Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:48 pm

It's amazing, how relatively easy it is for humans to convince themselves of certain storylines


... he said, completely oblivious to the fact that's exactly what he too is doing. You're just listening to different authority figures.

As for the deaths, yeah, the timing on Grissom sounds dodgy, but it is rocket science, and things do go wrong all the time, especially when you're at the start of a program. Even today I think the things-go-boom rate is something like one in a hundred. The last one sounds like an accident. Of all the things they could have pulled, hitting his car with a train is probably not something that would get past the brainstorming session. And why kill him after he testified?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby BenDhyan » Sun Jul 14, 2024 7:42 am

My background wrt Apollo era has been outlined here before on RI back in time, so I will just provide a brief anecdote. I worked at Australia's first satellite coms station, Moree, NSW, starting 1968. NASA sent the coms from its Apollo stations in Australia when Australia faced the moon, back to the US through our station. Voice, data, video, including live video via the Parkes Radion Telescope which was contracted by NASA to do lunar TV transmissions. We techs had the Apollo astronauts - Houstin Manned Space Flight center voice links up on speaker 24 hrs/day and could listen to every word exchanged between them as we went about our work. NASA techs came and worked with us to initially set up the coms links. I could go on as there is so much more, but I have found it a waste of time when dealing with the skeptics, they have made up their mind.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 14, 2024 9:55 am

^^^^^

Unfortunately comms prove only that they communicated with each other, not where they were, especially since all telemetry (and ALL other data, including original footage and other technical info) was all reportedly lost some time ago, never to be retrieved since.

Apparently NASA didn’t have a sound backup process, either, for these (unprecedented, if authentic) landings.

No way to corroborate, alas.

Surely nothing more than a tragic mishap, the loss of all this critical info.


…NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”
Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them? Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault? And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere? Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?
Had NASA claimed that a few tapes, or even a few cartons of tapes, had been misplaced, then maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps some careless NASA employee, for example, absent-mindedly taped a Super Bowl game over one of them. Or maybe some home porn. But does it really seem at all credible to claim that the entire collection of tapes has gone missing – all 700 cartons of them, the entire film record of the alleged Moon landings? In what alternative reality would that happen ‘accidentally’?
Some of you are probably thinking that everyone has already seen the footage anyway, when it was allegedly broadcast live back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or on NASA’s website, or on YouTube, or on numerous television documentaries. But you would be mistaken. The truth is that the original footage has never been aired, anytime or anywhere – and now, since the tapes seem to have conveniently gone missing, it quite obviously never will be.
The fact that the tapes are missing (and according to NASA, have been for over three decades), amazingly enough, was not even the most compelling information that the Reuters article had to offer. Also to be found was an explanation of how the alleged Moonwalk tapes that we all know and love were created: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.”
So what we saw then, and what we have seen in all the footage ever released by NASA since then, were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a television monitor, and a tiny black-and-white monitor at that. That monitor may have been running live footage, I suppose, but it seems far more likely that it was running taped footage. NASA of course has never explained why, even if it were true that the original broadcasts had to be ‘re-shot,’ they never subsequently released any of the actual ‘live’ footage. But I guess that’s a moot point now, what with the tapes having gone missing.


https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

And:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost.

The data tapes were used to record all transmitted data (video as well as telemetry) for backup.


It's just 'government employee ineptitude', eh?


Given the info shared only in my last couple posts alone, a discerning human would at least pause for a moment and re-consider things, if only briefly.

But as it is with many topics, there often is little interest in challenging beliefs, once firmly set.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Sun Jul 14, 2024 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 14, 2024 10:14 am

DrEvil » Sat Jul 13, 2024 10:48 pm wrote:
It's amazing, how relatively easy it is for humans to convince themselves of certain storylines


... he said, completely oblivious to the fact that's exactly what he too is doing. You're just listening to different authority figures.


That’s a dishonest/demonstrably wrong take, since I’ve typed “caveat lector” many times in my postings, generally and also specifically to this topic.

