Your cartoon proves nothing and you can't even prove it, unless you have the telemetry data, because NASA lost it all conveniently. Obviously Bart thinks we never went to the moon so why on earth would he acknowledge it? He showed NASA footage of them faking being half way to the moon a day or 2 into the mission, while still in Low Earth Orbit, why on earth would you think he would believe they went through the Van Allen Belts? Good Grief, do keep up. If Alan Bean had no idea about the Van Allen belts, this looks like something that was made up by NASA's propaganda department after the event it's BS.
" Once you are past the Van Allen shields, for example between the earth and the moon, you would be subject to the full brunt of solar flares. The Van Allen shields protect us here on Earth from this deadly radiation.
For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the “occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled” that the limit of an “effective dose of 50 mSv” “in any single year” “be not exceeded”. 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.
How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?
How did the astronauts survive the deadly radiation without the protection of the Van Allen belts while on the moon?
The hulls of the Apollo spacecraft were ultra-thin. They would have been unable to stop any significant amount of radiation. The same can be said for the spacesuits."
“In the very same NASA post that discusses Moon rocks being constantly bombarded with absurdly high levels of radiation, another curious admission can be found: “meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon.” Our old friend from NASA, David McKay, explains that “Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts.” NASA then explains that that “could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere … like the Moon.””
“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” given that they never subsequently released any of the actual “live” footage.
It isn’t just the video footage that’s missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data — the entire alleged record of the Moon landings — was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be “missing.”
"For example, the radiation exposure data the Apollo mission recorded in the Van Allen belt was put into a NASA document in 1973. However, the monitoring data utilized to write the report is missing. This is astonishing and no minor footnote. "
Cybe you asked me about this before. It's why a modern mission couldn't provide such crappy pictures and thus would be open to much more scrutiny.
Science in Action [#355]: Earth's Radiation Belt (1959) | California Academy of Sciences
Science in Action [#355]: Earth's Radiation Belt (1959) | California Academy...
There is a wire there because Doug pulls the other guy towards him, with no obvious contact to his clothing, the possibility they post-filming edit out the obvious wires seems never have occured to you. The movement of the other guy gives the game away, of a harness wire being present.
The whole Apollo programme is full of inconsistencies and yes many have indeed found them.
Apologies, I can't reply to all of your messages and arguments right now.
Again, you keep ignoring that the faking of the distance has been thoroughly debunked in my previous links.
And of course this that you also completely ignore. S11-36-5337 and other high resolution photographs taken with a Hasselblad through the window correlates to the TV footage.
Are you able to see the video above?
I am ignoring it because he used raw NASA footage, anything extra to that is a fudge. It is what it is. It has time and date stamps on it and commentary. What could you add to that but more fakery? He was sent this film in error, it was never meant to have been sent out....not interested in NASA edited and cleaned up shots taken at a different time...the timing is key. I will get round to watching it sometime, but really for me its a waste of time, I used to believe it was real 8 years or so ago, I won't be going back to being someone who believes we went to the moon, there is too much evidence to prove we didn't and the same people that did this lie about everything. Did you get their safe and effective vaccine by the way, if not, why not? Its the same people behind that scam too, or do you think government is compartmentalized into good parts and bad parts?. When I get time will send you the whole 90 minute or so reel, if my memory serves me well, think it was about that long.Didn't you notice all the light coming into the capsule when they removed the covers at the end?? They were in near earth orbit. Probably won't be until mid-next week now as I too am busy. Have a good weekend and Sabbath.
Here's a quick limited reply. Unable right now to go through all the material that you've posted.
No, he was not sent the footage by mistake, and if you look and listen to it it's clear they didn't fake anything as my links show and explain.
If they faked it from low earth orbit it would look completely different and would not stay static, as shown and explained in my previous links.
How would NASA edit or "clean" up the low resolution TV camera footage to become high resolution photographs? Or how would they be faked in the 60s? Photoshop didn't exist and I've never seen planet paintings that look this realistic.
Here's the whole roll of photos (roll 36):-
Error: missing query parameters file 0.058542693805979 (not sure if this result is static or will disappear from their cache.. it was output by searching "AS11-36" in the box titled " Search using NASA Photo IDs" at the middle of this page)
= Tell me you don't understand how camera exposure works without saying you don't understand how camera exposure works.
Again,if anyone else is reading this thread and have not seen my older posts with links to CLEAR debunkings of this, here they are again. It seems The Prisoner won't look / address them, which is understandable (cognitive dissonance).
Let's look at them and analyze them one inconsistency at a time...
His pocket is changing chape...
And again, they are doing multi-axis moves that you can't do with a harness.
The Apollo 11 spacecraft doesn't even have circular windows...
EDIT: except one: the rather large round window in the hatch.... but that's clearly not the one they are filming through.
Please do. I believe it's this one though:-
Here's the transcript Apollo 11 - Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription
Watching it unedited thoroughly debunks Siebrel because he has edited it deceptively in his video, as explained in this thorough debunking of "A Funny thing.." that I just came across:-
No, to me he seems to be telling the truth and enthusiastically explaining things he noticed about it, and how it once happened on the moon too. I'm not seeing any signs on deceit.
I haven't been able to find the full uncut interview. I found one with a stupid edit, then I also found this where Bean swears (which is something you shouldn't do) on the Bible that they went to the moon.
They could avoid the worst part of the Van Allen Belt and on Apollo 12 it probably wasn't a big deal anymore so it hasn't made a big imprint in his memory.
