That's the link Bart sent me when I requested the footage you were after.
Description from Sibrel's video:-
"Apollo astronaut Eugene Cernan claimed that the Earth was continually seen just over the moon’s horizon during his entire “moonwalk”, (not up in the sky out of view of photographs as conveniently claimed on other missions) and that it was four times bigger than a full moon on Earth. Why then is it then, that there is not even ONE photograph of this amazing sight?
Before believing or refuting what Sibrel says about Cernan it is a good idea to first see if he's claim is true. I've not been able to find the quote.
As the moon is tidal locked with the earth and thus always showing the same side towards earth and they landed on the "light" side of the moon I believe the earth did not rise/set at all but was quite high in the sky all the time.
The famous earthrise image was taken from orbit.
Here's a photo of Cernan with the earth behind him:
Surely, if you were really on the moon, you would want a picture of yourself standing there with the big Earth right over your shoulder, like a tourist in Paris with the Eiffel Tower in the background, yet the only photograph of the Earth allegedly taken from the moon’s surface during his mission, is one of it far up in the sky, and that slightly smaller than a full moon on Earth, when it should have covered a very large part of the horizon!
In the first paragraph Sibrel says there's no such picture but now he acknowledges one?
Taking a picture of the Eiffel tower behind you is quite different than taking a picture in the dark of you with the luminous moon or the earth behind you.
Here is a typical photograph of the moon. 4 times as much would not be that much and not cover a large part of the horizon.
Next we need to take into account the Moon illusion when talking about the apparent size of the moon. On earth the moon appears huge when it's close to the horizon but disappointingly it's the same size as always as people then notice in their photos. And the appearance/size of the moon (or earth) in the photos of course depend on what kind of camera / lense / zoom / settings are used.
In the video Sibrel features the Moon transiting Earth taken by the EPIC telescope. Sibrel has included no explanation as to why. It would be interesting to know why.
It's a video that flat-earthers and NASA-deniers often laugh at without understanding why it looks like it looks. The answer to this is perspective and field of view.
EPIC View of Moon Transiting the Earth
This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth - one million miles away.
"The reason that there is no detailed picture of the Earth alongside an astronaut from the moon’s surface is that, because they were not really on the moon, a model of the Earth would have to be fabricated which could exactly depict the accurate proportion of continents facing the moon at every single minute into the mission, along with the current weather patterns on top of them at that time, plus the model would have to be rotating realistically at the precise proper speed, all of which would have to occur simultaneously, a feat which apparently proved to be too difficult.
I wonder how big Sibrel thinks the earth should appear on the moon. I don't think it would have been that hard to have a model turn the right speed (1 turn per 24 hours). The weather patterns? Why doesn't he bring up them when he claims the Apollo 11 astronauts were faking earth in the window?
Various "earthrise" images are quite detailed and I don't know how they would have faked them, or especially the images taken on the way to the moon](NASA Finally Reveals the Truth About Fake Moon Landings - #266 by deleted) are impressive and third party individuals have compared the weather patterns to images from weather satellites.
This is the same reason why the vast stars in the universe were never shown, which should have been seen very, very clearly with no atmosphere and a black sky, yet they were neither shown in the background behind the astronauts nor were there any photographs specifically taken of them by themselves (which should have been spectacular and in even greater detail than on Earth), all because replicating them, as well as their accurate astrological positions in the sky as they faced that side of the moon at that very moment in time, and simultaneously rotating them while keeping their proper alignments with each other, also proved to be too difficult.
This shows how poorly Sibrel understands photography. The stars are just too faint to be photographed together with brightly lit objects. As I've explained and provided links before.
Discussion, explanation:
In fact, the crews were instructed to never talk about the stars so that this discrepancy would not be brought to the public’s attention, all the while they supposedly took star charts along with them to help them navigate accurately to the moon!
In fact? Source?
Images of astronauts + earth below:-
AS17-134-20384 Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt with the U.S. flag and the Earth in the sky. Taken during the mission's first EVA on the lunar surface on December 19, 1972.
AS17-134-20471 A dirty Gene Cernan (Apollo 17)
AS17-134-20473 (13 Dec. 1972) --- Earth appears in the far distant background above the hi-gain antenna of the Lunar Roving Vehicle in this photograph taken by scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt during the third Apollo 17 extravehicular activity (EVA) at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. Astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, Apollo 17 commander, stands beside the LRV. Schmitt is the mission's lunar module pilot. While Cernan and Schmitt descended in the lunar module "Challenger" to explore the moon, astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules in lunar orbit.
AS14-64-9194 Apollo 14 Hasselblad image from film magazine 64/LL - EVA-2
even more here:-
You didn't find anything incriminating, no sign of anything placed in the window, and no CIA agents instructing the Astronauts? So my video wasn't disinfo?