In my prior post I also typed (via a cross-post of mine): “I may not subscribe to all content written within these sources, but there are bits of noteworthy info to be gleaned, regardless.”

Nothing definitive.


Of course it’s possible the deaths of Grissom (and others involved in the space program in the 60s) are nothing more than tragedy/accident.
These are all simple yes/no exercises:

1. Yes, they were accidents, exactly as described by NASA and the press.
2. No, they were not accidents.

If point #2 is the correct answer, then it calls into question many things that follow, including the INTENT of bad actors.


But by all means, continue to believe what you wish.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Jul 14, 2024 3:33 pm

Thanks, I will! In this case I believe that I don't know, but I obviously have my biases, just like you do.

The problem with these deaths is that we will never know for sure either way. It will always be speculation. They're effectively Schrodinger's conspiracy talking points, both true and false at the same time.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Jul 14, 2024 3:38 pm

BenDhyan » Sun Jul 14, 2024 1:42 pm wrote:My background wrt Apollo era has been outlined here before on RI back in time, so I will just provide a brief anecdote. I worked at Australia's first satellite coms station, Moree, NSW, starting 1968. NASA sent the coms from its Apollo stations in Australia when Australia faced the moon, back to the US through our station. Voice, data, video, including live video via the Parkes Radion Telescope which was contracted by NASA to do lunar TV transmissions. We techs had the Apollo astronauts - Houstin Manned Space Flight center voice links up on speaker 24 hrs/day and could listen to every word exchanged between them as we went about our work. NASA techs came and worked with us to initially set up the coms links. I could go on as there is so much more, but I have found it a waste of time when dealing with the skeptics, they have made up their mind.


Deep state operative detected! I knew it!

But I am a little curious how you faked transmissions to an antenna that was pointed at the moon. /s
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby BenDhyan » Sun Jul 14, 2024 5:46 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 14, 2024 11:55 pm wrote:^^^^^
Unfortunately comms prove only that they communicated with each other, not where they were, especially since all telemetry (and ALL other data, including original footage and other technical info) was all reportedly lost some time ago, never to be retrieved since.
Nonsense and lies....
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Jul 14, 2024 6:36 pm

As far as I can tell the only thing lost was the original landing footage tapes, which were degaussed and reused in the eighties. There were other recordings available of the same footage, but with worse quality than the raw footage because it was recorded after conversion and analog relay half-way around the world, so the footage is still around, just not that specific recording of it. It sucks, obviously, but it's not lost, we just don't have the best quality versions any more.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby BenDhyan » Sun Jul 14, 2024 7:48 pm

What is this, a "if you can't show me a photo, it didn't happen", logic?
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Elihu » Tue Jul 16, 2024 10:47 am

how does that prove men walked on the moon logic
respectfully wrt your personal testimony but that only goes so far
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby BenDhyan » Wed Jul 17, 2024 7:30 am

Elihu » Wed Jul 17, 2024 12:47 am wrote:how does that prove men walked on the moon logic
respectfully wrt your personal testimony but that only goes so far

I have learned long ago that it is not possible to convey an experience to someone who has not had the same or similar experience.
This does not mean the other person is unintelligent, it means only that if they imagine a conceptualization representing a reality, is the reality. then they will never understand.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Elihu » Wed Jul 17, 2024 1:33 pm

you "feel" through your experience: they walked on the moon? /L (means levity)
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Jul 17, 2024 2:04 pm

.
ALL of the audio during these reported Moon Landings could have occurred while fully within LEO (Low Earth Orbit), and the vast majority of those involved in these NASA missions (including contractors, sub-contractors, etc), would have no way to know what was actually occurring out there in space. And there would be no way for the vast majority to be in a position to confirm/corroborate what was actually occurring, in any event.

Moot now, as all those records have been reportedly 'lost' [as indicated upthread] -- for years now.


Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2019 10:59 pm wrote:.

Saturn V Rockets launched into space does not = men landing on the moon, needless to say.


