Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Wow, the significance of the Sibrel videos is that they show that he is a deranged individual. Even with the limited context supplied in the vid, he's obviously been harassing these guys in an extreme manner. No wonder they lost their cool.

And love this; "...he jumped up and down on the hood of a car owned by a woman with whom he was having a parking dispute..."

Case closed, Sibrel is an idiot.

originally posted by: mrwiffler
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Wow, the significance of the Sibrel videos is that they show that he is a deranged individual. Even with the limited context supplied in the vid, he's obviously been harassing these guys in an extreme manner. No wonder they lost their cool.

And love this; "...he jumped up and down on the hood of a car owned by a woman with whom he was having a parking dispute..."

Case closed, Sibrel is an idiot.

Like him or hate him, he produced some good interviews with astronauts... and those interviews are on the record.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

All those interviews show is Sibrel being utterly annoying and the astronauts reacting as any sane individual would.

Tell me what the interviews prove.

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.

You're saying that Sibrel's personal credibility has nothing to do with a video designed to attack the astronauts' personal credibility?

You are turning hypocrisy and double standards into an art form.

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

You're saying that Sibrel's personal credibility has nothing to do with a video designed to attack the astronauts' personal credibility?

You are turning hypocrisy and double standards into an art form.

That's because I study Richard Nixon and Howard Hughes while you study NASA gift shop brochures.

Don't waste your time attacking Bart, that's not going to get you many followers. And I think you know it's a waste of time to waste precious text characters with ad hominems against Bart.

Instead, spend your time looking at those interviews and examine each one, don't be biased against Bart or biased for the astronauts. Just watch the interviews objectively.

Objective analysis: Sibrel is extremely annoying idiot. Astronauts react like any sane people would. End of story.

There is zero substance to any of Sibrel's crazy opinions.

Why don't you stop thinking about Nixon et all and look at the facts.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Instead, spend your time looking at those interviews and examine each one, don't be biased against Bart or biased for the astronauts. Just watch the interviews objectively.

Why don't you look objectively at the multitude of errors, lies and misrepresentation in Bart's "Funny Thing" video? If the man deliberately presents live TV footage as "secret out-takes", having removed the soundtrack and replaced it with his own commentary, then why should we believe anything he ever says on camera?

originally posted by: mrwiffler
Objective analysis: Sibrel is extremely annoying idiot. Astronauts react like any sane people would. End of story.

There is zero substance to any of Sibrel's crazy opinions.

Why don't you stop thinking about Nixon et all and look at the facts.

Actually, Sibrel's opinions don't matter at all. The Sibrel videotape is what matters. Why are you being so dumb about it? Your personal opinion about Bart Sibrel has nothing to do with the videotape.... you can't redact those magic words "We were just passengers." - Buzz Aldrin

Carry on with your hate parade. That's what Apollo Defenders thrive on most.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Rob48

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.

You're saying that Sibrel's personal credibility has nothing to do with a video designed to attack the astronauts' personal credibility?

You are turning hypocrisy and double standards into an art form.

That's because I study Richard Nixon and Howard Hughes while you study NASA gift shop brochures.

Don't waste your time attacking Bart, that's not going to get you many followers. And I think you know it's a waste of time to waste precious text characters with ad hominems against Bart.

Instead, spend your time looking at those interviews and examine each one, don't be biased against Bart or biased for the astronauts. Just watch the interviews objectively.

do you even realise that you are trying to use quotes from a "propaganda" film as proof to support your hoax theory (whatever it is for today).. you know that Sibrel is lying and twisting things to suit his agenda and yet you persist..

its akin to you taking quotes from the film "Dark Side of the Moon" to support your hoax theory (again to whatever it is for today)

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: mrwiffler
Objective analysis: Sibrel is extremely annoying idiot. Astronauts react like any sane people would. End of story.

There is zero substance to any of Sibrel's crazy opinions.

Why don't you stop thinking about Nixon et all and look at the facts.

Actually, Sibrel's opinions don't matter at all. The Sibrel videotape is what matters. Why are you being so dumb about it? Your personal opinion about Bart Sibrel has nothing to do with the videotape.... you can't redact those magic words "We were just passengers." - Buzz Aldrin

Carry on with your hate parade. That's what Apollo Defenders thrive on most.

Ever heard self-deprecation before, SJ? "Just passengers". The crew weren't the designers, they weren't the rocket scientists. They didn't have to know about the ins and outs of radiation etc. They trusted in the back-room boffins to get that right. They just had to have the skill to fly it and the gigantic brass cojones to take the risk.

Why are you totally ignoring Bart's first video, the one that launched his whole conspiracy fest?

The one containing a "smoking gun" that is 100% invented? Why haven't you addressed that?

