Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: cestrup

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).

That satellite picture is in colour, there were no satellites taking images in colour during Apollo.

It's also a single image, not a continuous piece of footage that is demonstrably different at the end of the sequence compared with the start, a difference that is entirely consistent with the amount of time that has elapsed.

It's also in geostationary orbit, which means that it is always above the same point on Earth. Footage from later on in the transmissions from Apollo 11 show a completely different view, a view that is again entirely consistent with the time it was filmed compared with what should have been on view. It is not in LEO, because you can not film an entire Earth in LEO.

I really don't know how many times this has to be repeated for it to pemetrate: The TV broadcasts show a hurricane that only existed in that formation on the day it was filmed. It made it on to the front page of the next day's newspapers. WHat movie magic was capable of this? Do tell us.

Hurricane Bernice. It punches Sibrel's nonsense squarely on the nose.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Is there video with this transcript?

a reply to: Rob48

honest mistake, dude - in regards to the moon picture. I did the same as you and googled "35mm Moon photos" - there are other 35mm photos with a much bigger moon in the google results. I chose the one that you posted, lol - my mistake.

I just thought of something - and this is a big "what if" - but, if they could print transparencies of satellite imagery whilst in LEO then that could be what gave the up -to-date weather anamolies that they put over the window (if that's what they were doing). Also, no critics were analyzing this footage to such detail until years after Apollo and I believe the video we're referencing here wasn't made public until near 2000, correct? So, it could be altered film? Who knows? If it were a hoax of this magnitude - now heavily criticized by people who don't believe we went - the lengths that this agency would go to combined with their technology - could make a very convincing case. So much so, that they fool people as intelligent as you. (I'm not claiming to be more intelligent than you, Rob - just trying to make a point).

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: cestrup

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).

That satellite picture is in colour, there were no satellites taking images in colour during Apollo.

It's also a single image, not a continuous piece of footage that is demonstrably different at the end of the sequence compared with the start, a difference that is entirely consistent with the amount of time that has elapsed.

It's also in geostationary orbit, which means that it is always above the same point on Earth. Footage from later on in the transmissions from Apollo 11 show a completely different view, a view that is again entirely consistent with the time it was filmed compared with what should have been on view. It is not in LEO, because you can not film an entire Earth in LEO.

I really don't know how many times this has to be repeated for it to pemetrate: The TV broadcasts show a hurricane that only existed in that formation on the day it was filmed. It made it on to the front page of the next day's newspapers. WHat movie magic was capable of this? Do tell us.

Hurricane Bernice. It punches Sibrel's nonsense squarely on the nose.

Dear Mr. Monkey,

Here's where I wish you'd use a little more of your critical thought. Do you think that NASA may have had Satellites you nor I knew about back then? I mean, if this were a hoax they may need that and I bet they could get some footage in color as well. You guys make this all seem so easy which furthers my doubt because nobody has even come within a fraction of replicating this amazing feat. But to you guys, it's simple. Interesting...

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Also, no critics were analyzing this footage to such detail until years after Apollo and I believe the video we're referencing here wasn't made public until near 2000, correct? So, it could be altered film? Who knows?

As onebigmonkey has pointed out more than once, the TV pictures from that broadcast were printed on the front pages of newspapers the very next day. He posted a photo of one just on the previous page. Those newspapers still exist. They were printed in 1969. They haven't been Photoshopped!

You guys make this all seem so easy which furthers my doubt

Make what seem easy? Landing on the moon? That's not easy. Disproving hoax claims is pretty easy, though, because we have science on our side. If you "do the math" then you come out with the right answer. You don't have to fudge things or hide things, you just find the facts!

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Also, no critics were analyzing this footage to such detail until years after Apollo and I believe the video we're referencing here wasn't made public until near 2000, correct? So, it could be altered film? Who knows?

As onebigmonkey has pointed out more than once, the TV pictures from that broadcast were printed on the front pages of newspapers the very next day. He posted a photo of one just on the previous page. Those newspapers still exist. They were printed in 1969. They haven't been Photoshopped!

I was referring to the video - the picture on that newspaper could be a satellite photo and we'd never know. I swear, you guys are some intelligent dudes but it cracks me up that you have no imagination, or pretend to not, when it comes to this type of evidence. Almost everything you base as evidence could be fabricated and rather easily which worries me: I've come to believe a couple things - you're too smart of a fella to be fooled this easily and/or not consider that this could be an elaborate production. So, why are you so sure? Why would they not have motive to fake this? Faking it would be easy for them - they control the evidence and had the backing of the most important men in the world. They still control every bit of evidence to this day.

Look at this picture - where in the world is something like this of our historic landing - it's beautiful!

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Which part of this 90 min video has the scene that Sibrel uses as his smoking gun? I need a reference point because I'm at work and I can't exactly start watching something this long and not get frowned upon.

a reply to: cestrup

Cestrup, the reason I am so convinced that Apollo is genuine is precisely because I DON'T take things on trust.

I have the kind of mind that, when somebody makes a claim, says "PROVE IT!"

And so I have done my own tests on all sorts of Apollo images and claims from both sides, and in every case the results tell me that the moon landings were real.