Worth noting that Sibrel for some reason (incompetence?) has stretched the video to the wrong aspect ratio.
Undestood.
Thank you for asking Sibrel. Perhaps you could ask himl again? And ask him what this video is, did he combine two videos to create it (the crew activities and then material on the moon)? And why is the red notice missing? And please ask him about where he got the footage from Timecode 99 21 07 ?
I thought I posted this yesterday but can't find it now:-
I posted this analysis previously but wasn't quite sure where the footage was from:-
I investigated and found it:-
So it seems that Sibrel used footage from that video (From timecode 99 21 07…) and that video also includes footage which CLEARLY debunks his theory how they faked the distance to the moon through the window.
NASA says they are going back to the moon to stay, by 2024.
Independent video of Apollo launch. Looks much slower than NASA footage and bears out what these guys are saying - Did this Saturn V Rocket Get to the Moon? | AULIS Online – Different Thinking
NASA fake everything it seems.
NASA’s $93BN Plan to Return to the Moon (Will it work?)
This is what is being planned:
In two years, NASA plans to land humans on the Moon. NASA’s Artemis Program, which will establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, is currently underway. It has 4 main components: The space launch system, or SLS, which will launch astronauts into orbit. The Orion spacecraft, which will transport them to and from the Moon. The human landing system, which will transport them to and from the lunar surface. And Gateway, a space station that will support ground operations.
Already, Artemis 1, which launched in November 2022, has successfully demonstrated the SLS and Orion, by sending an un-crewed Orion around the Moon and back to Earth. The next mission, in 2024, will launch astronauts around the Moon and finally, in 2025, they will land on the surface. After this, many more missions will establish a permanent human lunar presence, serving as a stepping stone to Mars and other destinations even further into the solar system
$93 billion? Wow more fraud. They have been promising to "go back" to the moon for decades, this "promise'" will end the same way...I am sure by 2025 the economic collapse will be well under way as will WW3.
That's certainly possible, and it looks even likely. But, maybe it's also ok to dream a little every now and again. I remember so wanting to become an astronaut, as a kid. Of course, it (space) could only ever happen, if allowed. But what I like, is that when people think about trying to go to space, they tend to stop thinking of always having to be at war with other people, because it would require cooperation instead. So, it may be a dream, but it may also be inspiring people to not want to be at war with each other, when thinking about the "what if".
I just saw this, a new "Back to the Moon" Special by CBS America
Back to the Moon FULL SPECIAL | NOVA | PBS America
Fifty years after humans first set foot on the Moon, new scientific discoveries are fueling excitement for a return to the lunar surface - this time, to stay. Join the scientists and engineers working to make life on the Moon a reality.
About PBS America:
Welcome to PBS America, a British TV channel from America’s public service broadcaster, PBS, showcasing award-winning American history, science, current affairs, plus arts and culture shows alongside the works of living legend Ken Burns, output is all hand-picked by a British team.
Not saying we can or that they will do it, only, that it would be cool if we could one day actually do that..
Rev. 29:19 And their spirit will inherit the Earth. And they will have dominion over the stars even to the tenth planet.
Good Post, and I sure shared many of those sentiments growing up as a kid in the 60's. Interestingly you also touch on one of the reasons why they did indeed fake it. Back in the 1960's the Vietnam War was hugely unpopular worldwide as well as among the US population. They even showed real war footage on the nightly news, unlike the way they sanitize the wars the media cover now. The "so called moon landing", had the effect of elevating the USA status in the eyes of the world as well amongst the American public. It also gave the perception that the USA had won the space race, even though by all yardsticks up until that point Russia had been way ahead; interestingly Russia still has much better missile tech as is being proved in Ukraine.
Another reason people go along with the narrative is people think it was a harmless, and that no one died. Ok, it wasn't like 9/11 where 3000 died, but there were casualties. Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee, the crew of Apollo 1, were all murdered by the CIA according to Betty and Scott Grissom, Gus' wife and son, in a deliberate fire. Gus Grissom and his crew were slated to be the first to go to the moon, but he proved too out-spoken, and was taken out. Some 10 Apollo astronauts also met non space travel "fatal accidents" in just a 3 year period leading up to the grand deception. Of course none of the NASA apologists want to look at such inconvenient facts.
Popov's articles about this subject are long, technical and detailed... Here's one thing that caught my eye:
He's using the height of the cirrostratus to calculate the altitude of the rocket.
According to NASA [2], the sky was 90% covered with a whitish translucent haze of fine and high cirrostratus clouds. Although their height is not given in [2], it is known from reference [1, 3-5] that these types of clouds are rarely higher than 26,000 feet (8 kms).
