Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: choos

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 said this, not me. So don't put words in mouth.

Now on to your latest 'attempt' ...

A live feed of a football game does not resolve the problem of Apollo footage being edited. No way, no how.

Apollo footage is claimed to be shown live, and continuous.

Such a film cannot be edited.

As the Apollo footage was edited, it was not live, continuous footage, as you claim.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

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 said this, not me. So don't put words in mouth.

Now on to your latest 'attempt' ...

A live feed of a football game does not resolve the problem of Apollo footage being edited. No way, no how.

Apollo footage is claimed to be shown live, and continuous.

Such a film cannot be edited.

As the Apollo footage was edited, it was not live, continuous footage, as you claim.

And what about the footage of Earth that was shown live and unedited that I linked to? The footage with astronauts in zero G?

Read my posts again: The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes - it's all there in the transcripts. You conveniently manage to ignore the content of what was broadcast: a temporally and meteorologically accurate Earth, extended shots of astronauts in zero G, Earth rotating. Where is your coherent and logically consistent explanation for this?

originally posted by: choos

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..

Not only can you see 'Earth' is moving, but you can actually measure it! In micrometers of constant movement, over a span of ~6 minutes!

Quite an amazing feat.

And especially when you have such a crappy, over 40 year-old, compressed online version of the clip, which was (supposedly) shot through a little window, several feet back, while halfway to the moon!!

Only in Fantasy-Land, where anything you dream about really will come true!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

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..

Not only can you see 'Earth' is moving, but you can actually measure it! In micrometers of constant movement, over a span of ~6 minutes!

Quite an amazing feat.

You do know the Earth rotates all the time right?

And especially when you have such a crappy, over 40 year-old, compressed online version of the clip,

Try not using badly compressed versions of the footage then. Get yourself a copy pf the Spacecraft films DVD, or download the several Gb uncompressed video from the web - it's freely available from links I've already posted.

which was (supposedly) shot through a little window, several feet back, while halfway to the moon!!

Who said it was several feet? It's up against the glass. Are you making stuff up again?

Only in Fantasy-Land, where anything you dream about really will come true!

Given that all you are offering is your unsupported and uneducated opinion, and given that you ignore every difficult question you get asked and dodge every piece of evidence that knocks your theory into the dustbin where it belongs I think everyone can see who the fantasist is.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You said this, not me. So don't put words in mouth.

Now on to your latest 'attempt' ...

A live feed of a football game does not resolve the problem of Apollo footage being edited. No way, no how.

Apollo footage is claimed to be shown live, and continuous.

Such a film cannot be edited.

As the Apollo footage was edited, it was not live, continuous footage, as you claim.

i dont think you fully understand your own logic here.

in jarrahs video the feed was cut, which is what you are referring to as edited and therefore NOT LIVE..

applying your logic, if a football game is being broadcast live on TV and the feed is cut for whatever reason your logic states that the live football game is no longer live because it is evidence of being editted..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

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..

Not only can you see 'Earth' is moving, but you can actually measure it! In micrometers of constant movement, over a span of ~6 minutes!

Quite an amazing feat.

And especially when you have such a crappy, over 40 year-old, compressed online version of the clip, which was (supposedly) shot through a little window, several feet back, while halfway to the moon!!

Only in Fantasy-Land, where anything you dream about really will come true!

so thats your explaination of how they done the moving terminator???

hand-waving??

so you have gone from moving the terminator during the cut, then moving the terminator constantly while barely being noticable (happy?) while filming and then finally to hand-waving??

p.s. have you got evidence that it was several feet back?? were you on board??

p.p.s. you just admitted they were half way to the moon.. if they were half way to the moon, that means they passed the VAB if they passed the VAB what other obstacle is physically stopping them from reaching the moon??

So the movement of the Earth would be undetectable over 6 minutes would it?

6 minutes would equal roughly 100 miles at the equator.

