Question about Moon Landing - Banned in USA, rare NASA footage

karaokeman

Hi all.
Firstly I know there is probably already a topic for the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories (that's probably a dead topic now) and I do not by any means believe the whole thing was a hoax.

There is one video on youtube however that caught my attention and I still can't get over it.

It is banned in America but is rare footage of the Moon Landing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM

I just have 2 questions about this video;
1. What is the story with the window scene and how does it prove anything?
2. In the end part how did they know when the astronauts were on Earth (they said they were on the Moon 9 hours later).

Any opinions on this?
Ta
Karaokeman

Cinful

karaokeman wrote: »

It is banned in America but is rare footage of the Moon Landing

YouTube vid? Banned in America? When YouTube is headquartered at 1000 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, California? Does anyone see the problem with the "banned" claim? :rolleyes:

PirateShampoo

lol banned video thats free to veiw on youtube.

Ken_Is_Here

Cinful wrote: »

Does anyone see the problem with the "banned" claim? :rolleyes:

PirateShampoolol banned video thats free to veiw on youtube.

I would take it that the 'Banned in America' refers to the original footage being banned from public viewing or to the tv show that the video clip with narration was taken from.

But if you're looking to ignore the content of the OP and the video itself.....

Torakx

It is an interesting video.One i hadnt seen.
Does anyone contest its authenticity?

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

Does anyone contest its authenticity?

I'd have a stance of asking people to confirm its authenticity rather than assuming its true.

Torakx

thecommander wrote: »

I'd have a stance of asking people to confirm its authenticity rather than assuming its true.

yes me too i just didnt want to get dragged into a too and fro debate lol.
I personally cant see a reason why it wouldnt be real footage but would also appreciate more info on the video or a more expert opinnion on why it isnt authentic.
How would one go about confirming this anyway?I have no clue.

namloc1980

The whole idea being promoted by that video is bizarre. The youtube video suggests that the film shot by the astronauts is not from 100,000+ miles away but is in fact from low earth orbit and they are filming the earth through a window with some sort rig attached to window to make the earth appear smaller and look like a crescent. Does anyone else see the glaring/epic problem with this??

Torakx

namloc1980 wrote: »

The whole idea being promoted by that video is bizarre. The youtube video suggests that the film shot by the astronauts is not from 100,000+ miles away but is in fact from low earth orbit and they are filming the earth through a window with some sort rig attached to window to make the earth appear smaller and look like a crescent. Does anyone else see the glaring/epic problem with this??

Do you mean the clouds arent moving fast enough considering they are supposed to be close to earth?
Thats the only thing iwas looking for during the second half of the vid when i heard that they were supposed to bein earth orbit.But i dont remember myself if the clouds would move visibly anyway so you willhave to fill me in on what you are thinking there.

namloc1980

Torakx wrote: »

Do you mean the clouds arent moving fast enough considering they are supposed to be close to earth?
Thats the only thing iwas looking for during the second half of the vid when i heard that they were supposed to bein earth orbit.But i dont remember myself if the clouds would move visibly anyway so you willhave to fill me in on what you are thinking there.

Yes of course........it's obvious!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVBtZ8t2BY

Mahatma coat

I've always been curious about the 'live' feed, why couldnt anyone else besides NASA recieve signals from the Astronauts, surely if the Russians could track the Module they could recievethe signas being broadcast back.

namloc1980

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I've always been curious about the 'live' feed, why couldnt anyone else besides NASA recieve signals from the Astronauts, surely if the Russians could track the Module they could recievethe signas being broadcast back.

The Jodrell Bank radio observatory in the UK tracked the apollo missions to the moon.

Wibbs

As did a number of other radio telescopes, including russian ones.

robtri

Wibbs wrote: »

As did a number of other radio telescopes, including russian ones.

but i am sure they are all in on the CT :rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

Yes Yes, Honeysuckle Creek allegedly relayed the first images from The surface, but why couldnt the ABC broadcast those images, why did they have to relay the images back from NASA???

namloc1980

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yes Yes, Honeysuckle Creek allegedly relayed the first images from The surface, but why couldnt the ABC broadcast those images, why did they have to relay the images back from NASA???

