ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: astronaut23 on November 05, 2013, 07:58:40 PM
-
I remember one time seeing a video that showed the earth zoomed in on from a far distance on one of the apollo flights and the the earth went between 2 different command module windows as the space craft was rotating. It was interesting as it showed it was not a transparency or some other nonsense theory that hoaxers say the videos were faked with.
In other words it showed that they were not just in LEO but were in fact on their way to the moon.
Anyone know of the video I'm talking about and where you can see the clip?
-
I think Moving Finger on the David Icke forum showed the earth rotated to debunk that theory (also the weather patterns matched the satellite images). I can't find the post because I think you can't search the site unless you join. Frankly life is too short to waste time in that bat shit crazy place.
This you Tube video shows the rotation during the broadcast.
-
Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y) about the satellite pictures of Earth cpmared to those from from Apollo video comparison by the LunarTuner, and another (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig&)by GreaterSapien that shows the porthole and transparency claims aren't just wrong, but almost certainly an intentional lie of omission on Sibrel and Percy's part. I think the latter may be what you are talking about.
-
Yes, thats it raven. The second video. Clearly shows Sibrel to be a liar...they completely ommited that from their moon hoax video. Wonder why... ;D
-
Sibrel initially claimed that clip wasn't part of the materials NASA sent him and was fabricated later to discredit him. Then Mark Gray (executive producer at Spacecraft Films) painstakingly showed that Sibrel had quoted from other portions of that same film clip and thus had no excuse for missing the exculpatory evidence.
-
This is one of the few things that actually gets me mad. I can take the sheer ignorance of many conspiracy theorists, as I myself am deeply ignorant on a lot of things, including much to do with Apollo. But this? This is is somebody preying on other's ignorance and fears for personal gain.
Sibrel (and Percy also) are nothing but frauds and thieves. Calling the kettle black, indeed!
-
"Knowing you, Mr. Sibrel, that's probably a fake bible." -- Neil Armstrong, during an encounter with Sibrel who demanded that he swear on a bible that he actually went to the moon.
I wish I was that good on my feet.
-
I believe our excitable friend Jarrah W. explains this shot by way of some as-yet-undiscovered studio "globe".
So we have one CT proposing a studio production using a mystery globe, another proposing a transparency taped to the viewport, and yet another proposing earth from low orbit, using the window as a cropping device.
What a perfect crystallization of their mode of operation. The best and only strategy the hoaxters have is to shoot arrows in the dark and hope one hits something.
-
I believe our excitable friend Jarrah W. explains this shot by way of some as-yet-undiscovered studio "globe".
So we have one CT proposing a studio production using a mystery globe, another proposing a transparency taped to the viewport, and yet another proposing earth from low orbit, using the window as a cropping device.
I think there is a variant of the last one in which it is a gibbous cut-out, as the lit Earth in that shot isn't even a circle. Still debunked by the above video though.
-
I believe our excitable friend Jarrah W. explains this shot by way of some as-yet-undiscovered studio "globe".
He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named also claimed that NASA weather forecasting was good enough to predict cloud patterns three days in advance, so they could have created accurate "transparencies" ahead of time. I guess that's another skill that was 'lost' along with everything else.
-
He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named also claimed that NASA weather forecasting was good enough to predict cloud patterns three days in advance, so they could have created accurate "transparencies" ahead of time. I guess that's another skill that was 'lost' along with everything else.
I think it would need to be longer than that, as someone would need to paint the cloud patterns in enough detail that no brush strokes are seen. That would take some time in itself.
-
Yet another example of how NASA has the budget and technology to do anything a conspiracy theorist imagines -- except fly to the Moon.
-
Yet another example of how NASA has the budget and technology to do anything a conspiracy theorist imagines -- except fly to the Moon.
You're in a position to have a sounder opinion on this than I am, but I'm still inclined to think that (as incredibly difficult as it was) actually going to the moon was easier than a hoax of this magnitude would have been.
-
Yeah man they went to every last detail with the earth in this hoax even right up to having accurate transparencies with the right weather patterns down to the last details...except for putting stars in the pictures of the sky they took on the moon stage for the EVA footage....they effed up on that one. ;)
-
You're in a position to have a sounder opinion on this than I am, but I'm still inclined to think that (as incredibly difficult as it was) actually going to the moon was easier than a hoax of this magnitude would have been.
Almost certainly, yes. I'm not an expert, but I can't figure out how they'd film it, much less anything else.
-
Yeah man they went to every last detail with the earth in this hoax even right up to having accurate transparencies with the right weather patterns down to the last details...except for putting stars in the pictures of the sky they took on the moon stage for the EVA footage....they effed up on that one. ;)
Or dig a crater under the LM for that matter.
-
they went to every last detail with the earth in this hoax even right up to having accurate transparencies with the right weather patterns down to the last details
Yes, and they even went so far as to accurately predict how skeptical 14-year olds in the 21st century would be able to sit down in front of something called a "desktop computer", and instantly access the corresponding satellite images.