Why Sibrel claims that the crew were "unaware they were even being recorded", while deleting the comms that show they were fully aware of that fact? (They could hardly be otherwise given that Aldrin was holding the TV camera at the time!)

Why Sibrel claims that the Earth is a cutout on the window, even though it can be seen being hidden by the window frame? (Bart of course cuts these bits out of his video, except one that he left in and explained as being "an astronaut's arm".)

And why Sibrel cut the part, seconds after his "big reveal", where Mike Collins looks straight down the barrel of the lens and says "Hello there sports fans"? Is that really a man "unaware he is being recorded"?

Please address these facts before spouting off about why astronauts get angry with Bart. They risked their lives to fly to the moon. He drives a taxi and makes stupid videos packed full of lies.

a reply to: Rob48

When did I become Bart's defense attorney in this thread? Go ask Bart all your ridiculous questions.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48

When did I become Bart's defense attorney in this thread? Go ask Bart all your ridiculous questions.

If you are not prepared to defend his bull, then stop trying to promote his videos. Either he is defensible or he is indefensible. If your opinion is that he is indefensible, then why ask us to watch his video?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Carry on with your hate parade. That's what Apollo Defenders thrive on most.

Said the man who has dedicated his life to defaming a dead President.

Wait a darn-tooting second - most of NASAs photos (95%) were released to the public after 1995? Boy, the internet really scared them. And after watching all the cuts of the video or the screen fading to black (the easiest way to throw in a cut without anyone knowing) this is looking more and more like a production. This will cause an onslaught of defenders to "out-science" me but it's true. All of that footage could be tampered with and have added proofs of fabrication. The videos Sibrel used were not seen by anyone in 1972ish. Nobody can confirm the weather patterns out the window. How easily could that have been added in? To match the photos from one of NASAs weather satellite. Notice, EVERY SINGLE VIDEO OF WINDOW EARTH there is a cut of some sort and no astronaut (recognizable) in the same shot. The blue hue of LEO blanketing the window. Come on, man. I can't believe I was getting so side-tracked with non-sense. This is a production- look at how quickly this person can turn a normal pan into a moonscape.

apollofake.atspace.co.uk...

Boy, a lot of smart fellas have been duped. I watched a lot of the NASA vids of Apollo 11 (thank to OBM) and the amount of cuts and the fact that these videos weren't seen/available till 30 years later basically, I mean come on...

How does technology go backwards? How does this hunk of crap (to the tune of $350M) i.imgur.com... out perform technology from 2012?

www.youtube.com...

Wow! These rockets sure are hard to finesse. Good thing they were perfect during Apollo!

originally posted by: cestrup

Wait a darn-tooting second - most of NASAs photos (95%) were released to the public after 1995?

Says who? You have always been able to order copies of the photos direct from NASA. Nowadays you don't have to go the trouble, because they are available on the internet. On what do you base the claim that the photos weren't publicly available?

Here, look, the Apollo 11 photos were all catalogued in a document published in FEBRUARY 1970: ntrs.nasa.gov...

The videos Sibrel used were not seen by anyone in 1972ish.

Apart from being BROADCAST LIVE on television to millions of people, you mean? And having frames from the video printed in newspapers and magazines in 1969? Why do you keep ignoring this point which proves that you are talking nonsense about videos being "altered"?

Nobody can confirm the weather patterns out the window. How easily could that have been added in?

It couldn't have been added in, because it was copied and printed AT THE TIME. In 1969.

Notice, EVERY SINGLE VIDEO OF WINDOW EARTH there is a cut of some sort and no astronaut (recognizable) in the same shot.

Nonsense - look at the "smoking gun" footage on the real video with the transcript. It is one continuous shot, which goes from showing the moon outside the window to the interior of the cabin with Mike Collins standing there! No cuts.

This is a production- look at how quickly this person can turn a normal pan into a moonscape.

apollofake.atspace.co.uk...

You are really having a laugh now. You can take a sand dune on Earth and change the colours and make it look a bit like a sand-covered hill on the moon. Well so what? I can take a photo of a lemon and change the colour and make it look like a lime. What does that prove?

And that's with Photoshop, of course, which didn't exist in the 1960s. I think you are forgetting that the Apollo photography is ANALOGUE. You remember, actual physical film. Can you Photoshop a physical negative?

Boy, a lot of smart fellas have been duped. I watched a lot of the NASA vids of Apollo 11 (thank to OBM) and the amount of cuts and the fact that these videos weren't seen/available till 30 years later basically, I mean come on...

They were seen by millions of people LIVE, on television. I mean, come on...

I thought maybe you were starting to see reason when you were asking questions, but no, you are just as closed-minded as the rest of them. I notice you still haven't even tried to explain how those Apollo 17 images could have been faked, either: just given up and moved on to something else.