Did ABC have some sort of expertise in tracking spacecraft in 1969?

Mahatma coat

well no, thats what Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek were for :rolleyes:

the ABC did have the capacity to relay & broadcast television signals tho, like the ones that the Astronauts broadcast back, but instead they broadcast the feed from NASA, a feed that technically they had already sent to them

namloc1980

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well no, thats what Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek were for :rolleyes:

the ABC did have the capacity to relay & broadcast television signals tho, like the ones that the Astronauts broadcast back, but instead they broadcast the feed from NASA, a feed that technically they had already sent to them

How do you know ABC had direct access to the live feed coming from the Moon?

Mahatma coat

http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr1999/MoonLanding.htm

theres the CSIRO's own explanation of how it happened.

relayed via Canberra ( that'd be the ABC)

Mahatma coat

anway back OT, can anyone shed some light on the provenance of the video in the OP???

namloc1980

Mahatma coat wrote: »

http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr1999/MoonLanding.htm

theres the CSIRO's own explanation of how it happened.

relayed via Canberra ( that'd be the ABC)

That article contradicts you're earlier point because according to the article ABC did in fact broadcast the direct feed it received.

Mahatma coat

yeah I noticed that

Abelloid

Isn't that a clip from 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon'? (I can't hear it here).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Go Buzz.

thecommander

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yeah I noticed that

So now thats that out of the way do you believe that they landed on moon?

Mahatma coat

thecommander wrote: »

So now thats that out of the way do you believe that they landed on moon?

Oh I've never doubted that Men have walked on the moon, there are a whole lot of things that they're not tellin us about it

thecommander

Mahatma coat wrote: »

here are a whole lot of things that they're not tellin us about it

Aliens and the likes..

namloc1980

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anway back OT, can anyone shed some light on the provenance of the video in the OP???

Well the video in the OP shows that the astronauts were in a zero gravity environment i.e. space and that that they filmed the earth from the spacecraft. If they were in low earth orbit the planet would be seen to move below them as in this video from the International Space Station:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVBtZ8t2BY

There is no way that the earth would appear still and unmoving as it does in the OP video if they were in low earth orbit unless of course the astronauts were in fact at a sizable distance from the planet. So instead of proving some sort of cover-up, the video in the OP actually proves that the astronauts were in space and were located not in earth orbit but at a large distance from the planet.

Torakx

namloc1980 wrote: »

Well the video in the OP shows that the astronauts were in a zero gravity environment i.e. space and that that they filmed the earth from the spacecraft. If they were in low earth orbit the planet would be seen to move below them as in this video from the International Space Station:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVBtZ8t2BY

There is no way that the earth would appear still and unmoving as it does in the OP video if they were in low earth orbit unless of course the astronauts were in fact at a sizable distance from the planet. So instead of proving some sort of cover-up, the video in the OP actually proves that the astronauts were in space and were located not in earth orbit but at a large distance from the planet.

I agree with you.But also leave an open mind to the idea that it was faked some other way

ascanbe

Don't know much about the subject of the whether or not the moon landings were faked; all credible evidence, as far as i know, would suggest they weren't.
Just want to post a couple of articles, i happened across, that make for very entertaining, if not enlightening, reading on the possibility of Stanley Kubrick's role in the possible deception.
I'd imagine anyone particularly interested in this subject has come across them already; will post them anyway, for those who may not have.
Under articles, in the link i'm posting, there is another article on how the Kubrick film 'The Shining' may also hold some clues:

http://www.jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

The_B_Man

That thing about the ABC over here in Oz...

Apprently since Western Austrlia was so remote, it had to get a separate feed, which was apparently the unedited NASA version that the rest of the world got. And also, in this undedited version, some woman said she saw a Coca cola bottle roll across the bottom of the screen!

I always believed the Apollo stuff was always legit so a friend of mine loaned me a book to read which kept going on about all the radiation in space which could kill a human in hours. If, and if someone can give me a right or wrong answer, if this is true, then it would pretty much rule out space travel completely, including Moon, or Mars landing.

Stuff like Mir and the Euro Space Station is OK though, because they're in Low Earth ORbit or something, and well within the Van Allen Belts which, while still containing radiation, somehow shelter us from solar winds.

