstrong: That's correct. We're moving it back and reconfiguring for interior lighting.

034:12:50 Duke: Roger. [Pause.]

034:12:56 Duke: We can still see the Earth through the left window, and it appears that we can see a floodlight off to the left, either that or some Sun shafting through the hatch window

034:13:10 Armstrong: It's a floodlight.

You claimed they had the lights off in the cabin, but that is quite clearly not true, as that exchange demonstrates. Sure enough, you can see that interior floodlight they mention to the left, but the camera is stopped right down, adjusted for the brilliant glare of the Earth outside, so the light appears dim and the cabin interior is too dark to be seen:



Now, as Armstrong says above, they reconfigure the camera for the interior lighting:

034:13:25 Collins: You got a little bit of... [hears Duke.] Yeah, hello there sports fans. You got a little bit of me, plus Neil is in the center couch, and Buzz is doing the camera work this time.

034:13:34 Duke: Roger. It's a little dark now, 11. Maybe a bigger f-stop might help.

034:13:44 Collins: Yeah, that's in work. [Long pause.]

034:14:05 Duke: It's getting a lot better now, 11. Mike, you're coming in five-by. I got a good...

And lo and behold, everything inside is visible, and the brilliant glare from the Earth can be seen streaming through the window



Nothing has been "peeled off the window", all that has happened is the camera aperture has been opened up to allow the relatively dark cabin interior to be seen. This obviously means that the bright window is now horribly overexposed.


I don't understand why this "LEO fake Earth" myth still persists. It is so obviously utterly wrong and a result of people not understanding what they are looking at. And the view of the Earth itself is totally consistent with what it should be, with cloud patterns slowly changing over time and the Earth itself rotating, as you can see if you compare the views of the Earth at the start and end of the broadcast:

a reply to: Rob48

Umm, wow. First off, the window would not glow like that as the lights turned on and they're that far from the Earth? Why didn't it glow like that with the lights off? That makes absolutely no sense at all. There had to be something over the window and you can see something removed from the window right as the narrator points it out. Magically, the window brightens up with a blue hue much like photos or video of astronauts in LEO; not men 100k-150k miles away from the surface. This is totally proven untrue and disingenuous as the scene cuts back in the dark (plus a flood light dimly lit) and the cabin is not flush with a blue hue. Why would turning the lights on fill the window with a blue hue?

I think this is the one piece of evidence that really shows true intentions. How would this not make you question authenticity? It's like Building 7 IMO.

Also, I brought this up again to hear your side because I respect your opinions. Someone else tried to move the goalpost when I last posted this and direct my attention to another video. Once again I'm given pictures and transcipts. Film and paper, oh, and opinions!

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Umm, wow. First off, the window would not glow like that as the lights turned on and they're that far from the Earth? Why didn't it glow like that with the lights off? That makes absolutely no sense at all. There had to be something over the window and you can see something removed from the window right as the narrator points it out. Magically, the window brightens up with a blue hue much like photos or video of astronauts in LEO; not men 100k-150k miles away from the surface. This is totally proven untrue and disingenuous as the scene cuts back in the dark (plus a flood light dimly lit) and the cabin is not flush with a blue hue. Why would turning the lights on fill the window with a blue hue?

Did you read what I actually wrote? They didn't "turn the lights on". The light was already on. You can see it right there:



In that picture, you can see the Earth (partly hidden by the corner of the windowframe) and you can also see the floodlight, but both are quite dim, allowing you to see the detail of the Earth and the outline of the cabin light to the left. However, the interior of the cabin istelf is too dark to be made out with the camera settings adjusted for outside.

Like I said, what happened was that they adjusted the camera aperture so that you could see the cabin interior. When they did that, both the floodlight and the window suddenly appeared very overexposed and caused a lot of glare.

I think you are forgetting just how bright the Earth is. Even from the moon it is a very bright object. It is almost four times the diameter, and much more reflective, than the moon is. A full Earth seen from the moon is 50 times brighter than the full moon seen from the Earth.

At the time of this transmission, Apollo 11 was only about 130,000 miles from Earth, or roughly half the distance to the moon. As you can see from the pictures, they were looking at an almost full Earth. It was VERY bright indeed, so of course the TV camera had to be stopped way down.

a reply to: Rob48

Rob, of course I read what you wrote - we just disagree. That little diffused light isn't what's always on, it's barely lit. This isn't a camera aperature adjustment - the entire cabin fills with the blue hue and YOU CAN see something removed from the window, this isn't disputable because you cannot ignore it. And your Earth gif is exactly the same but just slid over. Nothing changes in it other than the position of the crescent.

You do, however, bring up an interesting point. The Earth is bigger than the moon. But why is it smaller than a normal half-moon in this picture? Odd, isn't it? Shouldn't the earth look bigger from the moon than the moon looks from earth?

www.startalkradio.net...

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Rob, of course I read what you wrote - we just disagree. That little diffused light isn't what's always on, it's barely lit.

No, it just LOOKS barely lit because the camera is stopped right down!

This isn't a camera aperature - the entire cabin fills with the blue hue and YOU CAN see something removed from the window, this isn't disputable because you cannot ignore it.

Please point me to the moment where you see something removed from the window? All I see is one of the crew standing in front of the window and then moving out of the way. The entire cabin appears to get brighter BECAUSE the camera aperture is being opened up. That is the purpose of opening up the aperture: so you can see the cabin interior. The crew discuss what they are doing in the transcript!

034:10:51 Duke: 11, Houston. If you could comply, we'd like to see little smiling faces up there, if you could give us some interior views. I'm sure everybody would like to see you. Over.

