Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: choos

turned slightly, a flat image of earth was turned slightly???

No, it's not flat to the window.

originally posted by: choos
which satellite was used to obtain these pics?? the low earth orbit ones or the geostationary ones??

No idea, and it's not relevant to the issue.

originally posted by: choos
and the changing clouds??

What clouds do you mean, exactly?

originally posted by: choos
also was this all done while in LEO?? or back on earth, you seem to change this whenever you please..

I've explained this point, but nice try.

originally posted by: choos
what circular strap/band?? do you mean mike collins mic??

No. I mean a circular shaped strap/band which was fixed to the circular window. Look at the clip, to see it for yourself.

originally posted by: choos
simply?? can you demonstrate this simple procedure?? i dont understand what you are saying because i see clouds moving a bit a moving terminator and an angle of earth that is NOT from a geostationary satellite.

Again, no idea what clouds you say moved.

Is it really so difficult for you to grasp the idea of how a transparency could be placed over a clear plastic dome?

originally posted by: choos
yes its called setting up the camera,

You say it is a live, continuous, unedited TV transmission.

So when the clip goes from a brightened interior shot of various objects in the cabin, to a darkened interior 'Earth' shot, in less than one second, "This is called setting up the camera"??!?!

I've heard some whoppers, but nothing beats this one!

How do they darken the interior, and move the camera, in less than one second?

Oh, right, by "setting up the camera!!


You're hilarious...

originally posted by: turbonium1


You say it is a live, continuous, unedited TV transmission.

So when the clip goes from a brightened interior shot of various objects in the cabin, to a darkened interior 'Earth' shot, in less than one second, "This is called setting up the camera"??!?!

I've heard some whoppers, but nothing beats this one!

How do they darken the interior, and move the camera, in less than one second?

Oh, right, by "setting up the camera!!


You're hilarious...

you unplug the camera set it up and plug it back in.. is this a completely impossible concept for you?

you have ignored the clouds again btw.

a reply to: choos

He also ignored how they got the shot of the entire earth in real time. I think he believes we have weather satellites in deep space. He doesn't realize they have to be pieced back together to get a complete picture of weather patterns. Before computers took hours of work and by no means would they have done it on a global scale. So I guess they just got lucky and happen to get the weather pattern right over half the globe in real time.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1


You say it is a live, continuous, unedited TV transmission.

So when the clip goes from a brightened interior shot of various objects in the cabin, to a darkened interior 'Earth' shot, in less than one second, "This is called setting up the camera"??!?!

I've heard some whoppers, but nothing beats this one!

How do they darken the interior, and move the camera, in less than one second?

Oh, right, by "setting up the camera!!


You're hilarious...

you unplug the camera set it up and plug it back in.. is this a completely impossible concept for you?

you have ignored the clouds again btw.

Again, I don't know what clouds you are talking about here...so I can't address it yet.

As for unplugging the camera, and then setting it up for an "Earth' shot, and then darkening the interior...not possible, since - as you claim - this is a live TV transmission, with continuously shot, unedited footage.

The clip goes from a bright interior scene of some items in the cabin, immediately to a darkened interior shot of the 'Earth'. Unplugging the camera would show a bright interior scene, then a completely black screen for several seconds (at least), while they reset the camera for the 'Earth' shot, and darken the cabin interior. At that point, we could see the 'Earth' shot.

BUT YOU SAID THE FOOTAGE WAS LIVE, CONTINUOUS, UNEDITED FOOTAGE.

Your excuse fails to hold up.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: choos

He also ignored how they got the shot of the entire earth in real time. I think he believes we have weather satellites in deep space. He doesn't realize they have to be pieced back together to get a complete picture of weather patterns. Before computers took hours of work and by no means would they have done it on a global scale. So I guess they just got lucky and happen to get the weather pattern right over half the globe in real time.

The Apollo-ites say the TV transmission was shown is in "real time", too.

Wrong.

a reply to: turbonium1

The Apollo-ites say the TV transmission was shown is in "real time", too.