Also also. In this same book, the say that the yanks blew up a Nuke in space, even though they signed an internation agreement saying nobody is allowed to mess about with space, and this nuke was about 3 or 4 megatons and actually compounded the amount of radiation up there. Going by the length of time chernobyl has taken to get cleaned up, then this nuke would take a lot longer as it was a heavier explosion of radiation, or whatever the terminolgy. crazy stuff if true, and apparently the explosion created a new belt in the Van Allen belts thats still there now, so in fact they've made the radiation worse.

dunno what to believe though. Most of the stuff the bloke says in the book is a bit mental. I get the impression he just guessed at a lot of the stuff!

Wibbs

The radiation thing is a non starter. The highest radiation would be experienced when going through the van allen belts. An area where the radiation is concentrated around the earth. Even so the type of radiation involved is not the kind that requires "6 foot of lead to stop it" as is often quoted. Plus they go through it very quickly, through the thinnest part of it with the apollo craft turned so the engine and LM are in front, heading "upstream" into the belt, further reducing the exposure. Even so the men involved did suffer some exposure. The equivalent of a couple of x rays. They noticed flashes in their eyes which later turned out to be high energy cosmic particles passing through the body of their eyes. Indeed the guys have a much higher rate of cataracts than the general population.

The guy who discovered the belts, Van Allen himself has poo pooed the idea. Plus if the radiation in space is strong enough to kill a man, then how do they explain how sensitive electronics in satellites and probes outside the belts dont fail? Integrated circuits in particular are very sensitive to radiation and are out there for a lot longer than a couple of weeks. Years sometimes decades. If it was strong enough to kill a man in a week, it would fry a satellite in a year at best.

The exploding nuke stuff is beyond daft. OK lets say they did. 3 or 4 megatons isnt that big for a start. Secondly people hear radiation and lump in chernobyl with nuclear weapons. Very different. Look at the only two nukes dropped in anger. Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Two different designs, both "dirty" bombs. Caused massive loss of life. Mostly through blunt trauma and heat, with a side order of radiation. Those two cities are among the most populated areas in Japan today. chernobyl? well you wouldnt build a city there. Bombs particularly air burst weapons are "cleaner", much cleaner than a power station going critical. Down to many factors. The amount of radioactive material released and the half life of same. Let one off in space? Where it has no soil or atmosphere to irradiate? It would dissipate radiation very quickly.

The problem with a lot if not most of the moon hoax author types is their lack of basic scientific knowledge or if they have any its in a totally unrelated field. Then add in the audience for such books/websites. Ive read some of the comments and the lack of education on view is scary. Particularly in the US. Which ironically had one of the very best education systems in the world. Its the near sighted leading the blind.

toiletduck

The_B_Man wrote: »

Also also. In this same book, the say that the yanks blew up a Nuke in space, even though they signed an internation agreement saying nobody is allowed to mess about with space, and this nuke was about 3 or 4 megatons and actually compounded the amount of radiation up there. Going by the length of time chernobyl has taken to get cleaned up, then this nuke would take a lot longer as it was a heavier explosion of radiation, or whatever the terminolgy. crazy stuff if true, and apparently the explosion created a new belt in the Van Allen belts thats still there now, so in fact they've made the radiation worse.

The yanks and Soviets both conducted High-altitude nuclear explosions (here's a list) *before* a ban on such tests was brought in. You can't really compare Chernobyl with a nuclear bomb, let alone one detonated in space....

I quite like this image of one of the tests

Wibbs wrote:

The problem with a lot if not most of the moon hoax author types is their lack of basic scientific knowledge or if they have any its in a totally unrelated field. Then add in the audience for such books/websites. Ive read some of the comments and the lack of education on view is scary. Particularly in the US. Which ironically had one of the very best education systems in the world. Its the near sighted leading the blind.

Totally agree.

ectoraige

The_B_Man wrote: »

I always believed the Apollo stuff was always legit so a friend of mine loaned me a book to read which kept going on about all the radiation in space which could kill a human in hours. If, and if someone can give me a right or wrong answer, if this is true, then it would pretty much rule out space travel completely, including Moon, or Mars landing.