Example: you claimed that the Earth in the flag photo looked too small. NASA claims it is the actual Earth. I had never checked this out before but it was an interesting claim, so my thought process was as follows:

What was the field of view of that photo?
How big does the Earth appear from the moon?
How does that compare with a photo of the moon from Earth with the same field of view?

So I went off and looked up the details, found an image to compare it to and found that the Earth appeared between three and four times larger.

An alternative calculation I could do is work out the angular diameter of the photo, and the angular diameter of the Earth from the moon, and see if the ratios compare. I make it about 30 to 1 but I haven't checked this yet.


Or another example from a few pages back: NASA claims photos are of a 3D lunar landscape. Hoax website says photos show a flat backdrop.

Thought process: if it is a 3D landscape then there should be photos from different angles, but if it is a flat backdrop then it will appear the same?
Can I find other photos of the same area?
Result: several photos of the same piece of landscape, clearly showing perspective right the way out to the horizon.


So it's not about blindly accepting claims. Quite the opposite: it is questioning everything that leads you to the only possible conclusion.

OBM has taken this to extremes: his huge project comparing the Apollo photographs to weather records and satellite images is a great example of independent research: not believing what you are told but going out there and gathering as much data as you can.

Most hoax believers, by contrast, seem content to look at photos and videos, say "looks funny to me!" and leave it at that. Don't they have any curiosity to test things?

Look at this picture - where in the world is something like this of our historic landing - it's beautiful!

It is beautiful. And thanks for sharing: I hadn't seen that picture before
That mountain is also nearly 10 miles across. That little white boulder on the summit is 400ft in diameter. A view like that of Tranquillity Base would show a rather boring flat plain.

To see "our historic landing site" you have to zoom way in until you see a little 13ft wide bug sitting there casting a shadow.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: cestrup

Dear Mr. Monkey,

Here's where I wish you'd use a little more of your critical thought. Do you think that NASA may have had Satellites you nor I knew about back then? I mean, if this were a hoax they may need that and I bet they could get some footage in color as well. You guys make this all seem so easy which furthers my doubt because nobody has even come within a fraction of replicating this amazing feat. But to you guys, it's simple. Interesting...

Don't we all.

I have provided supporting evidence for my assertions, feel free to back up your theory with the same otherwise you're just resorting to fairies and magic.

That satellite image you posted btw, it's a fake. It's a composite of GOES East imagery (black and white) with METEOSAT and NASA colour data to show what was visible when Cassini took it's photo of Earth last year. Very few satellites even now are photographic true colour.

See how easy it is when actually look for information properly?

originally posted by: cestrup
I just thought of something - and this is a big "what if" - but, if they could print transparencies of satellite imagery whilst in LEO then that could be what gave the up -to-date weather anamolies that they put over the window (if that's what they were doing). Also, no critics were analyzing this footage to such detail until years after Apollo and I believe the video we're referencing here wasn't made public until near 2000, correct? So, it could be altered film? Who knows? If it were a hoax of this magnitude - now heavily criticized by people who don't believe we went - the lengths that this agency would go to combined with their technology - could make a very convincing case. So much so, that they fool people as intelligent as you. (I'm not claiming to be more intelligent than you, Rob - just trying to make a point).

I'll say it again: you can not get an image of the entire Earth in LEO.

The photo from the front page of the newspaper was taken from TV broadcasts of the Apollo footage and was therefore publicly available at the time. You have always been able to get the photographs and film footage from Apollo, what has changed is that it got put on the internet. The reason I buy contemporary newspapers and magazines and 35mm slides is to prove the point that they can't have changed the footage because people like me would have noticed, not people like convicted criminal Bart Sibrel.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Which part of this 90 min video has the scene that Sibrel uses as his smoking gun? I need a reference point because I'm at work and I can't exactly start watching something this long and not get frowned upon.

Start at 30:15. That shows the Earth outside the window and runs through to the cabin interior footage.

You can see the cabin floodlight start to appear in the top left at 30:40.

Then they switch camera settings just after the 32:00 mark. It stays a bit dark at first while they continue fiddling with the f-stop.


Edit: Wow! I've just watched that Sibrel video for the first time with the sound up. I don't know quite what to say. It is so totally wrong on so many different levels! Did people really buy this stuff when it came out?

To take just a few things that leap out immediately:

Referring to "an astronaut's arm"' crossing in front of the Earth when, if you watch the original footage, it is clearly the window frame cutting off the view.

Referring to said incident as "an out-take" when it was no such thing: all the wobbles and shoddy framing and multiple occasions where the Earth went partially or wholly out of shot were part of an uninterrupted broadcast.

And then the "smoking gun" incident in question: the narrator says "this is a segment that they didn't think was even being recorded, much less suitable for broadcast". What the hell? Read the transcript, LISTEN to the actual recording. Houston were asking to "see some smiling faces" in the cabin, and the crew responded by changing the camera settings to show the interior, and performing for the camera.

Let's see, Sibrel claims the crew were unaware it was being recorded, and yet this is the conversation immediately prior to the scene in question:

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.

Now, Cestrup, do you remember saying this:

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...

