Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
547 replies to this topic

#481    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 13 September 2005 - 01:32 AM

QUOTE
Thus, I can see no point in 1) leaving pictures with even a hint of human hands in the video, and 2) not simply cutting the scene, replacing the camera, and continuing on. Live, or taped, the camera, if indeed on earth, could've, and by all rights should've been replaced. All that was necessary would've been to cut it off, have a bunch of talk between mission control and the crew regarding the problem while they put a new camera in and turned it on, and then declaring the problem fixed in inimitable NASA fashion.

Hi MID - just a point or two I thought I'd make regarding NASA censoring footage if it was indeed evidence of a hoax. We know, as I confirmed with you earlier, that the Apollo 12 footage was, for all intents and purposes, shown live on TV to the viewing public. And the Apollo journals also recorded the dialogue that the astronauts engaged in while the filming occurred. We therefore know this documentation could not be omitted from the record without questions being raised as to why it was deleted.

I don't see that they could have had the luxury that is afforded to a normal "movie studio" production, of doing "retakes" on messed up scenes. It had to actually be akin to a live stage performance, where "the show must go on", hiccups and all.

Cheers.


#482    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 14 September 2005 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 12 2005, 09:32 PM)
QUOTE
Thus, I can see no point in 1) leaving pictures with even a hint of human hands in the video, and 2) not simply cutting the scene, replacing the camera, and continuing on. Live, or taped, the camera, if indeed on earth, could've, and by all rights should've been replaced. All that was necessary would've been to cut it off, have a bunch of talk between mission control and the crew regarding the problem while they put a new camera in and turned it on, and then declaring the problem fixed in inimitable NASA fashion.

Hi MID - just a point or two I thought I'd make regarding NASA censoring footage if it was indeed evidence of a hoax. We know, as I confirmed with you earlier, that the Apollo 12 footage was, for all intents and purposes, shown live on TV to the viewing public. And the Apollo journals also recorded the dialogue that the astronauts engaged in while the filming occurred. We therefore know this documentation could not be omitted from the record without questions being raised as to why it was deleted.

I don't see that they could have had the luxury that is afforded to a normal "movie studio" production, of doing "retakes" on messed up scenes. It had to actually be akin to a live stage performance, where "the show must go on", hiccups and all.

Cheers.

View Post




Yes, I'd agree that's a perfectly valid idea, Turb.
But I think  (and I'm going to do my best to support a hoax here  blink.gif ), that a retake per-se wouldn't be necessary.  After all it was in a TV studio or set somewhere on earth in 1969.  Live TV hadn't exactly died yet, and if it were a hoax, there would've had to have been a director, a producer, and some technical writers there in the control room.  I think an ad-lib could've been arranged, as was sometimes seen on live shows.

First: we have a camera failure.  We're getting nothing.  OK, I'm going to ad-lib the situation.

DISCLAIMER:  The author would like to make it clear that the following conversation is completely fabricated by him, and has no relation whatsoever to the actual transcripts of the Apollo 12 mission.  Everything below is fictional.  Any resemblence to anything real is purely coincidental, and was alot of fun to put together!

grin2.gif

Houston:  "OK, AL, uh we're getting a little behind the timeline here, so we'd like you and Pete to press-on to SURFACE-34 at this time while we look at the camera and see what we can figure out. over."

Al Bean:  "Roger, understand you want us to leave it alone and go to SUR-34."

Houston:  "That's affirm Al.  You can proceed to SWC deployment, and Pete can go ahead with the initial PAN, moving into ALSEP OFFLOAD when you're ready.  We'll have you standby on the TV and we'll let you know what we think after we get a little brain power on it."

Conrad: "Okee Dokee."

And there's just a bunch of chit chat betwen the crew as they continue on with their stuff, sans TV.

At the same time, the producer's been on the phone with tech support.  Of course, they're well aware of what's going on and have loaded another camera onto the set.  Hands are on the set replacing the faulty one and making sure it works in the control room.

When that's done...a couple minutes, we get the following:

Houston:  OK, and Al if you would, we'l like you to make your way over to the camera for a minute.

Al:  Stand by a second, Ed (Gibson, EVA CAPCOM), I'm just about finished with the Solar Wind"

Houston, "OK, Al, we'll stand by."

Al: "OK, I'm moving over there now...alright, you have something?"

Houston: "That's affirm Al, first, we'd like you to verify that the adaptor cable pin connector to the camera is properly connected, if you would."

Al: "OK, stand by one...  Yea, that looks fine, Houston."

Houston:  "OK, Al.   Is the camera in it's deployed position now?"

Al: "That's affirm, Ed.  We just continued on deploying there."  

Houston "Alright Al,  we didn't realize you put it out already because we haven't seen anything, but the back room would like you to go back to the MESA and verify that the male connector on the cable wasn't disconnected or loosened at all from the LM when you removed the camera."