With regards to transmissions 'from the moon':


[...]

Only the NASA Manned Space Flight Network can attest to having tracked these vehicles all the way to the moon and back. This Network comprised of Goldstone Tracking Station in California, the Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex, and various facilities in Australia; most notably Parkes Observatory, Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla. In the case of Parkes, it was (and still is) owned by the Australian government but was under control of and under contract to NASA during the time of the Apollo missions. It was NASA’s very own Robert Taylor who controlled the release of any data from Parkes during the Apollo 11 mission and his team were responsible for the reception, recording and transfer of audio, video and telemetry at Parkes. And on the subsequent flights technicians and engineers from NASA’s Tidbinbilla complex were heavily involved at Parkes. It’s essentially a fox guarding the hen house scenario.



http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

I've only come across this 'Jarrah White' individual [the source of the above link/quote] today; haven't done my due diligence on him yet, so the usual caveat lector applies. Apparently he's a defender of the charlatan Musk, so while he may have done his part to expose the Apollo landings as [alleged] hoaxes, some claim he's since been 'compromised' to validate the current/future missions as genuine.

More research for another time, perhaps.

I'm including additional content from his FAQ page below, as it addresses a number of the topics already raised in this thread:

[the FAQ link has multiple embedded links/additional source material]


Q: So was the MSFN [Manned Space Flight Network] part of the conspiracy?

A: Maybe. Maybe not. For awhile Jarrah was convinced that they were, but has since reconsidered and remains undecided. Because of the way telecommunications were handled, it’s hard to say for sure.

The MSFN simply relayed the signals it received over the landlines to the technicians at the Mission Control Center in Houston. These technicians didn’t need to know or care where the data came from. So since it was purely NASA’s MSFN who were allegedly tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back, regardless of whether the crews were actually in LEO or on the ground; all they would need do is relay pre-recorded tapes or LEO signals or both over the landlines, claim it was from the moon, and the MCC controllers would’ve called it a day.

This was little different to the pre-flight simulations. The MCC controllers were trained for actual space missions by being fed simulated data over the landlines. Flight Director Eugene Kranz, in the documentary Failure Is Not an Option, was quoted to saying that the simulations were so realistic that no controller could distinguish the training from the real mission. (see time codes 4:40-4:54)

On the other hand, the MSFN could easily have been in the dark too. Honeysuckle Creek for example had developed their own simulation system for specifically training the operators. The computers were even capable of simulating the Doppler shift! These simulators were also designed to be indistinguishable from the real thing. But while it could be argued that a similar simulation could have been used, it ultimately was not required to fool the MSFN.

As explained below, the Soviet Union had successfully faked telecommunications by transmitting the voices of cosmonauts to the unmanned Zond 5, which in turn relayed them back to earth. At the time the Americans and Jodrell Bank thought the spacecraft was manned. There was nothing stopping the Americans from also flying an unmanned spacecraft to the moon and using it to relay data. So if the MSFN operators were not involved in the conspiracy, they were probably receiving telecommunications from an unmanned craft.

In summary: because the MSFN facilities were either NASA owned or NASA contracted, it is not an outside possibility that they were involved in the hoax; but on the other hand, they could just as easily have been left in the dark and NASA could have pulled a Zond 5 on them.

Jarrah has personally asked various radio operators how they know Apollo telecommunications were not just another Zond 5 stunt, and so far none of them have given him a direct answer. And considering the Zond 5 hoax has been officially revealed, Jarrah is amazed that anyone would cite telecommunications as evidence for Apollo, let alone consider it their best evidence!

Q: How were the videos and still pictures faked?

A: They were filmed either in a studio or on location in the Nevada desert. When it came down to filming the moonwalk scenes, lunar gravity was simulated by suspending the astronauts on wires to reduce their weight. And to complete the look, the videos of the astronauts on wires were played back in slow motion.