Stuff like Mir and the Euro Space Station is OK though, because they're in Low Earth ORbit or something, and well within the Van Allen Belts which, while still containing radiation, somehow shelter us from solar winds.

The Van Allen Belts are the most radioactive region of space between here and the moon. Had they spent their entire mission time there they likely would have received a lethal dose of radiation. However, the trajectory taken was designed to traverse the fringes and it only took about half an hour each way to pass through it. The radiation received was monitored and came to about half the normal annual allowance. This is still about 1/140th of a lethal dose.


There are risks posed by radiation, but nothing like what you described. Probably the greatest radiation risk was posed by large solar flares. These are somewhat predictable, although I don't think they were as good at making these predictions back then as we are now. Having said that, none occured during any of the Apollo missions so either it was luck, or their models were actually good enough. There's a lot of solar activity predicted for 2012 btw, if anyone wants fuel for their 2012 end-of-world theories.

The_B_Man wrote: »

Also also. In this same book, the say that the yanks blew up a Nuke in space, even though they signed an internation agreement saying nobody is allowed to mess about with space, and this nuke was about 3 or 4 megatons and actually compounded the amount of radiation up there. Going by the length of time chernobyl has taken to get cleaned up, then this nuke would take a lot longer as it was a heavier explosion of radiation, or whatever the terminolgy. crazy stuff if true, and apparently the explosion created a new belt in the Van Allen belts thats still there now, so in fact they've made the radiation worse.

The US and USSR performed about ten such tests in outer space, between 1958 and 1962. These did produce artificial belts, and some of the radiation would have remained during the Apollo missions. I'm not sure of the maths so I'm open to correction here, but I don't believe they would be a significant threat compared to the natural Van Allen belts themselves.

To put it in some context, here on Earth, over 2,000 atomic tests have been performed and the fallout produced contributes about .3% of our annual radiation dose. Cosmic radiation however contributes about 8% of our annual radiation dose, despite the shielding the atmosphere provides. Cancer rates among astronauts are slightly higher than the rest of the population. However, due to the small sample size available, it can't be said to be statistically significant.

The_B_Man wrote: »

dunno what to believe though. Most of the stuff the bloke says in the book is a bit mental. I get the impression he just guessed at a lot of the stuff!

And yet I'm sure he received a nice little royalty cheque from his publishers. To sum it up, radiation is a risk in space travel, but not a lethal obstacle. Wet roads are a risk for road travel but that doesn't mean I didn't drive today.

squod

ascanbe wrote: »

Don't know much about the subject of the whether or not the moon landings were faked; all credible evidence, as far as i know, would suggest they weren't.
Just want to post a couple of articles, i happened across, that make for very entertaining, if not enlightening, reading on the possibility of Stanley Kubrick's role in the possible deception.
I'd imagine anyone particularly interested in this subject has come across them already; will post them anyway, for those who may not have.
Under articles, in the link i'm posting, there is another article on how the Kubrick film 'The Shining' may also hold some clues:

http://www.jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

Read through that link. Interesting though not new. So many holes in the Apollo stories, too many to count.

Flaregon

the landing mostlikly happened, but untell there some HD we will never know.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Read through that link. Interesting though not new. So many holes in the Apollo stories, too many to count.

So many holes in that link, way too many to count.

The_B_Man

I didnt know that stuff about the radiation. As I said, I was only reading the book becuase a friend said it was interesting.
Its actually Dark Moon: Appollo and the Whistle-blowers by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy. Going from the above, I'm sure its been debunked and proved wrong many times before
In fact, I think in the book its said that the Van Allen belts protect the astronauts from readiation, hence why Low Earth Orbit is fine, but when you go to the moon and are in open space, you're very susceptible to solar flares from the sun. The amount of flares that year were pretty high, according to the book and would be pretty dangerous. I cant remember the numbers off the top of my head.

The only thing that got me thinking about the radiation as well was this:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html

See the last question where it says engineers are still learning how to protect against radiation. So if thats true, then apoollo wasnt shielded. so therefore if we can prove that solar flares could inflict dangerous levels, then combined with the data of solar flares at the time, we could probably prove something.
however, if as is said above that the radiation in actual fact isnt that dangerous, well then its grand.

