Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: turbonium1

you know they are CONSTANTLY moving the terminator throughout the entire scene without errors according to your theory right?

also, you were saying the 4th frame to be confirming overlapping pane.. what exactly are you showing?? what exactly are you confirming?? saying its confirming something imaginary doesnt help with your explanation..
even at the start where you show the earth with the colour or brightness enhancements i cant see your imaginary line.. even when you change the back to green its still completely invisible..

you drawing in your imaginary terminator line doesnt mean its there, you are just imagining it.. if it was an overlapping pane we would see evidence of it..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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.

Let's review what you're saying...

"Someone will have decided there was no point sending out blank tape."

This is called an EDIT. Your side keeps saying there were no edits done. Here you are saying - "no point sending out blank tape"!!

I've read things such as..

"What edits? Prove things were edited out. "

"The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes"

And then, you admit there WAS an edit...

"Why doesn't it make sense to edit out black screen or snow? "


Stop the bs. There WAS an edit. Your side has admitted there is an edit, with the quotes above.

You are now saying there was an edit, but it was only to edit out a blank screen or snow.

Well, the problem is that you have NO RECORD OF SUCH AN EDIT BEING DONE.

There is a lot of footage that is of a blank screen. It is not edited out. There are drops in transmission, and it is not edited out either.

So you have no record of the edit for this specific footage, as well as no record of edits being done for ANY of the footage/audio.

"Wooo, big wow"!?!?


Good answer, really..

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1

you know they are CONSTANTLY moving the terminator throughout the entire scene without errors according to your theory right?

also, you were saying the 4th frame to be confirming overlapping pane.. what exactly are you showing?? what exactly are you confirming?? saying its confirming something imaginary doesnt help with your explanation..
even at the start where you show the earth with the colour or brightness enhancements i cant see your imaginary line.. even when you change the back to green its still completely invisible..

you drawing in your imaginary terminator line doesnt mean its there, you are just imagining it.. if it was an overlapping pane we would see evidence of it..

We DO see evidence of it! Here are the 4 frames...









You think the last frame shows Earth with its 'terminator line', right?

Look at the first frame. There is no 'Earth'. There is a bright, white, circular object. There is no 'terminator line'. There is a gold-toned object in front of the bright white circular object.

Both are in the exact same place your 'Earth' and 'terminator line' are, in the last frame.

Do you get it yet?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Let's review what you're saying...

"Someone will have decided there was no point sending out blank tape."

This is called an EDIT. Your side keeps saying there were no edits done. Here you are saying - "no point sending out blank tape"!!

I've read things such as..

"What edits? Prove things were edited out. "

"The broadcast you are claiming was edited is missing footage not because it was edited but because the transmission dropped for a few minutes"

And then, you admit there WAS an edit...

"Why doesn't it make sense to edit out black screen or snow? "


Stop the bs. There WAS an edit. Your side has admitted there is an edit, with the quotes above.

My 'side' has done nothing. I have explained to you the context of the three TV transmissions, including how that 2nd transmission was replayed, in full, to journalists after the live broadcast. You are claiming it was edited before transmission, it wasn't - as is demonstrated by the transcripts. What happened to that video afterwards is something you'll need to ask someone else about.

You also use word 'admitted' as if a) it's some sort of confessions and b) like you have won some sort of victory, it is neither.

You are now saying there was an edit, but it was only to edit out a blank screen or snow.

Yep, either when it was sent out many years later or by Spacecraft films. The original broadcast was in full, as has been repeatedly explained to you in words of one syllable.

Well, the problem is that you have NO RECORD OF SUCH AN EDIT BEING DONE.

So? The transcripts show the real context, not the imaginary pretend context you are trying to conjure out of thin air.

So you have no record of the edit for this specific footage, as well as no record of edits being done for ANY of the footage/audio.

Nope, and neither do you for that specific broadcast. The live broadcast exists in full and you can even see it on youtube, as I showed you.

Now, how about you stop obsessing about metadata and answer questions about real data - you know, the stuff you carefully avoided answering in my other posts. The stuff you can't explain without admitting that Apollo 11 was where it was claimed to be when it was claimed to be.

How about explaining this actual press photograph dated the 16th of July 1969 from the first TV broadcast? My own photograph, as you can see. From the broadcast that shows Hurricane Bernice that they could only have obtained from space on that date?



Or any of the other time and date specific images of a dynamic rotating Earth exactly as it should appear on the dates it is filmed, photographed and broadcast?

a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise that the camera moves from time to time and you can see the CSM window frame occasionally, right? One of the frames you've used clearly shows that. The other frames are the actual terminator. You are seeing things.

You do reaslise that the weather patterns in that image show exactly what they should show, right?

You do realise that the terminator is exactly where it should be for the time of the broadcast, right?

You do realise that the terminator isn't actually moving, the Earth is, right?