Al:  "OK, Houston... uh,  the connector on the LM is secure, looks just fine."

Houston, "Copy that, Al.  Uh, one more thing if you would.   Please verify that the space connectors on the 100 foot cable are secure."

Al: "Ok...uhh, you know what, the little clamp has slid off the pin, and that thing is a little opened!   I'm gonna open this thing up and re-connect here and see if I can lock that thing down."

Houston: "Sounds good.  That might be the problem."

Al:  OK, houston, I got it to snap in, and the camera is on transmit, you getting anything."

The live feed is turned on at this point.

Houston:  "Stand by...Yes, Al, we have a picture!"

Conrad:  "Got TV, huh?  Alright!"

Houston: "Yes, Pete we're seeing a picture pretty clearly now.  No one's in it, but we can see the LM and Al, if  you would, we'd like you to adjust it a little so we get a decent field of view."

Al: "OK, I must've snagged that thing when I was twisting the camera around there.  never noticed the connector pin.  Probably due to sun glare or somethin'"

Conrad: "Shoot, you were throwing that thing all around there.  I didn't see it either though."
____________________________________________________________________

Script writer!
There, I just illustrated how this thing could've been hoaxed with a TV camera failure.    

I feel like I've jumped ship  crying.gif


Regards.

  




#483    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 14 September 2005 - 02:18 AM

thumbsup.gif  thumbsup.gif
That deserves a standing ovation, MID! You sure you weren't a script writer in 1969?  grin2.gif  I like the "okee-dokee" - perfect!

I take off my hat to the classiest pro-Apollo debater I've ever had the pleasure of discussing this subject with.

Cheers


#484    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 14 September 2005 - 09:23 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 12 2005, 09:19 PM)
Now you know I meant that the object remained stationary "as placed on its surface".

I am in 100% agreement... that "surface", of course, being the surface of the LM descent stage.  No other "surface" is visible.


QUOTE
My point was that there are objects that do not remain stationary in relation to the phone-type object. The black shade and people (as I see them) are in different places from frame to frame.

Here are the only 6 kinescope frames in which the "phone-type object" is even partially visible, the 1st and 5th of which correspond to the only frames of the RealVideo in which it appears.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Any differences in shape or color of the hilights is attributable to color ghosting and motion blur, which itself is greatly amplified by the color ghosting and kinescope frame-straddling.


#485    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 14 September 2005 - 09:18 PM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 13 2005, 10:18 PM)
thumbsup.gif  thumbsup.gif
That deserves a standing ovation, MID! You sure you weren't a script writer in 1969?  grin2.gif  I like the "okee-dokee" - perfect!

I take off my hat to the classiest pro-Apollo debater I've ever had the pleasure of discussing this subject with.

Cheers

View Post




blush.gif
Aw shucks...

Thanks so much, Turb.  
I should've put a "Whoopdee Doo" in there.   Pete Conrad (rest his soul) was quite an animated guy...

It's been a pleasure on this end too!
Regards


#486    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 18 September 2005 - 11:43 AM

The phone-type object is also seen in other frames, as I've noted below. In these frames (not in video sequence), the distance varies between the bottom edge of the "black shade" and the phone object (and the surface it is placed on). Note frames 1 and 3 for the best examples of this variance...
user posted image

Edited by turbonium, 18 September 2005 - 11:48 AM.


#487    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 18 September 2005 - 12:06 PM

QUOTE
Aw shucks...

Thanks so much, Turb.
I should've put a "Whoopdee Doo" in there. Pete Conrad (rest his soul) was quite an animated guy...

It's been a pleasure on this end too!
Regards


I've enjoyed our discussions, MID. On a side note, since you mentioned Pete Conrad. I want to make a special point to emphasize that I hold the astronauts in high regard, and  that I am not in any way trying to diminish them as people or not being the utmost professionals in their field. They were certainly the cream of the crop to be picked by NASA, from their prior accomplishments in aviation, etc.

I don't approve of the Bart Sibrel approach, which is intended to denigrate them through immature tactics. I find it quite disrespectful towards these men who have represented America in an exemplary way. That I feel the Apollo landings were hoaxed, means I feel that they have been compromised to uphold this hoax. Seeing Armstrong in the press conference after Apollo 11, he looks for all the world like someone whose pride does not want to maintain a charade. Only my opinion, of course, just the feeling I get when I look at his expressions and body signals (head down, slumping, not at all happy).

Anyway, I sense your admiration for the astronauts, and wanted you to know I also have great respect for them, whether Apollo was real or not.

Cheers.


#488    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 18 September 2005 - 04:39 PM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 18 2005, 08:06 AM)
QUOTE
Aw shucks...

Thanks so much, Turb.
I should've put a "Whoopdee Doo" in there. Pete Conrad (rest his soul) was quite an animated guy...