If we google the cirrostratus cloud altitude we find that they can exist between 6km and 13km. The max altitude is a difference of over 62% to 8km
This is confirmed by the data [2] on Apollo 13: on the day of Apollo 13 launch the similar cirrostratus clouds were at an altitude of 26,000 feet (8 kms).
Confirmed? By the day of the Apollo 13 launch nearly one year later?
So if the Saturn V was somehow fake and wasn't really able to go to orbit / space that would mean that all the moon missions were fake and also Skylab.... and now since the ISS is clearly real they did however manage to create a rocket after Saturn V that is able to go to space ? It just doesn't add up. Besides we see from Apollo 11 footage that they are in zero-g.
It would mean all third party evidence of the Apollo missions were faked too
https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
Everything? Not very professional to debate this way. (Matt 5:37)
It's not like I'm saying for instance that Bart Sibrel is faking everything just because it seems that he's included footage in his documentary sourced from a video that debunks the pièce de résistance of the documentary.
2x speed
So are these crew members on the ISS actors? Real persons but high level freemasons and in on the con? Are the saudis now in on it?
How do they ensure the wires don't get entangled? And how long did it take to paint out the wires and wireharnesses?
The ISS is in low earth Orbit, below the Van Allen Belts, some of the footage maybe from there, some may not be like this one, from Houston:
Faked missions on earth are of course cheaper.
The US has a massive influence over Saudi dating back to the 1930's....
Interestingly Stanislav Pokrovsky, agrees with his findings, see here - Apollo program - Wikispooks.
Personally I believe the Apollo missions went into Low Earth Orbit.
So you really don't understand what is obviously going on in this video, and you're spreading at on your Brighteon channel? Tells alot about your reasoning ability.
Here's what they are saying:-
Greetings Houston, and happy 4th of July.
I'm NASA astronaut Kjell Lindgren along with my NASA crewmate Bob Hines orbiting aboard the International Space Station.
Along with our nations independence day we're also celebrating the 60th anniversary of NASA's Johnson Space Center.
Houston is called space city because NASA's Johnson Space Station is the home of human space flight. We design the missions, train the crews, and orchestrate the flights from right here in Houston.
Houston was the first to receive words form the surface of the moon and the next giant leap will also start right here in Houston.
As we bring the world along with us, we're poised to inspire a new generation of explorers to reach greater heights as we push forward to the Moon and on to Mars under NASA's Artemis program.
Houston is also home of millions of amazing people who supported NASA and the space program through the years. Every US astronaut in the history of the space program and the thousands of aerospace employees and contractors who support that training live, work, and raise our families in this great city. Thank you for your partnership and support. So today let's celebrate together, Happy 4th of July
Question:
Are they:
[EDIT: Edited the questions to make them even more clearer to understand]
a) Are really in a fake studio set of the ISS in Houston and are ad-libbing what they are saying and revealing their true location by mistake, three times]
b) Are really in a studio set of the ISS in Houston and reading the speech that they've prepared themselves beforehand and revealing their true location by mistake, three times first in writing and then when reading it aloud.
c) Are really on the ISS in orbit and are reading a pre-prepared speech about Houston Space Center on it's 60th anniversary that someone at NASA/Houston Space Center prepared and possibly didn't think the ISS astronauts would be reading and that there would be a problem with flat-earthers and NASA-hoax-conspiracy theories
OR :
d) Really not in space at all, and really in a studio set of the ISS in Houston.
e) In an aircraft diving to create zero gravity.
To make it clear Low Earth Orbit is NOT "right here in Houston". I thought you wanted me to believe what NASA employees were saying?
They can't be too bright then, eh?
That's what I meant with B). So that's your theory? That they prepared this speech themselves but are idiots and revealed they are in Houston three times?
The answer is clearly C) In the speech they are talking about Houston Space Station and say:
"Houston is called space city because NASA's Johnson Space Station is the home of human space flight. We design the missions, train the crews, and orchestrate the flights from right here in Houston."
So they clearly aren't talking about themselves. It's not the astronauts that design the missions, train the crews etc.
Perhaps the desire to find NASA mistakes has made NASA-doubters blind from obvious things.
You only get 20-30 seconds of zero gravity and it doesn't look consistent/smooth as the airplane doesn't fly perfectly.
I've edited the questions to make them even more easy to understand.
Its funny how NASA apologists rationalize Everything Astronauts say be it Van Allen Belts etc. It's amusing.
"EVENTUALLY Go To Moon" - MM11
What is the NASA cultists translation of this? I believe this guy even though he works for NASA. Take your time, I know it's difficult to understand through the cognitive dissonance.