034:11:06 Armstrong: Okay. We'll reconfigure the TV for that.
[...]
034:13:34 Duke: Roger. It's a little dark now, 11. Maybe a bigger f-stop might help.

034:13:44 Collins: Yeah, that's in work. [Long pause.]

And your Earth gif is exactly the same but just slid over. Nothing changes in it other than the position of the crescent.

You are being deliberately unobservant here. You can see the rotation as the weather patterns move around the edge of the globe. Look at the 8 o'clock position for just one obvious location where this is clear.

You do, however, bring up an interesting point. The Earth is bigger than the moon. But why is it smaller than a normal half-moon in this picture? Odd, isn't it? Shouldn't the earth look bigger from the moon than the moon looks from earth?

www.startalkradio.net...

What on Earth do you mean by that? The apparent size of an object in a photograph depends on the focal length of the camera. If you take a photo of the night sky using a wide lens on Earth then the moon looks pretty tiny. The Earth in that moon photo looks large by comparison.

That moon photo you linked, AS17-134-20384, was taken with a 60mm lens, which on a Hasselblad medium format camera has a FOV roughly equivalent to a 32mm lens on a 35mm camera (it's hard to compare exactly because Hasselblad film is square and 35mm film is rectangular). That is well into wide-angle territory.

How big does the moon look in a wide-angle shot taken on Earth? A lot smaller than it looks in that photo! This is a 35mm full frame from Earth, using a 35mm lens:


compare to


(Source for Earth-based moon photo is photographworks.wordpress.com... )

Edit: in the interests of total fairness, because the horizontal side of the 35mm frame is scaled against the square Hasselblad frame above, I am technically comparing a 35mm lens on Earth with a roughly 38mm lens on the moon (the 32mm comparison is for the diagonal of the frame). But that is a very small difference and you can clearly see that the Earth appears much, much bigger than the moon does.

originally posted by: cestrup
And your Earth gif is exactly the same but just slid over. Nothing changes in it other than the position of the crescent.

That's actually my gif, I do hope you're not calling me a liar. It is not the same frame 'slid over', it is the first and last clear image of a continuous 15m segment. You are free to do the same as I did, off you go.

While you're at it, google "Hurricane Bernice", and admire this newspaper front page.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
That's actually my gif

Yeah, I meant to mention that, sorry

You posted it about 40 pages ago (and he ignored it then) so I thought it deserved another airing.

As you say on your website:

The irony here is that one of the most often quoted pieces of 'evidence' aimed at Apollo 11 (Bart Sibrel's 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon') claims two things. Firstly, the in space footage was filmed in low Earth orbit. Secondly, the image of Earth used in the broadcast was a fake. An image of Earth obtained from somewhere, but not actually filmed by the Apollo 11 crew.

The first claim is obviously ridiculous, as low Earth orbit images can not show the entire disk. Satellites aiming for full disk coverage go for high Earth orbit at 22000 miles out.

The second claim shoots itself squarely and firmly in the foot by using video clips from the broadcast with Hurricane Bernice visible in them. Not just any footage of Hurricane Bernice, but specifically footage featuring Hurricane Bernice in a configuration that can only have been obtained on July 16th from space. It could not have been obtained anywhere else. Sibrel's own video contains the evidence that proves him completely wrong.

Nicely put.

a reply to: Rob48

Thanks for the reply! Is there video with this transcript? Sibrel's has that sexy lady's voice over these parts. Could be intentional but I've never heard it any other way. Look, I realize he could be manipulative but so can NASA - as evidenced to me - because I'm not choosing sides in this fight. I simply believe we didn't go but if I can be proven wrong - cool!

Here's another picture of the moon from a 35mm with some reference (unlike yours) with some trees and a bird. Much like the one from the "moon" with a man and a flag.

photographworks.files.wordpress.com...

Here's a satellite picture of the earth - How could they replicate this??? Looks about the same size frame as your gif. hmmmm???

d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...

Just a little movie magic and some imagination could have possibly fooled millions (a lot of scientists too).

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Here's another picture of the moon from a 35mm with some reference (unlike yours) with some trees and a bird. Much like the one from the "moon" with a man and a flag.

photographworks.files.wordpress.com...

That is the same picture, from the same page I linked to, just zoomed and cropped. Didn't you notice, in the full-size version, how there was a little chunk missing? The zoomed version shows the detail. What is your purpose in linking to it? I used the image to show you how big the moon appears when shot with roughly the same lens as the Apollo photo. As you can see, the Earth appears almost four times bigger, just as it should, when you compare full frame with full frame.

Here, I have copied the Earth from the Apollo photo at 100% into the picture of the moon from Earth. Same focal length, to within a few percent.



I'm rather frustrated that you didn't think to check this, rather than making the totally unfounded claim that the Earth "smaller than a normal half-moon in this picture". A simple comparison immediately proves that this isn't the case! But why do a little legwork when the answer might prove you wrong, right?

Here's a satellite picture of the earth - How could they replicate this??? Looks about the same size frame as your gif. hmmmm???

d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...

Just a little movie magic and some imagination could have possibly fooled millions (a lot of scientists too).

Have you noticed the date on that image? 2013. The Apollo 11 footage was broadcast live in 1969. Are you suggesting that the image you posted there could have been created in 1969, with real-time satellite imagery on it, revolving at actual speed?

That is not "a little movie magic", that is utterly impossible.

Now, are you ready to concede that there is nothing being "peeled off" the window in the command module in that video? BTW in response to your query I'm sure there are links to that video with the comms voices intact, but they hare hard to find on a PC with no sound!