NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

You along with all moon landing conspiracy theorists are making no sense.

You are saying that what you believe to be editing is apparent on one freely available footage but left alone on another? w00t.gif w00t.gif w00t.gif

OK then:

a,what is edited out on one would be visible on the other. So where is this anomaly on the internet footage that NASA had to edit out on the DVD that if left on would result in sh** hitting the fan? There is nothing to hide!

b,to avoid said sh** hitting the fan( on this planet) we have to edit all freely available material containing incriminating evidence for the public not to

notice. rolleyes.gif

You are desperately looking for things that aren't there, and wasting 5 minutes of peoples time.

Sorry, bud, but it's the truth. If you want to remain in denial that's your problem. Here, again, is the comparison between the online still on top and the dvd still below. If you are that blind to not see what has been done, you are without hope of reality. Cognitive dissonance is more prevalent with the moon landing hoax than any other conspiracy there is, because people have been brainwashed all their lives into thinking it's god's own truth that Apollo landed men on the moon, and who would dare think that the US could not have achieved this feat six times thirty-five years ago.

Like in the REM song...

"If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon

If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool"

The below still shows people, if you actually want to know the truth. But if you don't, then it is all "reflective gold foil" (of course, none it is gold, and none of it is reflective, but since when did common sense matter to brainwashed moonies!)

750400[/snapback]

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

You along with all moon landing conspiracy theorists are making no sense.

You are saying that what you believe to be editing is apparent on one freely available footage but left alone on another? w00t.gif w00t.gif w00t.gif

OK then:

a,what is edited out on one would be visible on the other. So where is this anomaly on the internet footage that NASA had to edit out on the DVD that if left on would result in sh** hitting the fan? There is nothing to hide!

b,to avoid said sh** hitting the fan( on this planet) we have to edit all freely available material containing incriminating evidence for the public not to

notice. rolleyes.gif

You are desperately looking for things that aren't there, and wasting 5 minutes of peoples time.

Sorry, bud, but it's the truth. If you want to remain in denial that's your problem. Here, again, is the comparison between the online still on top and the dvd still below. If you are that blind to not see what has been done, you are without hope of reality. Cognitive dissonance is more prevalent with the moon landing hoax than any other conspiracy there is, because people have been brainwashed all their lives into thinking it's god's own truth that Apollo landed men on the moon, and who would dare think that the US could not have achieved this feat six times thirty-five years ago.

Like in the REM song...

"If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon

If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool"

The below still shows people, if you actually want to know the truth. But if you don't, then it is all "reflective gold foil" (of course, none it is gold, and none of it is reflective, but since when did common sense matter to brainwashed moonies!)

750400[/snapback]

[turbonium]

Many amateur radio operators also tracked the Apollo missions to the moon.  Are they in on it too?  What about the moon rocks that were brought back and matched the samples the Russians had retrieved?  The Russians had nothing to lose and everything to gain by calling the US on the Apollo missions.  Yet they instead publicly applauded the US.  If as you say they could have called them a hoax with no supporting evidence, then why didn't they?  The simple answer is they weren't.  There is plenty of evidence to prove they happened.  There is nothing credible saying they didn't. 

Just because you can't understand that gold foil reflecting different colors wouldn't still appear gold doesn't mean it's not true.  Mirrors are clear glass over a silver back.  Is everything reflected in a mirror silver?  Should it be? 

Those other conspiracies don't apply here.  No matter what you may believe about them, nothing has actually been proven. 

Are there any conspiracy theories you don't believe in?

750408[/snapback]

Satellites could be set up to dupe any radio operators -that's an easy one. As for the moon rocks, there are many of them at the South Pole that they probably retrieved and claimed as being brought back from the moon. And if the Russians got them from the moon on unmanned missions, so too the US could have, and just got more of them through more missions. But Antarctica was more likely as it was cheaper and easier. Bottom line, the Russians supposedly have them without landing men on the moon, so they are not proof. And so the Russians could have still said it was a hoax with no proof, but they didn't.

Many Moon Rocks on Earth

An average of several hundred new meteorites are found each year. They are then distributed all over the world to different scientists who experiment with them. It is believed that most of the meteorites are pieces from Mars or the Moon.

And if the Russians were our mortal enemy and saw the space race as vital for military advantage (real or perceived) and for all-important national and global public perception, why would they "applaud" the US over it, if they were so concerned about the implications? That is, unless they really did know they were faked. They didn't "applaud" the Americans for ANYTHING that they did previously. There was no logical reason to suddenly become big fans of the US space program and admit defeat!

