Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Rob48

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

Are you kidding me? I know you're being disingenuous now. You're far too intelligent to ask a question like this. Are you trollin', Robbie??!!

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48
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?

Because I care about science and get frustrated by ignorance. I had naively thought you might learn something, especially as you kept saying you were "open to both sides", but it has become all too apparent that you are not interested in learning anything or letting any light into your little cave of denial.

So, as far as discussing this with you goes, I really have stopped caring. Some people like to wallow in ignorance and you just have to let them wallow.

a reply to: Rob48

So, the old adage "I disagree with you so you're stupid" is your final play? I've made my points, of course, they're not supported by NASA so you won't believe anything I link. What from Apollo have you, yourself - empirically or tangibly experimented with using the scientific method? Ah screw it, I'm just a moron and I wouldn't understand it. I feel honored that someone of Mensa-like qualities would even bother to have a discussion with dumb old me. You have no agenda whatsoever with Apollo - you just side with science, right?

a reply to: cestrup

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. I don't think you are stupid, I just think you are allowing your bias to prevent you from thinking objectively.

There is more than enough evidence on this thread for any unbiased person to see that Apollo is genuine, while the hoaxers' evidence is full of holes.

As for "all the evidence coming from NASA" — well, they were the only ones there on the moon, they didn't take an independent film crew so who do you expect to be able to provide independent photos? But there is plenty of third-party evidence: tracking of the capsule by people right here in Britain, for one. They had nothing to do with NASA.

All you seem to be doing is inventing ever more outlandish ways in which Apollo "could" have been faked, while ignoring the stone cold fact that the hoaxers' evidence IS faked.

Thats why I am on the point of giving up. I just don't think you want to learn. There's only so long you can bash your head against a wall without getting brain ache.

a reply to: Rob48

I'm not making outlandish claims. I'm trying to explain how your evidence could easily be fabricated. Outlandish claims would be like aliens told us to go back. Movie trickery isn't outlandish. It's a fact. And the oddities of the footage, the scene cuts and black outs at critical junctures only add to my "outlandish" theories. I'm sorry, but written down data doesn't always cut it to me. Look at Global Warming (man-made). It's pretty divided as far as science goes, there's data on each side. So which do you choose??

Apollo, when looked at from a couple miles up, looks like a production. This is my opinion. You're right, you haven't changed it.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

I'm not making outlandish claims. I'm trying to explain how your evidence could easily be fabricated.

But you're not explaining HOW it could have been fabricated, you're just saying "it could have been fabricated" and using vague terms like "movie magic". That's not explanation. Once you start doing that you could claim anything at all. The only limit is your imagination.

If you want to have any kind of debate you have to stick to evidence. Evidence that it WAS faked, not nebulous accusations that it "could have been".

a reply to: Rob48

So, nobody could take the film, put it into a digital form, and add in a planet with the same cloud formations as were on that date? That's entirely too outlandish to even explain? See, this is the hardest evidence and the most convincing of your side IMO. The Earth shots from the spacecraft (one poster dedicated a website to it so I believe he's a fan too). But, with a little imagination and a wallet like a Rothschild, it's entirely possible. And, if this were all a production, entirely necessary or NOBODY, including you, would believe the lie they are selling.

I just wanted to add that "evidence" will not be on my side. I wasn't in on the secret meetings and much of the evidence, if this were a production, would be very hard to come by. All we have are anamolies and all you have are NASAs defense of them. That's really as simple as it gets

originally posted by: cestrup
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?

explaining the newspaper doesnt explain the live broadcast.. the live broadcast was shown prior to the newspapers.. the live broadcast show changing cloud patterns and a shifting terminator, as seen from OBMonkeys gif.. clearly not a static image..

you've focused on the newspaper and forgotten about the live broadcast.. you forget that the newspaper and the live broadcast go hand in hand, you dont get one without the other.

coupled in the fact that natural weather phenomena is shown in the live broadcast proves that the images were not pre-recorded, if they were not pre-recorded and they had a way of printing images from satellites immediately, then OBMonkeys gif would show a static earth and static clouds.. but that is clearly not the case..

so you know for a fact that the live broadcast was using live video footage of earth..

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

So, nobody could take the film, put it into a digital form, and add in a planet with the same cloud formations as were on that date? That's entirely too outlandish to even explain? See, this is the hardest evidence and the most convincing of your side IMO. The Earth shots from the spacecraft (one poster dedicated a website to it so I believe he's a fan too). But, with a little imagination and a wallet like a Rothschild, it's entirely possible. And, if this were all a production, entirely necessary or NOBODY, including you, would believe the lie they are selling.