Here's what Stellarium says the movement should be over 6 minutes:

Here's wat 6 minutes looks like for the actual live transmission - the one that was transmitted live, as in 'LIVE' on TV - the one I linked to on youtube, the actual live broadcast, you know, the one that was live, not recorded:



Look at the view of Earth in that live broadcast and what should have been on view as far as Stellarium is concerned.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Read my posts again: The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes - it's all there in the transcripts.

If the transmission dropped for a few minutes, then it is not live, continuous footage.

It is edited footage, as I've told you many times.

Your claim of a live, continuous feed being shown is utterly false.

A continuous transmission of live, real-time, footage that is dropped WOULD BE SEEN ON TV, AS A BLACK SCREEN, OR AS 'SNOW', IN REAL TIME.

If it dropped for a few minutes, we'd see nothing on our TV screen over the same time period, as well.

This Apollo transmission, claimed to be dropped for a few minutes..shows no drop, at all!

So we know it is edited, for sure.


Why did they edit the footage, at all?

If it was only to edit out the (supposedly) dropped transmission, for some reason, it still doesn't make any sense.


First of all, it was/is proudly claimed by NASA, and the NASA supporters, how all the Apollo footage was on public record - that nothing was edited, or removed, etc in any of the Apollo footage.

Many edits have been done, of course, but NASA claims all the original footage exists, in the public record, as it was filmed at the time..


We know for a fact they DID edit the Apollo footage!

So why did they edit any of the Apollo footage, while claiming proudly how no edits were ever done beforehand, on any of the Apollo footage, saying that it was / is shown to us in its original form?

They would still have the unedited footage, right?

If it existed as you claim, why would they want to hide it from us?

Nothing to hide from us, right?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Read my posts again: The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes - it's all there in the transcripts.

If the transmission dropped for a few minutes, then it is not live, continuous footage.

It is edited footage, as I've told you many times.

again.. how does this make sense??

have you ever watched a live sports match where the live feeds drops due to whatever reasons?? does that mean the live match was not live?? no it doesnt, it just means the live feed was cut...

Why did they edit the footage, at all?

why?? maybe because you believe Jarrahs upload is as it was shown on TV.. you have completely failed to account that Jarrahs video shows ONLY what was captured on the camera while it was transmitting..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Read my posts again: The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes - it's all there in the transcripts.

If the transmission dropped for a few minutes, then it is not live, continuous footage.

Read my posts again, properly this time. Which bit are you claiming I am saying is live? I wrote a detailed description of how the broadcasts occurred - do I need to summarise it for you yet again? Did it have too many long words in it?

One of them was transmitted live on TV. Two of them were relayed live as audio to the press then played back later as video once they had received the TV from Goldstone. If it wasn't played back to the press, how did they get photos from them on the front pages of the newspapers?

It is edited footage, as I've told you many times.

You can say it as often as you like - doesn't stop it being BS. Drops in transmission is not the same as editing anything out.

What about the live TV broadcast that was transmitted live, the one I linked to on youtube, the one that was advertised as taking place in the newspapers and for which I've even posted someone's home movie of it actually being broadcast? Why are so silent on those?

Your claim of a live, continuous feed being shown is utterly false.

Nope - there was a live unedited broadcast put out on the TV - see the link to youtube I put on earlier etc etc etc.

A continuous transmission of live, real-time, footage that is dropped WOULD BE SEEN ON TV, AS A BLACK SCREEN, OR AS 'SNOW', IN REAL TIME.

If it dropped for a few minutes, we'd see nothing on our TV screen over the same time period, as well.

This Apollo transmission, claimed to be dropped for a few minutes..shows no drop, at all!

So we know it is edited, for sure.

You are referring to a camera test that was played back to the press later, not the live transmission - do keep up. You have no idea what was seen by the press, because you weren't there. What was seen by the press was time and date specific footage of Earth accurate in every detail - right down to the rotation.