Why do you think he removed the crew communications from his video and replaced them with a voiceover? Because they would prove he is a liar and that this was not some secret "out-take" but just a perfectly normal part of the TV transmission. "Could be intentional" - you said it pal!

originally posted by: cestrup

I just thought of something - and this is a big "what if" - but, if they could print transparencies of satellite imagery whilst in LEO then that could be what gave the up -to-date weather anamolies that they put over the window (if that's what they were doing).

perhaps you didnt see OBMonkeys gif properly..

but printing transparencies of satellite imagery (if you completely ignore the colour issue) means OBMonkey gif would have no differences at all ie. static image..

but thats not the case, the gif definitely shows clouds changing

a reply to: Rob48

Did people really buy this stuff when it came out?

Some.
Those that believed that the video was "leaked". Those that didn't know that Sibrel deliberately edited the video to delete sequences which clearly show the Earth be seen through the window.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rob48

Did people really buy this stuff when it came out?

Some.
Those that believed that the video was "leaked". Those that didn't know that Sibrel deliberately edited the video to delete sequences which clearly show the Earth be seen through the window.

Both of you are missing out on the true value of Sibrel's videos. The astronauts don't know what to do when they are off the script... they get upset and they loose their cool. Just ask Alan Bean if he flew through the Van Allen Belts.... that's why these astronauts are very careful to not put themselves in situations where they could get tough questions.

Alan Bean was asked simple questions about the Van Allen Belts , they were not tough questions. Bean should have been able to explain it but he couldn't because there was no script for the interview. He flubbed it badly and then got angry about it.

That is the real value of Sibrel's videos. I encourage every Apollo Defender to study Bart Sibrel's interviews with astronauts and when reviewing them look for the tell on each astronaut's face as the astronaut first comes to realize that they have been caught red handed bluffing. That's priceless.

The Sibrel videos should be studied as closely as we have studied the Zapruder film. I am not really acting as a Sibrel Defender, what I am saying is that the Apollo Defenders have vastly underestimated the value of his work. Like him or not.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The Sibrel videos should be studied as closely as we have studied the Zapruder film. I am not really acting as a Sibrel Defender, what I am saying is that the Apollo Defenders have vastly underestimated the value of his work. Like him or not.

so you want everyone to analyse the apollo astronauts from sibrels films knowing full well that sibrel has been twisting truths to support his agenda?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The Sibrel videos should be studied as closely as we have studied the Zapruder film. I am not really acting as a Sibrel Defender, what I am saying is that the Apollo Defenders have vastly underestimated the value of his work. Like him or not.

so you want everyone to analyse the apollo astronauts from sibrels films knowing full well that sibrel has been twisting truths to support his agenda?

Sibrel's personal credibility has nothing to do with the video he captured on tape of Astronauts Gone Wild.

Astronauts Gone Wild was released in 2004.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

SJ, you are being extremely hypocritical. You keep telling us not to use ad hominem arguments, but that video is nothing but one big ad hominem.

Sibrel stalked and pestered the astronauts, hectored them and called them liars in an attempt to provoke them so that he could get some footage of them acting "flustered".

Is it really surprising that they lost their cool with this jumped-up little cabbie?

Sibrel is hardly immune to losing his cool, under much less serious provocation:

In July 2009, Sibrel, who works as a Nashville taxicab driver, was charged with vandalism when he jumped up and down on the hood of a car owned by a woman with whom he was having a parking dispute. Court documents show he was arrested after the driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. The arresting officer wrote, "A few moments later the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [Sibrel] drove into it and parked." Sibrel "then walked up to the victim's car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times." The report says he caused about US$1,400 worth of damage

Shame nobody was there with a video camera, eh? That would have been perfect for Sibrel Gone Wild.

When Buzz says "You're talking to the wrong guy! Why don't you talk to the Administrator of NASA? We're passengers. We're guys going on a flight."

Factoid:
Thomas O. Paine was the Administrator in 1969.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sean O'Keefe was the Adminstrator of NASA in 2004 when Sibrel released his video.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Rob48

SJ, you are being extremely hypocritical. You keep telling us not to use ad hominem arguments, but that video is nothing but one big ad hominem.

It's not ad hominem when the astronauts are quoted directly from the video:

When Buzz says "You're talking to the wrong guy! Why don't you talk to the Administrator of NASA? We're passengers. We're guys going on a flight."

I think you miss the significance of the Sibrel videos.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The Sibrel videos should be studied as closely as we have studied the Zapruder film. I am not really acting as a Sibrel Defender, what I am saying is that the Apollo Defenders have vastly underestimated the value of his work. Like him or not.

so you want everyone to analyse the apollo astronauts from sibrels films knowing full well that sibrel has been twisting truths to support his agenda?

Sibrel's personal credibility has nothing to do with the video he captured on tape of Astronauts Gone Wild.

Astronauts Gone Wild was released in 2004.
en.wikipedia.org...

incorrect, sibrels credibility has everything to do with the video..

you wanted to analyse the astronauts words and actions directly from SIBRELS own film.. and you know for a fact that Sibrel has lied in his films to push his own agenda..