Likewise, the US didn't "applaud" the Russians for Sputnik, or "applaud" Yuri Gagarin, or "applaud" any of their other "firsts" in space! . Sputnik was subsequently alluded to in NASA's public relations pronouncements as a "disaster," creating a "national emergency." In the US, it created nationwide panic about nuclear attack. So too did all the further accomplishments create an inferiority complex and fear that we were well behind the Russian program. But once the US leaps ahead of them, the Russians are applauding it? Not unless they really didn't worry about it! They never even attempted to land men on the moon, or, and this is significant, never even attempted to leave Earth's atmosphere!. They knew about the radiation hazards.

As for the gold reflective foil..

Kapton is a polymer (plastic) used on the lem (and Command Module). It is "gold" or "amber" in color, uniformly throughout. It's reflective, but does not have the reflective properties of a standard plane mirror - it is also not a smooth flat surface as used on the lem. Look at ANY photos of the lem - find even ONE that shows the foil WITHOUT showing it as gold and reflective. Then come back here and post it or a link to it. I have yet to see one that could match these stills I have posted.

TV Producer Selling Foil!

Interesting point - the above linked website has some swatches of the actual Apollo 12 foil for sale. The source of this Kapton foil which can be seen in numerous photographs on the outside of the Command Module is a TV producer onboard the USS Hornet.

[snuffypuffer]

You along with all moon landing conspiracy theorists are making no sense.

You are saying that what you believe to be editing is apparent on one freely available footage but left alone on another? w00t.gif w00t.gif w00t.gif

OK then:

a,what is edited out on one would be visible on the other. So where is this anomaly on the internet footage that NASA had to edit out on the DVD that if left on would result in sh** hitting the fan? There is nothing to hide!

b,to avoid said sh** hitting the fan( on this planet) we have to edit all freely available material containing incriminating evidence for the public not to

notice. rolleyes.gif

You are desperately looking for things that aren't there, and wasting 5 minutes of peoples time.

Sorry, bud, but it's the truth. If you want to remain in denial that's your problem. Here, again, is the comparison between the online still on top and the dvd still below. If you are that blind to not see what has been done, you are without hope of reality. Cognitive dissonance is more prevalent with the moon landing hoax than any other conspiracy there is, because people have been brainwashed all their lives into thinking it's god's own truth that Apollo landed men on the moon, and who would dare think that the US could not have achieved this feat six times thirty-five years ago.

Like in the REM song...

"If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon

If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool"

The below still shows people, if you actually want to know the truth. But if you don't, then it is all "reflective gold foil" (of course, none it is gold, and none of it is reflective, but since when did common sense matter to brainwashed moonies!)

750400[/snapback]

750678[/snapback]

I totally agree. You've said so much, by saying so little, my dear Dead Cartman.

[turbonium]

Absolutely correct, there is no gold in that frame. It's aluminized mylar.

What? The other pro-Apollo people claim it is the gold relective foil. Nothing said about it being aluminized mylar.

I still don't see any properties of aluminzed mylar, either. Where is this supposed to be on the lem?

BTW, why don't you show the 17 frames leading up to that one, and the 3 frames following it? For that matter, why don't you capture from the DVD's Angle 2 (which, as Joe Durnavich told you over on ApolloHoax, does not contain the subtitles and apparently has fewer compression artifacts), instead of Angle 1?

I have posted those frames - I have also posted the link to the whole clip many times, if you look at my starting post here and on my other moon thread all the links are there.

Angle 2 w/o subtitles is just as brutal and I will post it since you've asked.

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

You along with all moon landing conspiracy theorists are making no sense.

You are saying that what you believe to be editing is apparent on one freely available footage but left alone on another? w00t.gif w00t.gif w00t.gif

OK then:

a,what is edited out on one would be visible on the other. So where is this anomaly on the internet footage that NASA had to edit out on the DVD that if left on would result in sh** hitting the fan? There is nothing to hide!

b,to avoid said sh** hitting the fan( on this planet) we have to edit all freely available material containing incriminating evidence for the public not to

notice. rolleyes.gif

You are desperately looking for things that aren't there, and wasting 5 minutes of peoples time.

Sorry, bud, but it's the truth. If you want to remain in denial that's your problem. Here, again, is the comparison between the online still on top and the dvd still below. If you are that blind to not see what has been done, you are without hope of reality. Cognitive dissonance is more prevalent with the moon landing hoax than any other conspiracy there is, because people have been brainwashed all their lives into thinking it's god's own truth that Apollo landed men on the moon, and who would dare think that the US could not have achieved this feat six times thirty-five years ago.