Ironically, the Mythbusters recently tried to debunk this by filming Adam Savage running around in a replica spacesuit. They filmed him both with and without wire suspension. But the only slow motion footage shown was of when he was not suspended by a wire. If one takes his wire jump footage, slows it down to 67% and then plays it alongside the original Apollo 16 footage, the two are a near-perfect synchronization.

White told this to Savage during the Q&A session at Tam8 in Las Vegas 2010, to which Savage replied that their TV show [Mythbusters] was “entertainment, not science”, that he shouldn’t be cited as the definitive defacto place for scientific analysis of the moon landings, and that “We might be wrong!”

Q: How could so many people have kept quiet about the hoax?

A: Secrets of such magnitude have taken place. The Soviet N-1 program alone involved hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers; yet the designing, developing, and launch of the N-1 rocket remained a well-kept secret for forty years until the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Bottom line, if Russia could keep a secret that involved thousands of people for so long, so could NASA. And anyway, not everyone at NASA would have needed to be in on the conspiracy. For example, as stated above, the technicians at Houston Mission Control Center would be unable to distinguish the difference between simulations and the real missions. Hence there is no need for them to ‘keep quiet’ about anything.

Likewise for the remainder of NASA staff and contractors located on the ground. Once the rockets were out of sight they had no way of knowing whether the CSM continued to the Moon, came down shortly afterwards, or just stayed in earth orbit. Everyone just assumed it happened the way it was reported and they had no reason to suspect otherwise. Ultimately there were only three eyewitnesses for each mission, not thousands.

Q: Why did the Russians remain silent?

A: Jarrah can see three reasons.

Firstly, if you really want to know what Russia thought of manned lunar exploration, just ask Jodrell Bank’s Sir Bernard Lovell. In May of 1963, the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences Mstislav Keldysh instructed him to inform NASA’s deputy administrator Hugh Dryden that Russian had to postpone manned moon flights indefinitely, because they could see no way to protect their cosmonauts from the insurmountable dangers posed by solar flare radiation. Well into 1966, around the time Russia put Lunik 10 in lunar orbit, Sir Bernard remained in contact with the Soviets asking when they intended to send a human to the moon.
In 1999, Sir Bernard was quoted by the BBC along these lines: “I had frequently asked my Soviet contacts when they intended to send a human being to the moon and their response was always ‘when we can be absolutely certain of getting him back alive’. And they did not believe the Americans would do this and in fact it’s pretty clear that the Americans did take considerable risk.”


Well into December 1968, Alexei Leonov and his comrades pleaded the politburo to let them pilot Zond 7 around the moon, as the Zonds 5 & 6 had already flown around the moon and returned to earth in September and November of that year – the former of which was successfully recovered. But their pleas were rejected despite having proven their capabilities with Zond 5.

Jarrah believes that Russia may likely have planned to fake their manned moon flights too. Aboard Zond 5 was an audio cassette player which played back the voices of cosmonauts Pavel Popevich and Vitali Sevastyanov. At the time many thought Russia had sent the first men around the moon, but upon return of the capsule it was revealed that it was only a tape recording. NASA, who at the time weren’t officially planning a ‘manned’ moon mission until April or May 1969, responded to the tape recorder stunt by changing Apollo 8’s flight plan from a high earth orbit flight to a lunar orbit flight in December 1968.

Russia had the opportunity to claim victory over the Americans, but they let it slip through their fingers. But even if they were to cry foul on the Americans, it would only jeopardize their own program. If the USSR was to come out and say that Apollo was faked due to lethal radiation, the Americans would just as easily cry foul if the Soviets proceeded to fake their own for the same reason.

The second reason for their silence would be because of free trade deals. Since the Kennedy administration, the United States government and its allies had been selling tons of American wheat to the Soviets. It’s no different to modern times: the US cuts multi-billion dollar trade deals with the Chinese and in turn China gets kicked off America’s list of human rights violators, likewise Russia gets tons of wheat in return for silence.