Why did they edit the footage, at all?

Who? When did you prove that anything played to the press was edited? What was edited out? By whom? When? Where?

If it was only to edit out the (supposedly) dropped transmission, for some reason, it still doesn't make any sense.

Why doesn't it make sense to edit out black screen or snow? Your argument makes no sense. What kind of moron includes 3 minutes of blank screen in a release of an Apollo camera test?

First of all, it was/is proudly claimed by NASA, and the NASA supporters, how all the Apollo footage was on public record - that nothing was edited, or removed, etc in any of the Apollo footage.

It is all out there, in public, if it wasn't you would have nothing to talk about. Show us what was edited out - try and do it without making something up.

Many edits have been done, of course, but NASA claims all the original footage exists, in the public record, as it was filmed at the time..

So you claim. Find some for us. Find what is missing and tell us. Repeat to fade.

We know for a fact they DID edit the Apollo footage!

No - this is what you are claiming. Prove it.

So why did they edit any of the Apollo footage, while claiming proudly how no edits were ever done beforehand, on any of the Apollo footage, saying that it was / is shown to us in its original form?

Yet again: What edits? Prove things were edited out. The public record identifies clear drops in transmission that happened because they weren't using the best equipment during the test - the audio that would have gone with that video still exists and always has done and is publicly available. The press heard the audio when it was transmitted to them live and they heard it again when they replayed the video. What are you claiming is missing? Prove it is missing.

They would still have the unedited footage, right?

If it existed as you claim, why would they want to hide it from us?

There isn't any unedited footage, they didn't edit it, you have failed to prove that they did. The footage that exists is publicly available.

Nothing to hide from us, right?

For once you are correct.

Now how about retracting the dumb claim that 6 minute would show no noticeable rotation. How about answering how Apollo Live broadcasts (the one that was done on July 17th and put out on all the major networks) shows weather patterns entirely consistent with satellite images thy didn't have and that showed rotation of the Earth over the time of the broadcast and with astronauts in zero G?

How about telling us how images from broadcasts you claim didn't happen somehow magically managed to appear on the front pages of the next day's newspapers?

Stop hiding behind "in my opinion", "might", "could" and all the other words that show you don't actually know anything about this subject and answer the questions people put to you.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Read my posts again: The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes - it's all there in the transcripts.

Read my posts again, properly this time. Which bit are you claiming I am saying is live? I wrote a detailed description of how the broadcasts occurred - do I need to summarise it for you yet again? Did it have too many long words in it?

One of them was transmitted live on TV. Two of them were relayed live as audio to the press then played back later as video once they had received the TV from Goldstone. If it wasn't played back to the press, how did they get photos from them on the front pages of the newspapers?

Drops in transmission is not the same as editing anything out.

Wrong. Drops in transmission WOULD HAVE TO BE edited out, because drops in transmission are not in the footage.

If there was a drop in transmission at that point, for a few minutes, but the footage doesn't show that drop, then it would have been taken out of the footage beforehand.

If the transmission is sent to Earth, in real time, it is being received and recorded on Earth in real time. Any drops, or glitches, in that transmission, are also being received and recorded on Earth in real time. Indeed, there are several glitches in the footage, which we DO see. There are periods of time where NOTHING IS SEEN AT ALL. The screen is completely black.

So we know EVERYTHING would have been transmitted to Earth in real time, and would have been received and recorded on Earth in real time, with any drops or glitches which occurred in the transmission. And it would also have been relayed to Houston with those same drops or glitches, as well.

Same as when the audio transmission cuts out. No matter how long the audio transmission cuts out, it was recorded on Earth. They never edited out the drops or glitches in audio transmissions.

You think there was a drop in video transmission.

You realize it would have been recorded on Earth, right?

So what happened to it, then? Where is the recording of it?

a reply to: turbonium1

And I strongly recommend that you follow the links that get posted for your education.

The PAO transcript shows when they replayed the transmission to which you are referring to the press.