Like in the REM song...

"If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon

If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool"

The below still shows people, if you actually want to know the truth. But if you don't, then it is all "reflective gold foil" (of course, none it is gold, and none of it is reflective, but since when did common sense matter to brainwashed moonies!)

750400[/snapback]

OK i'll try and make it clearer and give my questions in stages to avoid confusion

Question 1 subsection a:

Why did NASA edit one freely available footage but leave so called incriminating evidence in another ?

And buddy, Aren't you the one who is brainwashed? Brainwashed by quick buck merchants with bathroom trash they call evidence that apollo was a hoax.

I, along with people living in the real world just draw my own conclusions from real evidence from NASAs side and weigh it against the cretinous evidence from the 'conspiracy theorists' side to conclude that we actually did go to the moon.

Edited July 24, 2005 by DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

I totally agree. You've said so much, by saying so little, my dear Dead Cartman.

750682[/snapback]

Thanks for the welcome

Edited July 24, 2005 by DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

[snuffypuffer]

I agree with you even more now, Cartman. And welcome again to the forums.

I find it nearly impossible to make anything out in that blurry, pixelated mess that's supposed to be "evidence."

[turbonium]

The NASA online video is the one where I noticed the anomalies some months ago, in March of this year.

Bare Arm Thread

Shortly after this, I found out they were putting out a DVD version of Apollo 12, which I was hoping would be much better in quality as it was a transfer from original source film from NASA. The online video is very compressed and so this was something I couldn't wait to see.

So, as I watched the DVD after I got it recently, I noticed it was much better quality than the online videos. That was to be expected, or else why bother with the DVD, if the online videos were at least as good. Then, just as the anomalous segment of the footage comes to view on the DVD, the quality gets much worse than the online video! Not before it, not after it - only during it! Barely a thirty second segment, out of the entire footage, over a 3 DVD set, is worse quality than the online version.

There are only three options they could have used for the DVD release, since the online video has been recorded by myself and who knows how many other people.

1. Cut out the anomalous footage - not good, as I said many people have it already and it would be a huge red flag that they were hiding the anomalies.

2. Treat the anomalous section as not anomalous at all - the section will be of the same high quality as the rest of the DVD transfer. If this was done, it would only improve the anomalous section, and we could all see much better what these anomalies are.

3. Make the anomalous section worse in quality, so that the anomalies are much less defined than ever.

So - option 2 is of course the one that pro-Apollo people think is what was done. But as I said, it is SO obvious it was not done - it was in fact degraded in quality. So option 3 is the one they did take, and had to take to best handle the DVD transfer issue. That means they are hiding things, and hope that the compressed online version is poor enough quality to get away with it.

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

I agree with you even more now, Cartman. And welcome again to the forums.

I find it nearly impossible to make anything out in that blurry, pixelated mess that's supposed to be "evidence."

750700[/snapback]

Yes they just wont give up flogging their dead horse. In the old days they used to spout that shadow had to be parelel or that stars should always be visible(at low exposure levels) without even observing these misconceptions to verify them. Now we are down to an even lower level of saying something we cant even see is proof.

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

The NASA online video is the one where I noticed the anomalies some months ago, in March of this year.

Bare Arm Thread

Shortly after this, I found out they were putting out a DVD version of Apollo 12, which I was hoping would be much better in quality as it was a transfer from original source film from NASA. The online video is very compressed and so this was something I couldn't wait to see.

So, as I watched the DVD after I got it recently, I noticed it was much better quality than the online videos. That was to be expected, or else why bother with the DVD, if the online videos were at least as good. Then, just as the anomalous segment of the footage comes to view on the DVD, the quality gets much worse than the online video! Not before it, not after it - only during it! Barely a thirty second segment, out of the entire footage, over a 3 DVD set, is worse quality than the online version.

There are only three options they could have used for the DVD release, since the online video has been recorded by myself and who knows how many other people.

1. Cut out the anomalous footage - not good, as I said many people have it already and it would be a huge red flag that they were hiding the anomalies.

2. Treat the anomalous section as not anomalous at all - the section will be of the same high quality as the rest of the DVD transfer. If this was done, it would only improve the anomalous section, and we could all see much better what these anomalies are.

3. Make the anomalous section worse in quality, so that the anomalies are much less defined than ever.

So - option 2 is of course the one that pro-Apollo people think is what was done. But as I said, it is SO obvious it was not done - it was in fact degraded in quality. So option 3 is the one they did take, and had to take to best handle the DVD transfer issue. That means they are hiding things, and hope that the compressed online version is poor enough quality to get away with it.