You don't think anyone has any tape recordings of the original TV footage, as it was broadcast in 1969? If so, the NASA spooks would have had to commandeer all that footage and digitally alter that too. It's an interesting question, and I'm pretty sure that with an event of this magnitude somebody has some tapes. Home taping was certainly possible in the 1960s for enthusiasts, even if not for the average TV viewer.

a reply to: choos

Already explained this, buddy. The original broadcast was extremely shodddy and nobody could really see cloud fomrations from their extremely dated TV sets. Resolution was terrble back then. NASA also purposely (IMO) produced all of their footage in poor quality. So, nobody recorded this event and nobody was looking/studying cloud formations except NASA who sent a picture to the newspapers from one of their farther out satellites of the Earth. This image was then used in the digital replications of the original footage (they claim is uneidted) by use of CGI/special effects, hence, the cut scenes for every earth shot which nobody can deny.

So, were you there in 1969 taking pictures of your TV set, studying the cloud formations or is this data something you've been looking at on your CPU screen?

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

Already explained this, buddy. The original broadcast was extremely shodddy and nobody could really see cloud fomrations from their extremely dated TV sets. Resolution was terrble back then. NASA also purposely (IMO) produced all of their footage in poor quality. So, nobody recorded this event and nobody was looking/studying cloud formations except NASA who sent a picture to the newspapers from one of their farther out satellites of the Earth. This image was then used in the digital replications of the original footage (they claim is uneidted) by use of CGI/special effects, hence, the cut scenes for every earth shot which nobody can deny.

So, were you there in 1969 taking pictures of your TV set, studying the cloud formations or is this data something you've been looking at on your CPU screen?

does it show a static earth??

CGI??? perhaps you arent aware of how long the footage has been in existence to the public?? it was a live broadcast for a reason..

this isnt footage that has been hidden from the public for 40 years and only just released..

a reply to: Rob48



Maybe but extremely few and far between.

A videocassette is a cartridge containing videotape. In 1969, Sony introduced a prototype for the first widespread video cassette, the 3/4" (1.905 cm) composite U-matic system, which Sony introduced commercially in September 1971 after working out industry standards with other manufacturers. Sony later refined it to Broadcast Video U-matic or BVU. Sony continued its hold on the professional market with its ever-expanding 1/2" (1.27 cm) component video Betacam family (introduced in 1982), which, in its digital variants, is still among the professional market leaders. Panasonic had some limited success with its MII system, but never could compare to Betacam in terms of market share.

From wiki

Maybe there were other ways of recording but I know, because I kind of grew up with VCRs advent - that recording live TV was huge in the early 80s. Like the latest craze!

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos
So, nobody recorded this event and nobody was looking/studying cloud formations except NASA who sent a picture to the newspapers from one of their farther out satellites of the Earth.

Which satellites were these then? Which satellite that was in place in 1969 could have taken the images shown in the newspapers?

And don't say "some secret satellite that nobody knew about". You can't launch a weather satellite and keep it a secret. Far too many people are watching the skies!

a reply to: choos

How long has the footage Sibrel manipulated been available to the public? Didn't NASA claim in 2002 or something? Not some footage - I mean the footage of the Earth with weather patterns concurrent to those days in July. I'm actually not trying to make a challenge here. Maybe you can enlighten me with some video copywritten/produced of the "little gem" from the 70s or whatever that I could study. Thanks!

a reply to: Rob48

And don't say "some secret satellite that nobody knew about". You can't launch a weather satellite and keep it a secret. Far too many people are watching the skies!

Really? Why can't I say that? You're telling me that our CIA/NASA couldn't be a satellite in orbit in secret? I call BS

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

How long has the footage Sibrel manipulated been available to the public? Didn't NASA claim in 2002 or something? Not some footage - I mean the footage of the Earth with weather patterns concurrent to those days in July. I'm actually not trying to make a challenge here. Maybe you can enlighten me with some video copywritten/produced of the "little gem" from the 70s or whatever that I could study. Thanks!

tv networks have had their own copies.. and then you have private collectors.. who would have recorded it..

First home video recorders[edit]
The Telcan, produced by the UK Nottingham Electronic Valve Company in 1963, was the first home video recorder. It could be bought as a unit or in kit form for £60. However, there were several drawbacks: it was expensive, not easy to assemble, and could only record 20 minutes at a time. It recorded in black-and-white, the only format available in the UK at the time.[7][8][9]

The half-inch tape Sony model CV-2000, first marketed in 1965, was their first VTR intended for home use.[10] Ampex and RCA followed in 1965 with their own reel-to-reel monochrome VTRs priced under US$1,000 for the home consumer market.