Wrong.

Documentation please.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1


You say it is a live, continuous, unedited TV transmission.

So when the clip goes from a brightened interior shot of various objects in the cabin, to a darkened interior 'Earth' shot, in less than one second, "This is called setting up the camera"??!?!

I've heard some whoppers, but nothing beats this one!

How do they darken the interior, and move the camera, in less than one second?

Oh, right, by "setting up the camera!!


You're hilarious...

you unplug the camera set it up and plug it back in.. is this a completely impossible concept for you?

you have ignored the clouds again btw.

Again, I don't know what clouds you are talking about here...so I can't address it yet.

go back to OBMonkeys post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



that is just one example, why are clouds over the coast in one screen cap, and the next the clouds are next to the coast?? impossible on a transparency

As for unplugging the camera, and then setting it up for an "Earth' shot, and then darkening the interior...not possible, since - as you claim - this is a live TV transmission, with continuously shot, unedited footage.

The clip goes from a bright interior scene of some items in the cabin, immediately to a darkened interior shot of the 'Earth'. Unplugging the camera would show a bright interior scene, then a completely black screen for several seconds (at least), while they reset the camera for the 'Earth' shot, and darken the cabin interior. At that point, we could see the 'Earth' shot.

BUT YOU SAID THE FOOTAGE WAS LIVE, CONTINUOUS, UNEDITED FOOTAGE.

Your excuse fails to hold up.

are you saying it was not broadcast live to mission control where there were reporters?? or was everyone in mission control in on the secret as well as the reporters??

and how do they accurate portray the moving terminator without screwing up?? before you said they moved the transparency during the cut..


this is my own little gif not the same as OBMonkeys, it was taken from two screencaps from this video:
www.youtube.com...

once from about 1.49 and the other from about 7.46 no cut in between.. yet some clouds are disappearing into the terminator???

originally posted by: turbonium1

The Apollo-ites say the TV transmission was shown is in "real time", too.

Wrong.

Are you stupid? Blind? What? All you are doing is parading your ignorance and lack of research for all to see.

How many times do you need it pointing out to you?

What does this nice man say just after the 04:30 mark?



Here is the PAO transcript - it's the mission transcript with what the PAO passed on to the press in the press room. Search it for 'TV'

www.hq.nasa.gov...

How many times do I need to post news broadcasts of footage sent from Apollo 11, and the newspaper front pages taken from those broadcasts?

How many times do I need to post transcript evidence, TV schedules, explanations of how the press room works? All this has been done for you. No matter how many times you claim it's not available it has been shown to you countless times. Stop trolling and read the thread.

How many times do I need to ask you to explain how they managed to come up with a completely accurate, dynamic, rotating Earth before they had any indication as to what that Earth would feature, in colour when no colour satellites were available? When will you answer the questions put to you with anything other than "Jarrah says I shouldn't believe it?"

All of this has been explained to you in great detail and you still persist in this absolute nonsense. Now you've managed to make it even more complicated by insisting that they put some transparency on a rotating globe (hey - you admit that the Earth is rotating, progress!). It's babbling gibberish - let go of Jarrah's foetid teat and think for yourself.

On ebay right now is a press photograph of Hurricane Bernice dated exactly as it should be, taken fom the Apollo TV transmission. Here's the picture from the auction:

pictures.historicimages.net...

I've just received an original copy of an English newspaper, dated correctly with a picture from Apollo 10 on the front from the previous day's TV broadcast. Explain how it is possible to transmit a TV image of Earth from space before the satellite weather images are available in time for it to make it onto the newspaper front pages. Try and do it without making yourself sound dumb.

originally posted by: choos

are you saying it was not broadcast live to mission control where there were reporters?? or was everyone in mission control in on the secret as well as the reporters??

I wasn't there, so I don't know what was sent back to mission control, and what the reporters saw, or did not see.

Nobody knows what the reporters saw, so what you believe doesn't matter, and if they did see it, how do you know they would even look it over in such detail to notice a split-second glitch?

