Moon Myth Disinformation

[Frankie Vegas]

You might be referring to people seeing the actual spacecraft on it's way to the Moon and back, and you'd be correct. Both large observatories and amateur astronomers with reasonably powerful telescopes were able to visually track and even photograph the spacecraft. The best opportunities were when the spacecraft was doing a waste or water dump.

Third party evidence of Apollo

Yes, that is what someone told me. So its accurate.

Didn't this all start with that ridiculous Fox special? I mean I know there were books about it before, but that Fox special was the first time this actually got wide play right?

Jim...I have great respect for all of your JFK research and writing. But as with 911, you again demonstrate that

you are out of your element in regard to the fakery of the Apollo "moon photos". You speak again without having

any idea what you are talking about. There are legitimate questions about whether the missions were accomplished

as per the official record. But there is no doubt that the photos were faked.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Jack

Seamus writes.

Jack, I respect you and your work also. But when you say to Jim who is just making an obsevation

"But as with 911, you again demonstrate that you are out of your element in regard to the fakery of the Apollo "moon photos"

Jims questions look totally sane, to me. May I remind you Jack you hang out with a guy who believes no Planes hit the Twin Towers.

So I've gotta say, Jim doesnt have to be correct or agree with every conspiracy thats out there. It doesnt mean he doesnt know anything.

Some people want him to be as kooky as they are. Im sorry, Jack mate Jim doesnt play kook.

However, your photograph stuff is interesting. I have some questions surounding the photo's myself by the way.

But one good excuse to beleive the moon landings happened is that Jim Fetzer says they didnt!

Edited July 25, 2010 by Frankie Fortune

[Evan Burton]

In addition I would like to call you attention to the fact that the American moon mission was successful only because it adopted the resources, technology and brain power from the Nazi rocket program, and many of the early photos of the moon mission were doctored in order to keep the Soviets from knowing exactly what the photos portayed. Those doctored photos were genuine DISINFORMATION because they originated from a known intelligence source - NASA, and were meant to deceive the Soviets, though the general public were also hoodwinked.

That's wrong Bill. The images were always public information and they weren't 'doctored'. Let's see an example of an image which was 'doctored' by NASA to portray a false situation, to deceive the Soviets.

After all, the launches were always public affairs; the Soviet launches were military secrets.

The crews were always announced well in advance of the missions; the Soviet crews were often not made public until after a mission had been completed.

The designers, engineers, contractors, and facilities were always publicly known; the name of the head of the Soviet space programme (Sergi Koryolov) was a state secret until after his death. The location of the Soviet launch facility was always referred to as 'Baikonur Cosmodrome', even though it was located some 300km to the south-west of the town of Baikonur.

[Evan Burton]

Bill,

My apologies but I accidentally edited your post when I meant to quote and reply to it.

Could you please repeat what you said so that readers can understand what your point was?

Again, my apologies. I don't know if there is an 'unedit' function but if so, I'll restore your post.

[Evan Burton]

Apologies for the delay, John.

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is designed to look at things far away, not close, so if it were to photograph the lunar surface it would have a resolution of about 60m. Since the biggest Apollo artifacts are the LM descent stages, and they are a little over 4m in width, there is no way you could distinguish any of the hardware left at the landing sites.

For the mathematics behind the resolution, see here.

As you know, after the HST was launched they found out that the main mirror, used for observations, had a flaw in it. The edges were made too "flat", meaning that light reflecting off the edges of the mirror focused in a different point than that of the light coming from the centre of the mirror. This didn't affect all the modes (e.g. UV, etc) but it meant that the pictures were not as sharp as they should be. Knowing the error they could remove some of the problem with advanced digital image correction techniques, but even then the images were less than optimum.

Although there was a replacement mirror available, it was totally impractical to replace the mirror in orbit and far too expensive to return the HST to Earth for repair... but the fact they knew exactly what was wrong allowed for a solution. Because the exact magnitude of the error was known, they could make instruments that would allow for the error, in effect 'correcting' the HST's poor vision. That took place over a number of Space Shuttle mission with the end result that the HST got it's perfect eyesight back.

Does that answer your question?

[Evan Burton]

2. The Precedent of Secret US Government Operations.

Another good one. No actual evidence, just a lot of insinuation. Let me sum it up for you: Gub'mit bad - you know they are up to no good!

Yep - that's it. Hell, Sibrel even says it's not evidence:

"...And although this reason in and of itself is not enough to prove the Manned Moon Landing to be a hoax...."

This is No2 on the evidence list?