750719[/snapback]

I cant see an arm in your stills do you have a link to the original internet video? sorry you do, I've found it already.

Edited July 24, 2005 by DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

The NASA online video is the one where I noticed the anomalies some months ago, in March of this year.

Bare Arm Thread

Shortly after this, I found out they were putting out a DVD version of Apollo 12, which I was hoping would be much better in quality as it was a transfer from original source film from NASA. The online video is very compressed and so this was something I couldn't wait to see.

So, as I watched the DVD after I got it recently, I noticed it was much better quality than the online videos. That was to be expected, or else why bother with the DVD, if the online videos were at least as good. Then, just as the anomalous segment of the footage comes to view on the DVD, the quality gets much worse than the online video! Not before it, not after it - only during it! Barely a thirty second segment, out of the entire footage, over a 3 DVD set, is worse quality than the online version.

There are only three options they could have used for the DVD release, since the online video has been recorded by myself and who knows how many other people.

1. Cut out the anomalous footage - not good, as I said many people have it already and it would be a huge red flag that they were hiding the anomalies.

2. Treat the anomalous section as not anomalous at all - the section will be of the same high quality as the rest of the DVD transfer. If this was done, it would only improve the anomalous section, and we could all see much better what these anomalies are.

3. Make the anomalous section worse in quality, so that the anomalies are much less defined than ever.

So - option 2 is of course the one that pro-Apollo people think is what was done. But as I said, it is SO obvious it was not done - it was in fact degraded in quality. So option 3 is the one they did take, and had to take to best handle the DVD transfer issue. That means they are hiding things, and hope that the compressed online version is poor enough quality to get away with it.

750719[/snapback]

How on earth do you see an arm in that footage, all I see is a white blurry block that appears to be angular and inanimate

Furthermore comparing the stills you submitted the second one(the DVD footage, yes?) appears more defined, not less defined as you claim.

Edited July 24, 2005 by DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

[turbonium]

How on earth do you see an arm in that footage, all I see is a white blurry block that appears to be angular and inanimate

Furthermore comparing the stills you submitted the second one(the DVD footage, yes?) appears more defined, not less defined as you claim.

I have no idea what is a block or inanimate about it. Or what is defined whatsoever in the second still.

[DeAth_Of_CaRTMan]

How on earth do you see an arm in that footage, all I see is a white blurry block that appears to be angular and inanimate

Furthermore comparing the stills you submitted the second one(the DVD footage, yes?) appears more defined, not less defined as you claim.

I have no idea what is a block or inanimate about it. Or what is defined whatsoever in the second still.

750909[/snapback]

The white inanimate block in the 3rd and 4th image captures that you seem to think is an arm.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...e=post&id=15731

and

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...e=post&id=15730

Edited July 24, 2005 by DeAth_Of_CaRTMan

[snuffypuffer]

If that's an arm, I'm a squirrel.

[DataCable]

Satellites could be set up to dupe any radio operators -that's an easy one.

Those "satellites" must have been sent on the same trajectory which the CSM/LM stack would have travelled, or the signals would be coming from the wrong direction most of the time (picking up these signals requires the use of properly aimed directional antennas). An object in earth orbit cannot "hover" in a position between the earth and the moon, orbital mechanics simply do not permit this. An object in low-Earth-orbit will track across the visible sky in a matter of minutes. See Heavens Above for upcoming visible passes of the ISS in your area, for a live demonstration.

On a related note, according to your theory, Turbo, were the people in mission control in on the hoax, or were they kept in the dark about it?

As for the moon rocks, there are many of them at the South Pole that they probably retrieved and claimed as being brought back from the moon.

Meteorites which pass through the atmosphere unprotected exhibit particular characteristics, which the Apollo samples do not. Geologists know a meteorite when they see one.

And if the Russians got them from the moon on unmanned missions, so too the US could have, and just got more of them through more missions.

The soviet probes returned only soil samples. Apollo retrieved 850lbs of mostly rocks, including core samples.

They never even attempted to land men on the moon

Because they weren't able to build a (safe) rocket as powerful as the Saturn V.

never even attempted to leave Earth's atmosphere!.

Uhhhh... Gagarin left the atmosphere... in 1961.

They knew about the radiation hazards.

So then, Zond 5 was a hoax, as well?

[DataCable]

Where is this supposed to be on the lem?