You would rather believe Sibrel, who cuts his video, deletes the comms and lies outright about what is being shown, than the actual original TV transmission seen by millions in 1969?

a reply to: Rob48

That's nothing - no pictures just descriptors of photo quality and a brief description of the image. Okay, so what?

And all of those people in 1969 watched in full HD with their DVRs on, right? No, we've all seen the images they were given - they were pure junk. Nobody then was looking at the intricate details like weather patterns or cut scenes. They didn't have time to and once it passed, there was not a rewind. Good lord, the more you think about it - this was all so easy. Keep them dumb back then and then redo all the footage much later on when the public gets hyper-critical. How can you not at least consider this possibility?

I will agree with you that Sibrel was really trying to drive his point home and withheld some from the original but it didn't change anything really as far as a BLUE HUE OF LEO crash through the window. Hello??

So flash foward - it's 2014 - and here's what we know...

nobody has been into the VAB since 1972
there are still no quality images of the lunar landing sites, by anyone
They cannot create a rocket-propelled lander, still - other than the crane-raised one from Apollo

That hurts anything. As SJ points out, you just grab all your goodies from the NASA gift shop and tout them as the end all, be all. An intelligent person would consider all facets of this historic feat, including parts/all of it being faked.

a reply to: Rob48

And that's with Photoshop, of course, which didn't exist in the 1960s. I think you are forgetting that the Apollo photography is ANALOGUE. You remember, actual physical film. Can you Photoshop a physical negative?

Can you put an analogue film onto a digital format? Have you personally held the tangible film and scrutinized all of it? Or have you just seen the digital versions? I know these answers, bro!

So of course it could be tampered with. Just because originals exist doesn't mean what you see on your monitor and in a magazine hasn't been altered.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

That's nothing - no pictures just descriptors of photo quality and a brief description of the image. Okay, so what?

So... any researcher who wanted to could order copies of the photos. They were all available, and have not suddenly been released since 1995. They are all listed there. Once again, where do you get that idea from?

And all of those people in 1969 watched in full HD with their DVRs on, right? No, we've all seen the images they were given - they were pure junk. Nobody then was looking at the intricate details like weather patterns or cut scenes.

ONCE AGAIN, the images were published in newspapers. We can study them at our leisure because they STILL EXIST. Why do you keep refusing to answer this?

Look: here is a frame taken from the TV footage, as circulated by the Associated Press on the VERY SAME DAY:



It is clearly the same image seen in the video. How is this possible if the video was later altered?

They didn't have time to and once it passed, there was not a rewind. Good lord, the more you think about it - this was all so easy. Keep them dumb back then and then redo all the footage much later on when the public gets hyper-critical. How can you not at least consider this possibility?

Because I am not totally cut adrift from reality!

I will agree with you that Sibrel was really trying to drive his point home and withheld some from the original but it didn't change anything really as far as a BLUE HUE OF LEO crash through the [window]. Hello??

Hello! I've explained all this. Here's an experiment you can do. Go into a dimly lit room with a small window, take a camera, set it to f/22 and expose for the view out of the window, now try to take a photo of the interior of the room. What do you see?
Now open the aperture and expose for the interior of the room, and try to take a photo of the window instead. What happens?

So flash foward - it's 2014 - and here's what we know...

nobody has been into the VAB since 1972
there are still no quality images of the lunar landing sites, by anyone
They cannot create a rocket-propelled lander, still - other than the crane-raised one from Apollo

That hurts anything. As SJ points out, you just grab all your goodies from the NASA gift shop and tout them as the end all, be all. An intelligent person would consider all facets of this historic feat, including parts/all of it being faked.

Like I said, I question it. Did you read this post? I question these claims, do the photographic analysis, do the maths, check the science. It all checks out. If you started doing some maths or some basic photographic analysis then my respect for your argument would go WAY up, and there would be the added benefit that you would learn something. Why are you so afraid to do any of your own research?

a reply to: Rob48

I have not refused to answer that. I said that photo in the Newspaper was a satellite image. John and Sally Homeonwer didn't have the ability to look at their piss-poor image on their boobtube and compare that with the photo on the morning paper. They weren't concerned with weather patterns. You know who was??? NASA. Because they knew a day would exist when everything could be scrutinized. They knew that the film of the Earth from 130k out would be extremely difficult to manipulate. Movie magic, baby!! Boy, it's really not that hard to grasp and when you have the funding they did/do - presto. Oh, plus the fact that they controll EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. An anamoly pops up - easy, just change it and make up a story, "here's the "real" original" . Then Rob48 will be on the internet vigorously defending Apollo and any alteration, video, photo-anamoly, etc. for reasons beyond Cestrup. If it's all such a joke to you (the hoax) then why do you care?