It doesn't matter.

It is edited. And you have to address this edit.

No more excuses.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

are you saying it was not broadcast live to mission control where there were reporters?? or was everyone in mission control in on the secret as well as the reporters??

I wasn't there, so I don't know what was sent back to mission control, and what the reporters saw, or did not see.

It doesn't matter.

It is edited. And you have to address this edit.

No more excuses.

the reporters were watching a live stream, everything that was broadcast was being watched from mission control..

so how about you address the moving terminator from the gif?? there were 0 cuts i watched the entire period to make sure, the earth did not move off screen, it was in the picture the entire time, there was no rotation of the camera..

yet there is a moving terminator.. you can clearly see some clouds going towards the night side of earth.. you claimed they moved the terminator line during the cut off of footage.. how is this possible on a transparency?? who moves the transparency?? one of the astronauts??

and you have again ignored the clouds btw.

Nobody knows what the reporters saw, so what you believe doesn't matter, and if they did see it, how do you know they would even look it over in such detail to notice a split-second glitch?

nobody knows what the reporters saw???? for real??

heres a video posted by OBMonkey earlier that you happily ignored:


ABC news coverage.. but you claim nobody knows what the reporters saw.... you are lying through your teeth..

and not notice a split second glitch?? didnt you claim they done it live in LEO?? or are you claiming they done all of it back on the ground?? its hard to keep up with your flip-flopping.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I wasn't there, so I don't know what was sent back to mission control, and what the reporters saw, or did not see.

The reporters know. They reported it.

Nobody knows what the reporters saw, so what you believe doesn't matter, and if they did see it, how do you know they would even look it over in such detail to notice a split-second glitch?

The reporters know. They reported it. What you believe does not matter. They reported the images, put them in the evening news, put them on the front pages of the newspaper.

It doesn't matter.

It does, because it proves you wrong.

It is edited. And you have to address this edit.

No more excuses.

Address it yourself. You can find the transcript and time the difference between the words uttered to the waiting press. That will show you how much of a time gap there is. Go for it. The answer the questions about how they managed to get a picture of Earth into a broadcast without knowing what should be in it.

Here, let me help you out - I used my Spacecraft Films DVD of the broadcast, because I don't trust Jarrah as far as I could kick him into a crocodile infested swamp, which isn't far enough.

The last words spoken before your 'edit' are:

01 07 03 52 CC Roger. I guess so, Buzz. We'll have them look into it, and see if they can suggest anything.

The next words are:

01 07 13 18 CC Hello, Apollo 11. Houston. Please select OMNI Bravo on board. Over.

That's a gap of 7 minutes 26 seconds.

There is, however, still TV broadcast between those words, and this amounts to 3 minutes and 14 seconds of that 7:26, so we have a gap of 4 minutes 12 seconds.

You claim it's an edit, but here's something from the transcript:

01 07 05 12 CC
Hello, Apollo 11. Houston. We've lost our command interface with Goldstone. We'd like you to switch to 0MNI Delta. Over.

So, they lost transmission. They do continue to have audio from the spacecraft, because they still have comm links, and there are a numerous conversations with the ground during the 'missing' 4 minutes before TV is re-established, We have matching views of Earth before an after this break in the TV.

You can confirm that this audio took place by listening to the mission audio

archive.org...

Of course you won't bother to do that.

So, next point, was it live?

Well, it was transmitted live to Goldstone California (feel free to prove it wasn't) and then fed through to Houston later, but the dialogue for the whole thing was fed through to the press room at Houston live as it happened (feel free to prove it wasn't).

The TV images show exactly what should be on view at the time, and there are also still images showing the view some time before the broadcast, at the same time as the broadcast and some time after the broadcast.

Every single piece of it ties together, and all you have is "well it smells kind of funny".

and just to add a little more t the narratve, here are two editions of the Chicago Tribune:

archives.chicagotribune.com...

archives.chicagotribune.com...