It's been a pleasure on this end too!
Regards


I've enjoyed our discussions, MID. On a side note, since you mentioned Pete Conrad. I want to make a special point to emphasize that I hold the astronauts in high regard, and  that I am not in any way trying to diminish them as people or not being the utmost professionals in their field. They were certainly the cream of the crop to be picked by NASA, from their prior accomplishments in aviation, etc.

I don't approve of the Bart Sibrel approach, which is intended to denigrate them through immature tactics. I find it quite disrespectful towards these men who have represented America in an exemplary way. That I feel the Apollo landings were hoaxed, means I feel that they have been compromised to uphold this hoax. Seeing Armstrong in the press conference after Apollo 11, he looks for all the world like someone whose pride does not want to maintain a charade. Only my opinion, of course, just the feeling I get when I look at his expressions and body signals (head down, slumping, not at all happy).

Anyway, I sense your admiration for the astronauts, and wanted you to know I also have great respect for them, whether Apollo was real or not.

Cheers.

View Post




Yes, you are correct Turb; I do have a great deal of respect and admiration for the astronauts of the day.  I also appreciate your comments, and understand your position.

To be honest with you, it was the flight control teams that I held in deepest esteem, but all of them, astronauts and controllers were just human beings, all possessed in one degree or another of  decidedly normal human characteristics.   I never viewed them, oddly enough, as heroes...just guys doing their jobs.

Of course, some of the astronauts had pretty large egos and a highly competitive bent, some were more reserved guys, some even got into trouble for their antics, but few if any were like Neil Armstrong, then or now.  In fact, few men can behave with the integrity he has consistently exhibited since being assigned the distinction of being the first human being to set foot an another world.

He wouldn't even give a guy like Sibrel the time of day, and acted toward him as I would've expected.   In contrast, I am not surprised that Buzz Aldrin capped him.  

That Apollo 11 press conference you mentioned said something different to me.

I know exactly what you're talking about, mind you, and I can see where people might be curious about the crew's seemingly quiet and detatched attitude at places in that conference (however, there were also a few light moments in that conference as well).   However, one has to take into consideration what the Apollo 11 crew had endured up to that point, and what was ahead of them in the very near future.

Several years of unremitting training, and, since the splashdown, several very busy weeks writing reports, de-briefing, and quite frankly prersenting in exquisite detail what they were again to present at this press conference, albeit in brief.
What was to follow was the thing that made them all very uncomfortable, especially Neil Armstrong.  

The very next day, these three guys were subjected to a cross country, one day tour, which saw them in ticker tape parades in New York, Chicago, and finally, Los Angeles, after which, they were at a large dinner with President Nixon.   That much public exposure and adoration is, in my view, insane, although understandable in its way.   But that was not all.  The next month was spent touring dozens of cities all over the world, accepting the accolades of everyone, followed by home town parades, a million speeches, interviews, appearances before Congress, and Neil Armstrong even wound up spending time in Viet Nam with Bob Hope on a USA show tour...

How Neil Armstrong, in particuar, was able to handle this hero-worship, without ever succumbing to it is beyond me.   It was not something he enjoyed in the least.

That crew never had a chance to contemplate their feelings or the significance of what they had done before they were thrust into the uncomfortable position of being heroes.  

With Neil Armstrong, you were seeing a man who had spent the past 6 years of his life in unrermitting training for a couple missions, in back rooms, out of the public eye, a pilot doing his job.   He then executes the first lunar landing, and before he can even contemplate the significance of it, or his deepest feelings regarding it, he is thrust into the public eye...someplace he does not wish to be, and he is giving speeches before the President of the United States, and having confetti rained down upon him by millions of cheering people.

He, and his crewmates, were immediately bombarded by the questions they could not have possibly had time to formulate answers for, or could not speak to, like "Give us your impression of the meaning of Apollo 11," or , "What did it feel like to be the first man to set foot on the Moon".

The questions, and their frequency, must have been mind numbing.  Mike Collins was probably best equipped to speak, and was comfortable doing so.   Buzz Aldrin, on the other hand, had a heck of alot of issues to deal with in the coming months and years, which seemed to be beased upon his inability to cope with his status as a hero, but Neil Armstrong never felt any such status, and avoiding exposing himself at all.  He refused missions in endorsements, spoke little, and retired to as much anonymity as he could cultivate for himself.

I think, what you see in this press conference, is a crew uneasy, and already somewhat numbed by what they'd been exposed to post-flight, and apprehensive about what was to follow.

That's my take anyway, but I do understand what you're perceiving in this scenario, based upoon your position.

Regards...




#489    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 18 September 2005 - 11:52 PM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 18 2005, 07:43 AM)
The phone-type object is also seen in other frames, as I've noted below.
  