You remember that last point I'm sure, because you claimed it wasn't, and that you wouldn't be able to see rotation over such a short time, when in fact you were completely and utterly wrong. Again.

a reply to: turbonium1

what evidence?? i dont see what you are claiming to be there..

you say theres no earth and you claim its circular (which it clearly isnt, its more egg shape, egg/oval shape is NOT circular) because you played with the colours and brightness so much it has been washed out and why are you saying there is no terminator from your first image?? the earth is about the same size as the other images, and the other images show the terminator.. yet you claim there is no terminator?? its not even circular like you claim it to be..

and no i dont get it.. and neither do you..

what you are claiming is that someone is moving the terminator at a very slow and CONSTANT rate, perfectly..

not only is that extremely unlikely but the Earth, which according to your theory is NOT rotating, which means the visible Earth (day-lit side) is constantly getting smaller and the terminator is slowly eating up the entire globe.. i dont think you quite understand how the terminator works..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

You are claiming it was edited before transmission, it wasn't - as is demonstrated by the transcripts.

The transcripts? There is no dialogue in that specific footage. So there would be no quotes recorded in the transcripts during that time, obviously.

Cite the specific time recorded in the transcript, which supports your argument.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
What happened to that video afterwards is something you'll need to ask someone else about.


Yep, either when it was sent out many years later or by Spacecraft films. The original broadcast was in full, as has been repeatedly explained to you in words of one syllable.

First of all - you have no proof the footage was shown "in full". You simply assume it was.

Second - you don't know why, or who, or when, the footage was edited.


You assume this footage was originally shown in full, and afterwards was not shown in full. You think someone must have decided to edit the footage, but you don't know who edited it, or when it was edited, or why they edited it. While you said it was not edited at first, but later had to admit that it was edited.


Anything else you'd like to add to your story, or is that about it?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
How about explaining this actual press photograph dated the 16th of July 1969 from the first TV broadcast? My own photograph, as you can see. From the broadcast that shows Hurricane Bernice that they could only have obtained from space on that date?

As I've already said, the LEO images are not relevant. Whether the images are genuine Apollo 11 LEO images, or not, doesn't matter... since they were capable of doing them.

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

originally posted by: turbonium1

As I've already said, the LEO images are not relevant. Whether the images are genuine Apollo 11 LEO images, or not, doesn't matter... since they were capable of doing them.

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

perhaps you misunderstood.. that is NOT a picture from LEO, its of the entire Earth making LEO impossible. so it is relevent for your argument.

originally posted by: choos

you say theres no earth and you claim its circular (which it clearly isnt, its more egg shape, egg/oval shape is NOT circular) because you played with the colours and brightness so much it has been washed out and why are you saying there is no terminator from your first image?? the earth is about the same size as the other images, and the other images show the terminator.. yet you claim there is no terminator?? its not even circular like you claim it to be..

It's ovoid-shaped, then.

The first image shows it cannot be Earth's terminator. IT IS GOLD IN COLOR!!

The terminator is not gold-toned, it is dark, or black. It is Earth partially in shadow.

Simple, no?

originally posted by: choos
what you are claiming is that someone is moving the terminator at a very slow and CONSTANT rate, perfectly..

not only is that extremely unlikely but the Earth, which according to your theory is NOT rotating, which means the visible Earth (day-lit side) is constantly getting smaller and the terminator is slowly eating up the entire globe.. i dont think you quite understand how the terminator works..

There IS someone fiddling around at the window, which explains the change in 'Earth' later on.

It is not constantly rotating. You have no proof for that claim, whatsoever.

originally posted by: choos
perhaps you misunderstood.. that is NOT a picture from LEO, its of the entire Earth making LEO impossible. so it is relevent for your argument.

This is supposed to be a picture of Earth?

I thought it was Pac-Man's skull!!

You claim this shows a hurricane?

Are you joking?

If the bright, white, ovoid object is Earth in the first image, then how can you explain the terminator beiing gold-colored?

originally posted by: turbonium1

If the bright, white, ovoid object is Earth in the first image, then how can you explain the terminator beiing gold-colored?

How about you look at it on context as a moving image, where the camera resolves it into the images you see in the other frames, instead of pretending it is a single shot taken in isolation

originally posted by: turbonium1

The transcripts? There is no dialogue in that specific footage. So there would be no quotes recorded in the transcripts during that time, obviously.

Cite the specific time recorded in the transcript, which supports your argument.

You have the mission and PAO transcripts and the mission audio tapes, all of which are time stamped and freely available. Work it out for yourself, I'm not your servant, do your own legwork.

First of all - you have no proof the footage was shown "in full". You simply assume it was.

Apart from the time stamped trancsripts and the mission audio tapes.

Second - you don't know why, or who, or when, the footage was edited.

Nope, and neither do you, so you have no more proof than I do as to motive, so I really wouldn't bother with that argument.