Besides, Alan Bean seems to be over 80 in this interview.
He starts off by saying:-
"No, i'm not sure we went far enough to encounter the Van Allen Radiation belt. maybe we did".
If one says "i'm not sure" does that not often mean "I don't remember"?
He might also have separated in his mind the most dangerous part of it with the part of it that they crossed on their route.
Then he recollects and explains what it looks like when you close your eyes and observe radiation hitting you and to me it seems as genuine memories and not lying.
Not even briefed on phenomena? What's your source, or did you make that up?
Not that it is a problem that they used an electrical light but you can get shadows that look like they intersect from sunlight too. Uneven surfaces and perspective are the reason.
SImilarly many flat earthers believe that crepuscular rays prove that the sun is local (and just above the clouds) when it's just perspective that makes them look not pararell.
Also, Siebrel has slightly exaggerated the apparent angles of the shadows in his example image (He's file named titled Shadow.tif, source uknown (which I believe is AS17-136-20744).
I believe that something like this (below) is a more accurate interpretation of the angles of the shadows, converging normally at the vanishing point. There are two rocks that have shadows that appear to be angled differently that surface irregularities can cause (+ see note about multiple light source below)
source of the analysis below
That first image illustrates another property of shadows that shows there is a single light source - if the shadow of the camera is in the photo, then lines drawn from an object through its own shadow (eg the tips of the posts here) will converge at the shadow of the camera:
AS17-136-20744 from Apollo 17 is an extreme example of "non-parallel shadows", but they obey this rule, meeting in the chest area where the camera was mounted.
It's not always easy to tell exactly which part of an irregular rock casts the shadow, and of course irregularities in the surface mean that the alignment will not always be 100% perfect, but it's pretty clear what is happening.)
I hope you don't take a quick and easy way to dismiss the above analysis from Metabunk by saying it's a source that can't be trusted.
And again, if multiple light sources were used there would be multiple shadows per object, has never been seen in NASA moon images.
Example:
Well, Bart Siebrel is featuring it on his site for some reason. If the paths of moon missions were recorded in telemetry I don't think moon-doubters would be able to decode it or that it satisfy them as evidence.
Presidents/NASA saying they are going to the moon again but not going / postponing it still isn't proof that the moon missions were faked.
Or slightly better from the 70s... Apollo 17.
6 moon missions, all looking consistent.
And at 4:27 Siebrel takes up this article: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1157145/Moon-landing-NASA-chief-admits-Apollo-technology-cannot-land-Moon-Jim-Bridenstine which for some reason has the stupid clickbaity wording "Half-a-century later, however, NASA’s top brass has admitted Apollo’s lunar landers are no longer adequate for modern lunar exploration."
The material to the article originates from this blog post Artemis is Our Future – Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine which clearly explains the reasons.
And he doesn't have to explain the following which I'm going to quote without naming the source because it will be attacked:
...So, when the Apollo program ended, the factories that assembled those vehicles were retasked or shut down. The jigs were disassembled. The molds were destroyed. The technicians, engineers, scientists, and flight controllers moved onto other jobs. Over time, some of the materials used became obsolete.
If we, today, said - "Let us build another Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM/LEM and go to the moon!" it would not be a simple task of pulling out the blueprints and bending and cutting metal.
We don't have the factories or tools. We don't have the materials. We don't have the expertise to understand how the real vehicle differed from the drawings. We don't have the expertise to operate the vehicle.
We would have to substitute modern materials. That changes the vehicle. It changes the mass, it changes the stresses and strains, it changes the interactions. It changes the possible malfunctions. It changes the capabilities of the vehicle.
We would have to spend a few years re-developing the expertise. We would have to conduct new tests and simulations. We would have to draft new flight rules and procedures. We would have to certify new flight controllers and crew.
We would essentially be building a new vehicle.
Not that many years ago when everyone was switching from vinyl records to CD records almost all vinyl factories shut down and there was a real risk of us losing that technology and knowhow. Now we could say, "now that we have CD technology which is lightyears ahead of vinyl records how is it that we can't create a simply vinyl record anymore, that's bullcrap"
Another one: "Are we led to believe that now 45 years later with much more modern printing press technology and know how that we couldn't spin up this old printing press"
Sibrel uses the fact that B-52s are still being used today but I don't believe that comparison is that simple. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Interesting reading:-
Siebrel also says that "NASA threw away the blueprints obviously to cover up" but that's not true. (Good insights on this here: https://www.quora.com/Did-NASA-lose-the-blueprint-plans-for-the-Apollo-spacecraft-How-and-why-What-about-some-of-the-the-videos-or-photos-of-the-Apollo-missions-Again-how-or-why
Or better yet; since you know Siebrel, ask him to do a complete high quality scan of it and upload to Archive.org or something since he claims it's some special secret NASA tape they sent by mistake...
In this video below (source: Source: SpaceCraft Films - Apollo 11: Men on the Moon) we can see both the earth and the square window, completely debunking Siebrel, again.
Alternative source (45 minutes in)
Read his Book 'Moon Man'. You totally incorrect about this, Bill Kaysing even thought it was sent by a NASA whistleblower.
Bart is a multi-award winning cinematographer, editor.
Again read his book instead of watching and submitting lying propaganda:
Amazon.com Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List
You seem very naive not to realize an organization with a $54m a day budget wouldn't be spending some of this on counter-propaganda.
1 Like
Your problem is you get hold of something which jives with your confirmation bias and you think you are right. Did you take your safe and effective vaccination shots? All your arguments are covered in his book, your points are not original....