That replay includes the audio that is missing from the broadcast video available on the internet. Therefore the journalists saw the whole thing including where there was no TV to watch.

Clear enough? Feel free to check that, the links you need are in this thread.

If you want to talk about dishonest editing I suggest you focus on Sibrel's garbage, where he flat out lies about footage not having been seen before (he includes stuff that was released in documentaries decades before he got to work - see 'In the Shadow of the Moon' for a start), lies about the dates on reels of the TV footage and lies about footage being transmitted on the way to the moon when it was in fact transmitted on the way back.

Now, what about the live broadcast? Where there was no editing and footage of Earth and astronauts in zero G? Or the first camera test that made it on to the front pages of the newspapers? What about the fact that there is noticeable rotation over 6 minutes, what about the time and date specific configuration of Earth and the weather patterns on it?

And just for fun, have a graphic to help you get your head around things.

The top row are screenshots from TV broadcast 3 - the life one (left) and broadcast 2 (right).

The bottom row are Stellarium projections of what should be on view at the times if those broadcasts.

The arrows show the same bits of cloud, to demonstrate that we are looking at the same Earth, just at different times.



The quality differences are mostly a result of using higher power transmitters for the live broadcast compared with the test, which was about getting used to the camera, not the antennae.

If anyone wants to listen to the Public Affairs Office audio of these TV broadcasts, you cam find at the Apollo Flight Journal here:

history.nasa.gov...

towards the bottom of the page after 036:20:21. Note that they don't bother re-printing the crew audio from the broadcast, which is done at the ALSJ in their transcript of the PAO tapes. The page before that has the full audio of the broadcast itself.

Reading back through the thread I was probably mistaken in taking this phrase:

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.

As meaning that there was a definite loss in transmission as it seems to refer to Houston's link with Goldstone, however the command to switch to OMNI Delta is related in trying to improve transmission signals, with which they were having quality and continuity problems.

In the interest of honesty and openness, there is also a gap in the available material between these two statements:

01 06 54 32 CC Roger. We copy.

01 06 58 00 CMP Goldstone should be getting about the best picture of the Earth we can give them right now, Charlie.

Where it goes from an interior scene to a view of Earth.

Now people like Turbonum can try and make some sort of capital out of the fact there is an apparent gap in the video, but this explanation given by the PAO is far more sensible:

PAO:This is Apollo Control at 36 hours, 27 minutes. We have completed the processing of the unscheduled television transmission which the crew sent down from the spacecraft at about 30 hours, 24 minutes Ground Elapsed Time this evening. I would like to repeat that this was an apparent test of the onboard system. The crew turned the television equipment on and left it on for about 52 minutes. Some of the time we will have a picture, other parts of it, we don't have good lock-on, and will not have a good solid picture. We should also point out that this transmission was made with the omnidirectional antennas, which, of course, don't provide nearly the signal strength that we would get from the High Gain Antenna, which would be used. We'll play back the tape of that transmission for you at this time.

In other words the low power Omni-directional antenna was not perfect for this job. If you want to know why the video available on the internet doesn't have these 'missing' minutes, you'll need to ask NASA, or Spacecraft films, but I think you'll find that the answer is there is no video to see thanks to transmission drops, about which Goldstone would have been aware but Houston would not as they did not have the TV feed. Someone will have decided there was no point sending out blank tape. Wooo, big wow.

As far as I can see here, Turbonium is desperately clinging to these missing minutes as proof of something or other, when it doesn't actually prove anything The mission audio is transcribed in full and is available to listen to in full. The TV footage that is available shows time and date specific images of Earth that show the correct configuration for the time of the broadcast in terms of position of the terminator and the weather patterns on view. The movement between the test broadcast and the live broadcast is also entirely consistent with the time frame, and the same cloud patterns can be seen in both broadcasts.