Thirdly, nowadays the Russian and American space programs are partners in crime. In the early 70s the US and Soviets agreed to work cooperatively in the exploration of space. This international cooperation became a reality in 1975 with the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, the first joint mission. Many other missions followed and Russia essentially became the United States’ best ally. In the 1990s, with the Buran program cancelled, the Russians had no shuttle to get to their Mir space station, only Soyuz. And the US had no equivalent to Mir. The solution was the Shuttle-Mir program, in which US shuttles carried astronauts and cosmonauts to and from the Russian Mir space station. Now the US and Russia have collaborated towards the construction of the International Space Station, involving not only them but also every other space nation – except for the US’s best trade partner, the Chinese.

The Russians were also kind enough to give American astronauts a ride to space aboard the Soyuz during the time the shuttle was grounded. And with the termination of the shuttle program, the US will now be reliant on Russia’s Soyuz to get to the ISS. It’s essentially a one-world space government, one big happy family. No one will blow the whistle on anybody.

Q: What is the most compelling evidence that the moon missions were faked?

A: Jarrah can nail it down to four pieces of evidence.

First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.

The second smoking gun is the fact that the Apollo 10 telecasts were proven to have been pre-filmed and edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms) said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn’t simply cut the camera and then begin rolling moments later.

The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits – as per the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to interior!

By comparing the videos with the transcript, Jarrah also discovered that there were sections of video missing from the “complete” Spacecraft Films DVD set. Jarrah knows these missing pieces of video exist, because in the transcript the Capcom confirms that the MSFN was ‘receiving’ them. For reasons unknown, Spacecraft Films omitted minutes of footage from Apollo 10 and then sold their DVD set to the world as “complete & unedited.”

After Jarrah released his video covering this, ironically titled “Flagging The Gems”, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films flagged it for copyright infringement and had the video pulled along with Jarrah’s entire Youtube account. Gray’s copyright claims are fraudulent and thus he is guilty of perjury, because NASA’s in flight telecasts are PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are not copyrighted.

The third piece of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked is the fact that the moon rocks actually on the moon later turned out to be different to the ones the astronauts supposedly collected. See below.

Fourth, and probably the most visually identifiable, is the fact the framerate of the Apollo 11 telecast is not what NASA claimed it was. NASA claims that the only television camera that recorded the Apollo 11 EVA was a B&W non-interlaced Westinghouse camera that ran at 10fps. As this framerate is lower than both conventional television framerates of PAL (25fps, interlaced) or NTSC (30fps, interlaced), the video allegedly received by the DSN and MSFN needed to be converted to NTSC. NASA says that this was done by pointing an NTSC TV camera at a screen that displayed the 10fps feed. The unfiltered 10fps was recorded on 1inch reels, but only the 2inch reel containing the NTSC conversion have survived.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that at least 24fps (cinema) is sufficient to show fluent motion. Framerates lower than 24fps, especially as low as 10fps, will appear very jumpy. Because fourteen important frames of natural motion are missing. Additionally, in a 10fps to 30fps conversion, the motion on screen would update only once every three frames. Because the camera pointed to the screen would have recorded the same display three times.

Frame by frame analysis of the digital transfers of NASA’s 2inch reels however reveal this not to be the case. The motion of the astronauts’ movement is very smooth and not jumpy at all. And frames update not once every three frames, but four out of every five frames with the odd one out being an overlay of the frames before and after. This clearly indicates that the Apollo 11 EVA video playback speed was not 10fps but 24fps. Meaning the EVA was shot with a camera that reportedly was not in the Apollo 11 crews possession during the time they were supposedly on the moon.

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby BenDhyan » Wed Jul 17, 2024 5:40 pm

Elihu » Thu Jul 18, 2024 3:33 am wrote:you "feel" through your experience: they walked on the moon? /L (means levity)

Reality is reality, not thought, your conception that is based on a feeling is not reality, except as a conception.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

Postby DrEvil » Thu Jul 18, 2024 12:14 pm

Moot now, as all those records have been reportedly 'lost' [as indicated upthread] -- for years now.


You mean these:
https://archive.org/details/Apollo11Audio/
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 181 guests