The one on the 17th features this TV guide tip:



And the one on the 18th has two pictures from that live TV broadcast (one of Armstrong, one of Collins), images that are also seen in this later news broadcast



That features an image of Earth that can be proven to be time and date specific.

Scheduled live TV broadcasts showing Earth exactly as it should appear at the time of the broadcasts and shots from which appear on the next day's paper.

a reply to: choos

I'd love you to answer this one, turbonium. No cuts, no chance to replace the "transparency"... Eppur si muove, as Galileo said. And yet it moves! Explain that one, hoaxsters?

I think it's worth clarifying exactly which TV broadcasts were made and when, because the three featuring Earth on the outbound part of Apollo 11's journey have been referred to interchangeably and there is a danger that they are getting confused.

The first broadcast was made at 10:32 GET (Ground Elapsed Time) or 00:04 UTC on the 17th, or 19:04 CDT on the 16th. It was an unscheduled camera test and is the one that featured Hurricane Bernice in a configuration that only existed on that day. The crew described in detail what they could see and took still photographs. The audio part of the broadcast was received live at Houston.

The TV was received at Goldstone and transmitted to the PAO press room at 11:47 GET (or 01:19 UTC 17/7/69, 20:19 CDT 16/7/69), and replayed to the press - complete with audio - while the crew were in a sleep period at 12:12 GET (01:44 UTC 17/7, 20:44 CDT 16/7).

There is therefore a gap of 1 hour 44 minutes between the TV being received and the playback to the press.

Pictures from the broadcast were printed in the press the following day.

The second broadast was also an unscheduled camera test, and the audio from it was again broadcast live to the press room while it was being received in Goldstone. It was started at 30:28 GET (15:00 CDT, 20:00 UTC on the 17th). Descriptions of the TV content are relayed to Houston and are fed back to the cew by CAPCOM.

The PAO informs the press that:

"The tape from this unscheduled TV pass will probably be fed from Goldstone to Houston following the regularly scheduled TV transmission this evening."

The tape was actually played back by the PAO to the press, complete with audio, at 36:27 GET (21:00 CDT, on the 17th, 02:00 UTC on the 18th).

The live and scheduled TV broadcast was made at 33:59 GET, (23:31 UTC, 18:31 CDT) amd included images of the crew and Earth. It was covered by all the major networks and extracts from it also appeared in later news bulletins.

The second broadcast of the three was therefore actually shown last during a rest period for the crew.

For the two unscheduled broadcasts the audio was heard live in Houston and details of the content were relayed by Goldstone to CAPCOM so that the crew could be given feedback or to answer crew questions.

All three broadcasts show Earth, in exactly the right configuration for the time of the broadcast, and with time and date specific meteorological details. Clearly identifiable rotation can be seen in the sequences showing extended continuous views of Earth. There are corresponding still images that were clearly taken before, after and during each broadcast.

Bart Sibrel lied when he claimed that there was unreleased footage. Simple as.

The more I look at it, the more convinced I am that the Apollo broadcast I linked to above is actually the live transmission and not a later news broadcast, because there is also a follow on video to it. The audio as the clip joins the broadcast is very soon after Houston report that they have a TV signal.

Anyhow, some people at the time were very into their technology, and used their home cine equipment to record not just events in their personal lives but TV broadcasts of significant events.

Here's one:



So not only did members of the public see images of Earth on their TV live from space, some of them had the good sense to record it for posterity.

originally posted by: choos
the reporters were watching a live stream, everything that was broadcast was being watched from mission control..

You can't edit it like that for a "live stream", no matter how you try and spin it.

It's edited, so it can't be a "live stream".

That's a fact.

originally posted by: choos
so how about you address the moving terminator from the gif?? there were 0 cuts i watched the entire period to make sure, the earth did not move off screen, it was in the picture the entire time, there was no rotation of the camera..

yet there is a moving terminator.. you can clearly see some clouds going towards the night side of earth.. you claimed they moved the terminator line during the cut off of footage.. how is this possible on a transparency?? who moves the transparency?? one of the astronauts??