The EIAJ format was a standard half-inch format used by various manufacturers. EIAJ-1 was an open-reel format. EIAJ-2 used a cartridge that contained a supply reel; the take-up reel was part of the recorder, and the tape had to be fully rewound before removing the cartridge, a slow procedure.

The development of the videocassette followed the replacement by cassette of other open reel systems in consumer items: the Stereo-Pak 4-track audio cartridge in 1962, the compact audio cassette and Instamatic film cartridge in 1963, the 8-track cartridge in 1965, and the Super 8 home movie cartridge in 1966.[citation needed]

In 1967 videocassettes of movies became available for home use.[11]
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

How long has the footage Sibrel manipulated been available to the public? Didn't NASA claim in 2002 or something? Not some footage - I mean the footage of the Earth with weather patterns concurrent to those days in July. I'm actually not trying to make a challenge here. Maybe you can enlighten me with some video copywritten/produced of the "little gem" from the 70s or whatever that I could study. Thanks!

I believe I already explained this for you: It has always been available. It was broadcast on TV, which is how it ended up on the next day's front pages.

It may not have been available on the internet, but all you had to do was ask NASA for it and they would supply it, as long as you paid the appropriate fee, or buy it from the many people who re-sold them. You could get the science reports if you sent off for them.

I have newspapers, slides and 8mm film from the time. Not internet pages, actual real objects.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

Already explained this, buddy. The original broadcast was extremely shodddy and nobody could really see cloud fomrations from their extremely dated TV sets. Resolution was terrble back then. NASA also purposely (IMO) produced all of their footage in poor quality. So, nobody recorded this event and nobody was looking/studying cloud formations except NASA who sent a picture to the newspapers from one of their farther out satellites of the Earth. This image was then used in the digital replications of the original footage (they claim is uneidted) by use of CGI/special effects, hence, the cut scenes for every earth shot which nobody can deny.

So, were you there in 1969 taking pictures of your TV set, studying the cloud formations or is this data something you've been looking at on your CPU screen?

The photographs from the newspapers were taken from TV.

As I'm guessing you weren't around to see it in person, how do you know how good the images were? I find this argument particularly daft given that the footage we are discussing WAS BROADCAST ON TV!!!

The only weather satellites up there were taking photographs of the weather, either in geostationary orbit over a single spot so the Earth couldn't rotate underneath them, or in LEO where coverage of the amount of Earth visible on the TV broadcasts would have taken about 7 hours to image, never mind stitch together in time to fake a TV broadcast.

If you're going to insist we watch convicted criminal Bart Sibrel's video, I think you should read this:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

because until you've seen all the outward bound TV broadcasts and still images in sequence compared with the weather data in their proper context you aren't in a position to comment.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

And don't say "some secret satellite that nobody knew about". You can't launch a weather satellite and keep it a secret. Far too many people are watching the skies!

Really? Why can't I say that? You're telling me that our CIA/NASA couldn't be a satellite in orbit in secret? I call BS

Russia couldn't manage to put a tiny metal sphere in orbit in the 1950s without the world noticing. You really think the USA could launch a whole weather satellite at the height of the moon race without anyone noticing?

In July 1969 there were, I believe, only two geosynchronous weather satellites in operation: ATS-1 and ATS-3. (ATS-2, in case you were wondering, failed to reach its orbit.) Neither of them was in the right place to take the images shown in the Apollo 11 broadcast. The nearest one to having the correct orientation was ATS-3, which was centred over South America.

The US did have its own military program of weather satellites (known variously as DMSP and DAPP) which they developed largely because they got fed up of NASA delaying launches, their civilian bureacracy, and because they had their own ideas about how they should work and what the technology should do. There are very detailed histories of the program available online. Google is your friend. You still can't keep a launch secret though.

Those satellites used the same technology as the civilian ones, namely black and white images developed in orbit and the scanned photographs transmitted back to receiving stations on the ground. The did not image the whole Earth. They did not record in colour. They did not have the computing power to stitch together images instantly.

There was also the CORONA program, but this as still in black and white, only covered tiny amounts of the Earth's surface at once and their imaging payload had to be caught mid-air by a passing plane. The LEO military satellites were partly used to forecast when the CORONA satellites could image.

CORONA and DMSP images were all de-classified a long time ago.

Not all of the military's program was known at the time of Apollo, but it can only photograph the weather that's there, not make it up.

There were no satellites in any kind of orbit capable of producing Apollo's still or moving images. None. Anyone who disputes that needs to back it up with proof.