A number of us have already addressed this over on ApolloHoax, but here is Count Zero's description, (copied to my own server account, in case his pic expires)

The approxomate framing of your capture is roughly indicated by the green frame in this image. Actually, it's somewhat above and to the right of the green frame, since it shows the lower-forward RCS plume deflector support strut, distorted and blurred due to the rapid motion of the camera.

Also note in this image the camera in it's stowage position on the MESA, in the lower left, from where it shot Pete and Beano descending the ladder. Beano was moving the camera from this location when your frame was captured, to give you and idea of how close to the LM it was at the time.

BTW, why don't you show the 17 frames leading up to that one, and the 3 frames following it?

I have posted those frames

No, you've shown, at most, 5 or 6 consecutive frames from that sequence (not including the separate frames of the folded S-band antenna which you insist is a bare human arm.) You haven't show the frames leading up to and following your "people" and "man in swivel chair" frames, which would help place these details in the proper context with the rest of the LM.

I have also posted the link to the whole clip many times

But you've called attention to these particular frames by taking them out of context. Additionally, you've posted frames from the RealVideo, which is availible online, as well as from the DVD, which is not. This is why I specifically requested DVD angle-2 frames.

Angle 2 w/o subtitles is just as brutal and I will post it since you've asked.

Awaiting them with baited breath, I assure you.

[turbonium]

of course, none it is gold...

Absolutely correct, there is no gold in that frame. It's aluminized mylar.

and none of it is reflective

I'm still wondering what you are saying now. All that "stuff" being pointed to is Kapton, is it not? Which is gold in color? What is the aluminized mylar, which would be silver?

Funny that the material is able to make it look like a guy with a beard, wearing a green shirt, and flesh tones where the face and hands should be, and makes loops that are being pulled on by the hands. And another guy wearing a white shirt, with flesh tones where a face and hands should be. That's really cool material they used.

Edited July 25, 2005 by turbonium

[DataCable]

none of it is reflective

You keep saying that, and have yet to answer my question: On what do you base your judgement of reflectivity, or the absence thereof?

Funny that the material is able to make it look like...

Yes, yes, yes, one's mind can find all sorts of order in essentially random images. One can see a human(oid) face in a mountain on Mars, given the proper lighting conditions.

Where are the 20 DVD frames you agreed to post?

[turbonium]

You keep saying that, and have yet to answer my question: On what do you base your judgement of reflectivity, or the absence thereof?

I base it on every single video and photo I have seen of the lem - they all show the gold reflective properties of the Kapton. These are typical examples of the lem - all of them show the gold reflective nature of the material. What more do you need?

[turbonium]

I'll have the DVD tomorrow to post the stills, btw.

[DataCable]

On what do you base your judgement of reflectivity, or the absence thereof?

I base it on every single video and photo I have seen of the lem

You're attempting to compare a largely out-of-context closeup captured by a vidicon tube in motion and subjected to digital video compression, with images of the entire LM captured on photographic film in a stationary camera and subjected to far less data-destructive compression. Let's level the playing field a little...

How can you tell that the upper image, from the RealVideo clip, is not reflective, and the lower image, from a photograph, is?

Further, do you see any curious, suspicious, or otherwise anomalous shapes in the lower image?

Edited July 26, 2005 by DataCable

[Pseudomorph]

There are only three options they could have used for the DVD release, since the online video has been recorded by myself and who knows how many other people.

There is fourth:

Given today's motion pictures technology and digital video capabilities, shoot again the scene with adequate props and call it a day.

[bathory]

Further, do you see any curious, suspicious, or otherwise anomalous shapes in the lower image?

i see a woman, and a man with a paper bag on his head

[RabidCat]

Anyone mind if I bust in here a while? Hope not.

Can anyone explain to me how it is men can go above the atmosphere without radiation protection when electronics stuff must be radiation hardened to go there? According to what I know about it (and I was an electronics engineer working on space stuff at that time), the astronauts would have been obliterated by that radiation that would murder standard ICs within minutes. So the use of radiation hardened electronics (still). A lot of that stuff is still not available to the public (to wit, logic with clock speeds in the microwave range, above 10GHz).

In my poor little mind, I must think one of two things:

1) There were never any moon landings, let alone manned space shots out of the atmosphere.

2) There were and are space shots, but there is technology used that is not generally admitted to, or even hints at the existence thereof.

Being as I was in the Navy during the Apollo years, and witnessed the pickup of a space capsule, I have to go with 2.

Any comments?

Edited July 26, 2005 by RabidCat