Camera moved so sun enters it, image overexposed... It seems to be a complex subject, here is some analysis that I don't completely understand:-
A mouse? Space X is fake? Does that mean the Starlink program is fake? How is that faked? Are other satellites faked as well? How come you can track and see satellites? Then how are Sentinel satellite images made?
A piece of solid oxygen ice that formed as the second stage Merlin engine vented liquid oxygen before ignition broke off from a vent and was caught by the exhaust gas manifold that surrounds the engine bell.
The same phenomenon has been seen in previous Falcon 9 launches.
https://youtu.be/TXMGu2d8c8g?t=2848 (47:30)
Further analysis: "Mouse" in Space (Frozen Oxygen) | Metabunk
Satellites exist as does space travel to low earth orbit around 400 miles above the earth maximum. Above that the radiation becomes dangerous to life.Its why if you had bothered to watch in Bart's movie you saw them faking the distance from the earth, you claim this was shown on TV in 1969, what was shown was the results of the fakery not them actually doing the fakery. If you can be bothered watching Astronauts gone wild, none of the astronauts he interviews claims this was already shown on TV.
How do you explain some astronauts claiming space is black with no stars, others claiming lots of stars? You think they would have been coached on their lies. I mean if they had been up there surely it would have been the most memorable thing they ever did? The whole thing is full of massive anomalies and inconsistencies all the way through, as are most lies, they keep getting tripped up on their lies. Great if you could come up with an explantion on this one, I am sure someone has covered it somewhere for you to copy and paste a reply.
I will tell you what I think, it was easier to fake a black background, rather than have stars moving and be caught out in the fake by not matching up the constellations and their movement correctly, thus the lie that it was pitch black. I am sure the sky is full of stars, even if I am wrong some of those astronauts are lying, they all can't be correct.
1:12
3:22 This is not proof that they are faking it with AR technology or (says CGI object) but was edited like that; the balloon appearing, as though beamed on purpose for a segment for youngsters.
3:25 Not a bluescreen/greenscreen, and besides; bluescreens do not have lines
3:25 The video creator added a fake greenscreen
3:32 A 3d model / map of the ISS is not proof that it is faked using 3D CGI technology
4:02 Star visibility:-
5:32 Lost technology:-
6:04 Lunar Rover. 38 million dollar price? What is the problem ? Lunar Roving Vehicle - Wikipedia
6:12 Who filmed this
6:20 Right now we only can fly in Eath orbit that's the farthest we can go
8:12 Just very low framerate (6 FPS) I don't see the issue with earth moving at another rate / stopping. Here's a higher quality one:-
More analysis (all issues debunked)
9:36 No stars visible. The sun is shining and reflecting off the earth. You cannot photograph such a bright object at the same time as stars. Basic photography issue.
9:40 No satellites. Even though there are alot of satellites and space junk out there they are spread very far apart. Similarly you could place thousands of objects in the Pacific Ocean and they would be very far spaced apart.
10:13 Stars visible through atmosphere, not through earth
10:34 "Only a few stars are visible despite long exposure time is used to capture the green lights" - no information how long the exposure time really is and it might not be that long.
10:53 The whole earth is visible.. Fisheye used.. See:
11:43 fake greenscreen
12:02 The man is fading out because of a standard cross-cut that was made when creating a video, not because it was a mistake and the man faked in
13:41 bubble not visible in dark mouth
13:50 Original footage needed for proper analysis
Stars from ISS on the day side: Stars not visible because the earth is so bright.
Stars from the ISS night side: If there is practically any light inside and perhaps the night side earth has some light too, perhaps dusk then probably quite hard to see then also.
Same thing if I look out my window to see stars at night and there is even a little bit of light inside then I will have trouble seeing them.
For a mission to the moon you would have the sun shining on you and would have to look out the right side with the inside completely blacked out to see stars.
These issues above are probably the reason for inconsistent reports.
On the moon you have the sun shining and reflecting off the surface. No stars visible. Similarly as earth at daytime. If one would try to photograph stars there by setting the camera shutter speed to many seconds the surface would be completely blown out.
Also takes a while to adjust your eyes.
Take this below image as an example:-
Think of how bright the earth is, and you have the sun somewhere behind you. Do you think your eyes are now able to see the faint stars?
Do an experiment. Go out at night and look at stars, let your eyes adjust. Then take out an ipad and hold it in front of you and set the brightness on the ipad to something similar like earth in the image... I do not believe you will be able to see stars at the same time. Not to mention photographing them and the ipad contents at the same time.
The stars moving and their movements, how do you mean and in what footage/photos?
The explanations how they got through the Van Allen belt seem believable to me. Besides, the whole information about it come from them too.
I watched it and went through the transcript. I have not gone through them all yet though. Didn't you read the analysis that I provided?
The claim that they faked the distance doesn't seem believable.
Even comparing the image to* *AS11-36-5337 between what Sibrel claims is fakery debunks it.
I believe the material Sibrel claims is some secret unearthed behind the scenes fakery material isn't that but has been available before as my analysis above claims.
Scenario: You are unscrewing a screw in in zero-g. You are exerting force on it How hard? Unknown. Let's say it's a bit tight.
You manage to unscrew it but your grip slips and...
What happens now?
A) the screw remains stationary where you let it go. It just stays there.
B) it flies off in a semirandom direction depending on how you let it go and what kind of force was exerted on it.
Tim Peake’s Scientific Demonstration on the ISS and the Green Screen Conspiracy Theory – FlatEarth.ws (Besides, what do you see behind this blue screen? The ISS. So they are faking he is inside the ISS inside the ISS?
The rest is just compression artifacts, missing keyframes probably. I've worked with digital video since even before RealVideo in the 90s RealVideo - Wikipedia
I like how you avoid calling the astronauts who saw brilliant stars liars, by claiming they have specially adapted eyes unlike the others "Stars are dim. We can only see them if our eyes are adapted for low light. Astronauts in space can see the stars when the sun is blocked from view and avoid seeing any large sunlit objects." Sounds a bit implausible. What happened for instance when Apollo 11 supposedly went around the dark side of the moon, every single astronaut on that flight claims pitch blackness the whole time with no stars. One of the astronaut Collins I believe remained on the "mother ship" the whole time. So do you see how this reasoning of yours falls apart?
I mean if you do a time lapse photograph of the sky at night the stars move relative to the earth, this would be hard to fake in a studio where I believe the footage on the moon was faked. It was film in a massive hangar. Claiming its pitch black all the time would get around this technological cimematic problem. Also to paint all the stars on the ceiling an eagle eyed amateur astonomer would easily spot the decaption.
Your link doesn't work for me "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below."
How do you also explain the CIA prompting Armstrong to talk using a 4 second delay, to make the distance they were supposed to be from earth credible, or do you have another explanation where this voice that says "TALK" comes from. You always have an explanation for ALL of these inconsistencies and I am sure you won't disappoint this time, remember it's NASA footage.
Can you provide footage of where this exclusive footage was shown before on TV, before Sibrel got hold of it? I am not talking about the results of the forgery but how they darkened the inside of the space module and had the camera placed as far as they could get it from the one remaining porthole that remained uncovered. No disrespect to you but you have claimed a guy who spent years of his life uncovering this stuff at much personal cost is re-cycling old TV footage. Perhaps you could provide the evidence?
Here Bart explains how claims that the footage was shown before are false.