You assume this footage was originally shown in full, and afterwards was not shown in full. You think someone must have decided to edit the footage, but you don't know who edited it, or when it was edited, or why they edited it. While you said it was not edited at first, but later had to admit that it was edited.


Anything else you'd like to add to your story, or is that about it?

Again, who 'admitted anything? I think I was the one who explained to you the exact sequence of broadcasts, which were live, which were replayed in full and when. I suggest you read back.

As I've already said, the LEO images are not relevant. Whether the images are genuine Apollo 11 LEO images, or not, doesn't matter... since they were capable of doing them.

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

I understand you have no concept of space and time.

I really don;t know why part of "this is not taken in LEO" is difficult for you. It is not possible to get a photograph of a full Earth disk in LEO.

Impossible.

Cant be done.

Got that?

They could not have got a colour image of that scene from LEO. Got that? They could not have got a full earth disk showing that specific scene then. Got that?

That original press photo was taken from a TV broadcast camera test, that was replayed back to the press room, which they then broadcast on TV (Ive already shown you the pictures of that happening) - here's another one from an ebay sale of photographs:



and the newspapers printed that image the next day. It contains a hurricane that only existed in that shape on that day, verified by several satellite images that were not available at the time of the broadcast.

Which part of that is difficult?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
perhaps you misunderstood.. that is NOT a picture from LEO, its of the entire Earth making LEO impossible. so it is relevent for your argument.

This is supposed to be a picture of Earth?

I thought it was Pac-Man's skull!!

You claim this shows a hurricane?

Are you joking?

Yes, it shows Hurricane Bernice. You know full well it does, as I've posted it many times before and you also ignored it then.

Here's the NIMBUS 3 view on the 16th



Here's the progression over time:



and here's the TV view of it compared with ESSA's view and the still Apollo image



Any sensible explanations?

originally posted by: turbonium1

It's ovoid-shaped, then.

The first image shows it cannot be Earth's terminator. IT IS GOLD IN COLOR!!

its gold in colour because you made it gold..
its green also because you made it green..

that is not evidence of anything apart from evidence that YOU have been tampering with evidence to suit your needs..

The terminator is not gold-toned, it is dark, or black. It is Earth partially in shadow.

Simple, no?

as simple as when you make the black areas appear gold or green then the terminator which is also dark will follow suit.. the only thing you have proven is that you have deliberately altered the image and called it evidence.. adjusting brightness contrast gamma correction and all that to prove they used what you want them to use is being dishonest.



this is video from gemini 4.. i played with the brightness and contrast and now space is green as well as the astronaut.. did i just prove that the astronaut is a green pane??

There IS someone fiddling around at the window, which explains the change in 'Earth' later on.

It is not constantly rotating. You have no proof for that claim, whatsoever.

actually not with the gif i posted earlier.. i deliberately picked the most stable sections anticipating you would make such a claim..

originally posted by: turbonium1
It is not constantly rotating. You have no proof for that claim, whatsoever.

There is proof, you have been shown it in gifs I made. You claimed there was no change and that it was a static image, and I proved you wrong.

I've also shown you areas that disappear into the terminator as time passes. You also see weather patterns emerge from the opposite limb. So, things disappear at one end and appear at the other. You can verify this for yourself, but you won't, you'll move the goalposts or change the subject or do anything apart form discuss actual data and evidence.

While I'm here, you have previously acknowledged that it did rotate, and came up with some elaborate nonsense to explain it. Now you are saying it doesn't?

Do you understand that the terminator stays still, it's the Earth that moves, and it does it all the time?

Another nice little piece of evidence - it's available in a private sale on ebay of newspaper cuttings.

www.ebay.co.uk...< br />
Here's the cutting in question:



It is dated the morning of Friday July 18th - the morning after the liv TV broadcast, and it features not only screenshots seen in that transmission after the time and date specific images of Earth, but descriptions of what was seen and quotes from the broadcast.

originally posted by: choos
its gold in colour because you made it gold..
its green also because you made it green..

that is not evidence of anything apart from evidence that YOU have been tampering with evidence to suit your needs..


as simple as when you make the black areas appear gold or green then the terminator which is also dark will follow suit.. the only thing you have proven is that you have deliberately altered the image and called it evidence.. adjusting brightness contrast gamma correction and all that to prove they used what you want them to use is being dishonest.

Are you serious?

Again, I have NOT TOUCHED THIS FOOTAGE IN ANY WAY!!

You or anyone else can find out the footage is exactly as I've shown it in these frames,

Accusing me of something I didn't do is worse than dishonest.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
How about you look at it on context as a moving image, where the camera resolves it into the images you see in the other frames, instead of pretending it is a single shot taken in isolation

I said they are frames from the clip, so who is "pretending"?

Still frames show the 'terminator'....is no such thing.