The "phone-type object" only appears in the first two of those frames.  In the other frames, you have indicated quite different details.  
  
Here is the DVD frame corresponding to your 4th frame above, followed by the two succeeding frames:  
  
user posted image  
  
user posted image  
  
user posted image  
  
That is the upper portion of a completely different hilight entering the frame.  The vague similarity in shape is due to the distortion of the video in the bottom 8 lines or so, which is present throughout the RealVideo footage.   The DVD has similar distortion, only to a much lesser extent (the bottom 4 lines out of 480, rather than 8 out of 240 ).  
  
  
Here is the DVD frame corresponding to your 3rd frame above, preceded by the 2 frames leading up to it:
  
user posted image  
  
user posted image  
  
user posted image  
  
That is yet another hilight as it is exiting the frame.  Further, I don't see any resemblance between the details indicated in your 1st and 3rd frames, anyway.  
  
The persistence of motion is largely lost in the RealVideo, due to the high degree of motion and low frame rate.  Here is a side-by-side comparison of the entire sequence during which the LM is visible from the RealVideo and DVD footage. (994kb, XviD)


#490    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 19 September 2005 - 03:18 AM

OK - let's look at your last 3 frames. They beautifully illustrate my point. The red arrow pointing to the same object all remain stationary. But look at the black shade - it has lowered noticably, from top to bottom as one piece it has come down, with the man on left also going from standing to sitting.


#491    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:08 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 18 2005, 11:18 PM)
OK - let's look at your last 3 frames. They beautifully illustrate my point. The red arrow pointing to the same object all remain stationary.

user posted image

huh.gif They do?


#492    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,758 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:26 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Jun 18 2005, 08:06 AM)
Well, I'm back to the Apollo moon hoax topic, as I promised, after receiving the new Apollo 12 dvd. And, it is, to put it simply, one gigantic cover-up job!! NASA is very aware of the anomalies in their video, and have manipulated the evidence which proves Apollo was a GIGANTIC HOAX!! 

View Post




Receiving the new Apollo 12 DVD laugh.gif  I bet you payed 30 usd for it.

And forget about the anomalies you think are there,those pictures from the DVD are so pixed out no one can tell what we are looking at.

And to say that just because you think you see "anomalies" in a dvd bought from  shenanigans  means the rest of the undisputed proof can be forgotten is ignorant,to say the least.

The first thing you do if you are going to fake it is you definitely don't bring any rocks back. Only real lunar rocks will work. If you try to make rocks that appear 4.5 billion years old, you not only have to create them to appear that old by every known dating method, you also have to account for new dating methods that hadn't even been invented.

There's more to these rocks than just dating. They have cosmic ray tracks through them. They formed in a near vacuum. They formed in a 1/6 gravity environment.

And what about the Telemetry and Voice/Data transmissions that were tracked from Earth!

DUST.
Another thing is the dust,it does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth.

These two facts make dead certain proof of a lunar landing. There is absolutely nowhere on Earth that you could make dust behave in this, to us, peculiar way.

THE REFLECTORS..

This can be done by just about anyone. Ok, maybe not everyone, but plenty have done it and it proves men have been up there.

Basically all you do is buy a laser and a detector and a light collecting mirror. Then you fire it at a precise point on the moon. There is a reflecting prism there that acts like a mirror, placed by Apollo astronauts. Now if there was nothing at that point but rock that would be the last you would see of your laser. But time and time again scientist have been getting their laser reflected back. Indeed, they have done a number of experiments using these reflectors. This experiment has provided a very accurate method of measuring the distance to the moon. Due to these measurements we can now tell that the moon is actually steadily receding from the Earth.

And what about this.
Now I'd be the first to admit that this isn't conclusive proof, but still evidence and the clearest pictures we're going to get until the SELENE mission.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Clementine.htm


SELENE
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/SELENE.htm



"anomalies" in a dvd bought from shenanigans. laugh.gif  laugh.gif

Dont give these people your money,they made a fortune on the gullible.
















I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#493    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,758 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:27 AM

no.gif

Edited by hazzard, 19 September 2005 - 07:28 AM.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#494    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:34 AM

thumbsup.gif  thumbsup.gif  original.gif

Yes, you're right that there is a bit of movement from frame 1 to 2 and more movement from frame 2 to 3.  wink2.gif

In fact, we can see that there is a lot of movement of objects taking place in your animation sequence. It is not due to much movement of the camera. The objects are doing most of the moving.

Thanks.






#495    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:41 AM

QUOTE
And forget about the anomalies you think are there,those pictures from the DVD are so pixed out no one can tell what we are looking at.

No kidding they're "so pixed out"! That was the point I was making. And there is movement of objects going on where there should be no movements. Regardless of what those objects actually are. The other issues have been hashed over many times before, some of them earlier in this thread.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users