You don't need to move the camera away from the window, to adjust the transparency.

We see a shadow of a man near the window, and that's who moves it, imo.

That would explain why he IS at the window, in fact - to adjust the 'Earth'.

The camera would be up to the window if they were filming the real Earth. No doubt.

originally posted by: choos
nobody knows what the reporters saw???? for real??

heres a video posted by OBMonkey earlier that you happily ignored:

ABC news coverage.. but you claim nobody knows what the reporters saw.... you are lying through your teeth..

and not notice a split second glitch?? didnt you claim they done it live in LEO?? or are you claiming they done all of it back on the ground?? its hard to keep up with your flip-flopping.

YOU claimed it was all done live in LEO, not me.

They edited that one specific piece of footage.

It cannot be 'live' footage, because it's been edited.

To claim reporters saw this footage, and that means it was 'live'.... makes no sense.

It was edited, thus would have been impossible for ANYONE to see it 'live'.

Including any of those 'reporters' who were present, at the time.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You can't edit it like that for a "live stream", no matter how you try and spin it.

It's edited, so it can't be a "live stream".

That's a fact.

not spinning anything.. if you go watch a live football game on tv, and the live feed suddenly cuts.. is it no longer live??? your logic is flawed.

You don't need to move the camera away from the window, to adjust the transparency.

We see a shadow of a man near the window, and that's who moves it, imo.

That would explain why he IS at the window, in fact - to adjust the 'Earth'.

The camera would be up to the window if they were filming the real Earth. No doubt.

you are claiming its a shadow of a man.. others are saying its the windows edge.. what makes you right??

also your claim is ridiculous.. a man is slowly moving the terminator micrometers over at least 6min CONSTANTLY or is rotating the earth micrometers over several minutes.. (i still dont get how this is done can you show me what you are talking about)

not only this, but he is slowly moving the clouds also..

ps you forgot about the clouds again..

YOU claimed it was all done live in LEO, not me.

so you are claiming that it was filmed in LEO on the day it was meant to be filmed..
you also claimed the astronauts were accurately moving the terminator micrometer by micrometer over atleast 6 mins while constantly filming..
which satellite was in that specific location to obtain that picture of the earth? OBMonkey has already shown you the geostationary satellite photos and its in a different location..

oh hey btw.. if they were filming in LEO with a transparency are you claiming they were using the reflection of light from earth to light the transparency?? so why dont we see the real earth through the transparency?? the clouds (which there are alot of) would mean they would be more see through and we should see either the sea (blue tint) or the earth brown or green tint) to the clouds and not white.. or are you going to claim the transparency was painted with opaque colours??

oh and btw you havent addressed the moving clouds yet..

I think Turbonium needs to read my post again summarising the broadcasts, as well as watch the footage of Earth spinning as Apollo 11 speeds away from it with the date and time specific weather features that made it onto live TV and national newspapers.

Because he clearly hasn't and won't, I'll re-iterate it:

One of the three broadcasts made on the way to the moon was made live on air - links to which I have posted.

The other two were camera tests, the audio from which (complete with accurate weather descriptions) was heard live by the press, and the video from which was replayed to journalists later within a couple of hours of the tests, complete with that audio, and before a satellite could possibly have completed enough coverage to show the weather, never mind create some 3D rotating 100% accurate colour transparency.

All of this is fully documented in the Public Affairs Office transcript - a link to which I have provided.

There was also a live broadcast made in lunar orbit, and another one again showing Earth on the way home.

You can read all about the TV coverage in this MA thesis

drum.lib.umd.edu...

and if anyone wants to get me something nice for Christmas, this would do fine:

www.apolloartifacts.com...

There were 20000 printed but it is quite reasonably priced.

People who have been gullible to fall for this 'Apollo was hoaxed' BS need to get over it: accurate images of a dynamic and changing Earth were broadcast live to Earth and shown to millions of people on TV in a way that was not physically possible without actually being where Apollo 11 was supposed to be - in cislunar space, weightless and on the way to the moon.