The Moon-landings - NASA's Hoaxes & Lies (new video evidence)

[gravityblock]

This audio clip from NASA's archives : http://www.dvidshub.net/audio/32203/apollo-11#.UZrhej7cwmY
is over 2 hours long.   There are many periods of long silence (several minutes at a time in some cases) so one would assume it has not been edited to remove dead air space.   Yet there were many times in the audio clip where responses between Houston and the astronauts on the moon were immediate (easily 1/2 second or less).  Time between Houston voice and Houston reception of Astronaut voice = or > 2.4 seconds by any logic.   Actual time heard in this audio above is often less than 1/4 second.
I understand what you are saying about Astronaut voice followed by Houston response being brief.    So far it would appear the brief times were only when Houston responded to an Astronaut.   It seems most Astronaut responses to Houston were around 2.5 seconds.   This seems to validate they were on the Moon unless you want to believe they put in all those delays as part of the fakery.   Also interesting in this audio was the statement about there being a 12 second delay between what Houston got for video/audio and the TV networks which got it 12 seconds later (mention of it going through a converter box).   
I'm leaning toward believing as I always had that we were indeed on the Moon.   Sure there are a lot of reasons one might tend to buy into the hoax theories but they seem on far shakier ground than the mountains of evidence I've sifted through today.     
I did however find one instance in the recording above where Astronaut response was immediate to a Houston question.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xciCJfbTvE4#t=1984s

I guess your response to a private party telling the astronauts when to 'talk' will be that it was edited into the above film.  If I was NASA or the astronauts I would sue the hell out of them and others like them for doing such a thing (slander and libel).  However, if the film is genuine, then they don't have much of a case, do they?

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Every single thing the pro-hoax proponents assert has been rebutted.  Every single thing.   Now whether you buy the rebuttals or not is another thing, as certainly the argument can be carried further in some cases.  But amazingly, and almost without exception, every single hoaxer that comes on here spews the exact same crap that has already been rebutted, and they act like they have never read a single thing against their position.


You at least realize the explanation behind some missing lag (editing).  Also there are times where if you are not thinking, you might expect delay, but there should not be.  For example, when you hear the astronauts, and Houston responds immediately, well that is normal, as the recording is taking place here on earth.


I think if you were to examine all the real time audio,  you would find delay where it needs to be.

What is the rebuttal for the 'window trickery' that shortly follows the secondary private party telling the astronauts when to 'talk' as referenced by the video FatBird brought to our attention?  Also, why NASA hasn't released any comments on the fiber optic portion of the lunar camera, which destroys their rebuttal of a 'transparency' effect caused by a primitive vidicon tube they originally claimed to be using.  Also note, the colored camera used during the 'window trickery', so why a camera with a primitive vidicon tube to shoot the moon landing?  The only reasonable and logical answer is NASA claimed to be using a camera with a vidicon tube as a rebuttal for the 'transparency' effect caused by the front screen projection and blue screen when the angle and lighting wasn't perfect.  If I was NASA I would use the best camera I had for the moon landing, especially for a live broadcast event, but this is clearly not the case as reported by them.  The video shows clear audio and video manipulation of a staged event by the astronauts themselves.  What is their rebuttal to this piece of evidence?

Gravock

[MileHigh]

Gravityblock:

When it suits you you use a blue screen effect and when it also suits you you use the Kubrick rear-projection effect.  What that means is that the conspiracy theorists can't agree among themselves.

Certainly the "shadows at the wrong angles" argument is totally false for anybody with half a brain.  I can walk down the street on a sunny day and see shadows at different angles.

I watched two out of the five parts you linked to.  In part two they take some film camera still images and increase the contrast and turn the black sky into dark blue with white dots and white splotches all over the place.  You also clearly see that the sky is broken up into segments like a checkerboard.

Well, chances are that most of the "white dots" are STARS.  Did they bother to check if the white dots line up with the expected star pattern?  I bet not.  Can you buy a good astronomy package for your computer that will show what the star pattern in the sky looks like on any day at any hour in 1969?  I bet you can!

They claim the "segments" observed in the frame are the special rear-projection screens all stitched together.  But in the Stanley Kubrick film clip we are clearly shown that the rear projection screen is very large, apparently much larger than the alleged segments of rear projection screen stitched together in the photographs!  At the same time, any engineer worth his salt will know how hard it is to prevent digital clocking signals from superimposing clock noise on any signal, especially very low level signals.  So the "segments" we see in the digitized photographs is just the digital hardware in the image scanning system adding very low level digital noise to the scanned images.  You are simply looking at the scanning clock signals for the image acquisition hardware being superimposed on the digital version of the film photograph.   And you think of all of the brainiacs that worked on that moon landing conspiracy movie and not one of them could postulate this explanation!

MileHigh

[gravityblock]

Gravityblock:

When it suits you you use a blue screen effect and when it also suits you you use the Kubrick rear-projection effect.  What that means is that the conspiracy theorists can't agree among themselves.

....
.......

MileHigh

Let me know when you're finished watching all 5 parts and the video FatBird referenced.  Also, the front screen projection technique uses a projector, a camera, a semi-transparent mirror, and a blue screen with a scothlite screen at 90⁰ to each other.  The front projection, the blue screen, and the scothlite screen (which you refered to as the rear projection) is part of the same method producing the 'transparency' effect when the angle and lighting isn't correct.  In other words, the "blue screen effect" and Kubricks "rear projection effect" are the same thing (have another look at the image below describing the front projection technique with a blue screen and a scothlite screen).  So, your conclusions on using either the "blue screen effect" or the "rear projection effect" according to which one suits us the best is totally wrong based on your lack of understanding of the process itself.

Gravock

[MileHigh]

Gravityblock:

You are right that I got my terminology wrong and I am not 100% clear how the system that Stanley Kubrick used to great success works.  However, to the best of my recollection you end up with the illusion of an image projected on a rear screen.

I don't know if I will have the time or desire to fully research this and figure it all out.

One thing seems pretty certain though:  The moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists do not want to do a proper investigation and ask themselves if there are alternative explanations to their theories.

Look at the example of the shadows.  The analysis by the conspiracy theorists is infantile and silly.

There was a case where I saw how a conspiracy theorist was freaking out because he saw pictures of small models and a small mock-up of the moon's surface.  Well, that's because they didn't have computer graphics simulation in the 1960s and they simply "flew" a camera over a small model lunar landscape to generate the video scene for the landing simulator.

In a related matter there is a well known short Apollo clip of a "UFO" that "suddenly changes direction."  However, you see the plume from the maneuvering retro-rocket.  It's just a small piece of junk outside the command module, like a piece of ice, that changes direction when the retro rocket fires.

I think I watched the second longer movie about two years ago and I wasn't impressed.   Sorry that I can't do a full check into this stuff, there are only so many hours in a day.

MileHigh