NASA's ability to be simultaneously inept and all-powerful still astounds me.
-
Heck they even landed the flags, lunar surface experiments, and the descent stages on the moon at some point unmanned in anticipation of LRO taking pictures of these items some 40 years later. How are they so good at predicting future events 40 years into the future? Not to mention where you can see the soil is disturbed at the landing sites to make it look like astronauts were there walking around on it or driving the rovers on it. I'm not sure how they faked that one. Maybe they had some robots walking around to make the tracks. ;D
-
The robots are still there. Or did you really think those were descent stages you're looking at?
(or maybe I watched Transformers lately and need a more thorough brain-scrub)
-
I believe our excitable friend Jarrah W. explains this shot by way of some as-yet-undiscovered studio "globe".
So we have one CT proposing a studio production using a mystery globe, another proposing a transparency taped to the viewport, and yet another proposing earth from low orbit, using the window as a cropping device.
What a perfect crystallization of their mode of operation. The best and only strategy the hoaxters have is to shoot arrows in the dark and hope one hits something.
One need only look at the state of the art special effects in the original series of Star Trek to realise that Apollo could not possibly been faked. ST looked pretty good at the time (late 1960's) but it does not stand up under close scrutiny now.
-
One need only look at the state of the art special effects in the original series of Star Trek to realise that Apollo could not possibly been faked. ST looked pretty good at the time (late 1960's) but it does not stand up under close scrutiny now.
I dunno, I still think that giant cornucopia monster thing looks pretty authentic, with the sparks shooting out of its mouth.
-
I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better example of 60's special effects, and even it got things wrong plenty of times. Even now, TV effects lag behind what is possible in movies.
-
One need only look at the state of the art special effects in the original series of Star Trek to realise that Apollo could not possibly been faked. ST looked pretty good at the time (late 1960's) but it does not stand up under close scrutiny now.
I dunno, I still think that giant cornucopia monster thing looks pretty authentic, with the sparks shooting out of its mouth.
Well, to a youngster with age in the single digits, it was pretty darn terrifying! ;)
-
I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better example of 60's special effects, and even it got things wrong plenty of times.
Often deliberately. The moving starfield behind Discovery was known to be scientifically incorrect, for example, but was shown for cinematic reasons to convey the impression of motion. This philosophy is still in force. Where an object is meant to be moving, it has to be depicted as moving relative to the background or something else.
-
Wait a minute. You're telling me Star Trek isn't real???
-
I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better example of 60's special effects, and even it got things wrong plenty of times.
Often deliberately. The moving starfield behind Discovery was known to be scientifically incorrect, for example, but was shown for cinematic reasons to convey the impression of motion. This philosophy is still in force. Where an object is meant to be moving, it has to be depicted as moving relative to the background or something else.
Certainly. Often something can look, sound and feel 'wrong', even when it's factually more accurate than the wrong version. On the other hand, some of the errors were just plain errors.
-
I dunno, I still think that giant cornucopia monster thing looks pretty authentic, with the sparks shooting out of its mouth.
Well, to a youngster with age in the single digits, it was pretty darn terrifying! ;)
I remember a scene, I don't recall which episode, of a female crewmember dying.
She changed colour in a most eerie fashion while making a creepy sound.
That one actually gave me nightmares as a kid.
I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better example of 60's special effects, and even it got things wrong plenty of times.
Often deliberately. The moving starfield behind Discovery was known to be scientifically incorrect, for example, but was shown for cinematic reasons to convey the impression of motion. This philosophy is still in force. Where an object is meant to be moving, it has to be depicted as moving relative to the background or something else.
Certainly. Often something can look, sound and feel 'wrong', even when it's factually more accurate than the wrong version. On the other hand, some of the errors were just plain errors.
Reality Is Unrealistic. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic)
(TV Tropes link, so browser narcotic warning.)
-
I remember a scene, I don't recall which episode, of a female crewmember dying.
She changed colour in a most eerie fashion while making a creepy sound.
That one actually gave me nightmares as a kid.
The Lights of Zetar. And yeah, that was pretty creepy as a kid.
And then there were my mom's (not a fan) frequent disparaging comments. Example: in That Which Survives, Sulu is nearly killed by Lee Meriwether's touch. And all he can think of saying is "And she was so beautiful". "Aren't they all?" says my mom...
-
And it turns out she wasn't even his type!
-
And it turns out she wasn't even his type!
To be fair, we didn't know that until several decades later...
-
"Oh, myyyy........"
-
"Oh, myyyy........"
Slight correction...only 3 "Y's" in Oh Myyy (http://www.amazon.com/Myyy-There-Goes-The-Internet-ebook/dp/B00AHP5NY6). :D
-
"Oh, myyyy........"
Slight correction...only 3 "Y's" in Oh Myyy (http://www.amazon.com/Myyy-There-Goes-The-Internet-ebook/dp/B00AHP5NY6). :D
Clearly my Universal Translator was on the blink.