BTW, I should state I'm not a CT-er who doesnt believe the moon landing happened. However, if someone provided me clear evidence to the contrary, then i'd have no option but to believe it.

Wibbs

The radiation protection is for longer space travel. The moon shots were pretty much a run there, hang around for a short time and get the hell back. To establish a longer mission, either a moon base or a mars shot would require more sheilding to protect the crew. Getting two chest x rays a year is an acceptable risk getting ten isnt kinda thing.

The_B_Man

Cool.

Whats the general consensus on the pictures then? As in, the sun in the background and the near side of the astronauts being fully lit? eg: here
or the bright spots, eg here

Were the photos made on the moon, or before/after?

Actually, this site pretty much disproves any theories by demonstrating how these effects can be recreated naturally. Assuming you dont thing THESE photos were faked!!
here

ectoraige

The_B_Man wrote: »

The only thing that got me thinking about the radiation as well was this:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html

See the last question where it says engineers are still learning how to protect against radiation. So if thats true, then apoollo wasnt shielded. so therefore if we can prove that solar flares could inflict dangerous levels, then combined with the data of solar flares at the time, we could probably prove something.

As with so many things, context is king, and it is easy to miss an implied assumption. To say engineers are still learning how to protect against radiation tells us absolutely nothing about the level of shielding on the Apollo craft. I'm sure Tiger Woods would tell you he's still learning how to improve his short game, but you wouldn't say that means he can't play golf. You could speculate perhaps that, were they done today, they would have had better shielding, but perhaps the only improvements could have been lighter*shielding, allowing for a larger payload instead.


The article you referenced doesn't even mention the effects of radiation on the human body, it is talking about electronic circuits. You cannot draw conclusions based on inferrences. It's mistakes like this in which most conspiracy theories find their footing. It is very easy to lead a reader who is not au fait with the subject matter into making these kinds of mistakes.*

squod

The_B_Man wrote: »

Cool.

Whats the general consensus on the pictures then? As in, the sun in the background and the near side of the astronauts being fully lit? eg: here
or the bright spots, eg here

Were the photos made on the moon, or before/after?

Actually, this site pretty much disproves any theories by demonstrating how these effects can be recreated naturally. Assuming you dont thing THESE photos were faked!!
here

Look at this! ((:eek:)) Pigs must be able to fly, I saw it on the internet.;)

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Look at this! ((:eek:)) Pigs must be able to fly, I saw it on the internet.;)

Is that your best counter-argument :rolleyes:

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

Is that your best counter-argument :rolleyes:

Oh dear, is that your most witty comeback?:D

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Oh dear, is that your most witty comeback?:D

Yup..thought as much.

The_B_Man

There as another detail I also read about, which was the communications between astronauts on the moon, and mission control.
Basically the point was made that there was no delay in communication between the 2 sights, even though you see plenty of examples daily of journalists across the atlantic having a few seconds delay after being asked a question.
If this is the case, then how could Houston speak with the astronauts so effortlessly, as is shown in the moon landing tapes, and recordings?

FISMA

I love a good CT, however, all of the evidence for the moon landing being a hoax is simply bad Physics.

As for banning in the US - what?

Just bad Physics...

ectoraige

The_B_Man wrote: »

There as another detail I also read about, which was the communications between astronauts on the moon, and mission control.
Basically the point was made that there was no delay in communication between the 2 sights, even though you see plenty of examples daily of journalists across the atlantic having a few seconds delay after being asked a question.
If this is the case, then how could Houston speak with the astronauts so effortlessly, as is shown in the moon landing tapes, and recordings?

Because the recordings are being made by one party of the conversation, namely the guys in Heuston. As soon as they hear the astronauts speak, they can respond straight away, just as you do when speaking on the phone with somebody. If you listen to actual original recordings you will see there are delays - but only in responses from the astronauts, not responses *to* them. Of course, lots of documentaries etc. will have edited out the gaps too so you need to know if the recordings you are hearing are genuine.

Capt'n Midnight

Hang on , they used a colour camera in the pressurised command module but only took a simpler, more reliable and lighter black and white to use in the LEM ?

Was the colour camera a film camera ?