Science and education deniers, which is what moon hoax believers are, have absolutely no answer for this, and instead clutch at editorial decisions as windmills at which they can tilt, oblivious to the incontrovertible evidence provided by what they can see in the videos. They choose metadata over data, which is why they fail every time.

Even Raymond Teague, a nasa-apollo-main-mission-control-guy isn't sure about the moonlandings

Don´t know if he was ever mentioned but he died only a few months ago :

originally posted by: webstra
Even Raymond Teague, a nasa-apollo-main-mission-control-guy isn't sure about the moonlandings

Don´t know if he was ever mentioned but he died only a few months ago :

My god! That interview is awful (the long version in the link, not the short version in the YouTube window).

Alex Jones kept putting words in the guy's mouth regarding the Apollo program and Apollo 13, and sometimes the words he was putting in his mouth were inaccurate to the point that Raymond was getting confused by Alex.

Raymond Teague himself may have said "sure, maybe it could have been faked", but he really didn't give any evidence in support of that. He did mention a Russian colleague who said it was fake, but so what? By the way, Teague also said that he himself believed we did in fact go to the Moon with Apollo. Of course Alex Jones just ignored that part.

Alex kept pushing the idea that (according to Alex) Raymond thought that the Apollo Data that was being received from the spacecraft on its way to the Moon was faked by other controllers who could feed simulated information that looked real -- But Raymond tried to explain to Alex that that wasn't what he said at all. Raymond tried to explain that his statement about the simulated information was simply about simulations -- NOT that the actual Apollo data coming from the ships to the moon was being simulated.

Of course, when Raymond tried to explain what he meant, Alex just put more words in Raymond's mouth, confusing him. It was obvious that Raymond is not comfortable speaking on the radio, so that nervousness resulted in easily being sidetracked by Alex Jones. However, if you listen closely to what Raymond is saying, his statements do not at all support the assertions that Alex Jones was making. The only thing that Raymond said that supported Alex was when he said "I suppose its possible that it was fake" -- although (as I mentioned) Teague himself believes it was NOT faked.



By the way, contrary to what these guys said at the end, Hubble does not have the ability to be able to see the flags and such on the moon. Hubble is designed to be a great gatherer of light to see distant objects by gathering enough light to make those distant objects visible; it is NOT not a great magnifier of objects close to Earth, like some traditional telescopes can do. What makes Hubble special is that it can keep its light sensors trained on an object while it tracks that object for days or weeks at a time, gathering light for those days or weeks. That's how Hubble gets the awesome images that it gets, not necessarily through magnification. It can't do that with the Moon. It can take pictures of the Moon and other relatively close planets in our solar system, but it cannot be used to track close object to be able to utilize its full light-gathering potential.

The LRO spacecraft in orbit around the Moon has a finer resolution when it comes to looking at the Moon than Hubble does. That is the better tool to use to see the Apollo landing sites.

Everything you need to know about Jones is underneath the video:

[[[DONATE TO ALEX JONES**]]] $5 or $10 A week. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!

NEW ITEM**
[INFOWARS COMPLETE WATER FILTRATION CENTER]

NEW ITEM**
[INFOWARS COMPLETE HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTER]

[INFOWARS THE MAGAZINE - JULY ISSUE]
GET YOUR COPY TODAY AND SPREAD THE TRUTH!!

NEW ITEMS**
[INFOWARS SEED CENTER]

[eFoodsDirect] SPECIAL OFFER**

[START GETTING HEALTHY NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE]

[[State Of Mind: The Psychology Of Control]]

Your Price $19.95
Blu-ray [+$5.00]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

While looking at the footage, I noticed this...

www.youtube.com...

These 4 frames show how they did the 'terminator line' effect. A gold-toned glass pane was placed in front of the 'Earth' transparency, with another gold-toned glass pane behind both of them.

It's further confirmed later on, with gold-toned edging along the right side, like seen in the frames above.


I'll address the earlier issue later, with the edit..