[John Dolva]

Yes, thank you very much Evan. I had a suspicion it was a matter of resolution that with my misunderstanding (ignorance) (thank you for the link) created (to me) an apparent inconsistency. Thank you for taking the time to answer, as well as all the other material collected on the appollo thread. I understand as well that there have been various shuttle missions that have replaced or upgraded rather various components. No need to reply to that. Anyway, thank you for the answers.

edit:typo

Edited July 26, 2010 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

1. The 130,000 Mile Deception.

For this one, I thought it best to quote the claim verbatim:

Apollo 11. July 18th, 1969. Neil Armstrong, having heard CapCom report Columbia's distance from the Earth at 130,000 miles out - begins the unofficial television transmission [to be edited and partially played later] by echoing the same distance of 130,000 miles. In view, out the Commander's window is a small ball of blue, with a terminator line and weather patterns matching Earth's current conditions.

We are meant to believe that the blue ball is Earth. It is not. This evidence is our top reason. There can be no doubt. The Apollo 11 Westinghouse camera was not zooming through deep space to see a distant Earth and zooming back out again through deep space. When truly understood, when one understands that the Earth could not have remained in view through the small window across the room, or suddenly appeared as large as when they zoomed into it - this proves the hoax. This is the 'smoking gun' of Apollo, and the top reason to not believe the official story. Raw footage of this is available on the DVD Apollo 11 Monkey Business with detailed explanations in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, and confrontations about it with 9 of the Apollo astronauts in Astronauts Gone Wild.

Few people have taken the time to analyze this footage, but if they truly approach this footage for what it is and not what they hope it will be - they will come to the same conclusion. It is staged, and the Earth is fake.

Bart Sibrel got it wrong in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. He should have deeply consulted with other Hoax Researchers, but he did not. Sibrel thought it was an "in-orbit' shot of Earth through a circular window. Neither is correct. The commander's window is not circular, and there's no way this was the real Earth at all.

Behind Michael Collins, hanging on Window Number 1 [the commander's CM window] was a transparency - used when they brought down the lights and adjusted the camera exposure. The transparency was a picture of the planet Earth. This was first tested by another Apollo crew on their "flight", which can be examined in detail, through the research & videography of Jarrah White (linked above).

There is no room for "theory" here, in terms of whether or not Apollo safely sent men to the moon and back. The hoax is no longer simply speculation. It's an historical fact.

Now the first thing you might notice is that it refers to Sibrel and how "... he got it wrong...". Huh? I thought this WAS Sibrel.

Just who is running that site anyway? Have HBs hijacked the website? Did someone "buy out" Bart?

Anyway, it's still wrong. I don't normally like to refer to YouTube, but this shows you the claims and why it is wrong:

Lunar Legacy Pt 4

Also worth watching:

Lunar Legacy Pt 1

Lunar Legacy Pt 2

Lunar Legacy Pt 3

Lunar Legacy Pt 5

So, looking at the "Top 10 Reasons", what evidence do we have?

NOTHING.

EDITED TO ADD: Dave Greer has pointed out that it appears Bart Sibrel seems not to have anything to do with the website anymore. This seems to be confirmed by what I said above. So who is running the site now? Why don't they identify themselves?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

John,

No problems. If I can clarify anything or answer any other questions, I'd be more than happy to do so.

[Evan Burton]

Okay next:

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landing

http://www.assassina...nLandings-1.pdf

First, a link to the author's website so that you know something about the person:

http://www.jayweidner.com/

Now, let's examine the article itself.

What's the first piece of evidence? Why... motivation. And what is the first proof of motivation?

NAZI FLYING SAUCERS!

Don't believe me? Read the article.

It goes on: "Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the secret government, to release their saucer technologies."

Does anyone really take this tripe seriously? it seems Prof Fetzer does.

[Frankie Vegas]

John,

No problems. If I can clarify anything or answer any other questions, I'd be more than happy to do so.

Evan, was it in one of these photos or one on Mars that quackmeister Hoagland said he saw a robot head? Sounds like the kind of thing that Jim Fetzer would heartily endorse.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Frankie Fortune

[Evan Burton]

Do you mean the Face on Mars?

[William Kelly]

Why is this thread under JFK Assassination Debate?

Why does everybody want to debate Fetzer, a shill for CTs, a genius idiot, like McAdams, Rahn, John Bev and others who are supposed to be so smart, gone to the best schools, teach critical thinking for college credit, yet advocate such idiotic beliefs?

I want to debate Fetzer over the Zapruder film - debate Fetzer over 9/11 - debate Fetzer over the Moon, just don't borrow any money from him.

Why does everyone want to debate Fetzer? Because he's so predictable? Because he's an intellectual pushover who picks idiotic, untenable positions on important issues?

He's like the Monti Python character who keeps talking trash after getting his arms and legs cut off, but no one can win a debate with Fetzer over any issue, even if he loses he wins because he's brought the idiocy into the main ring, when we should be debating more significant issues.

Why is this thread under JFK Assassination Debate again?

Was that just to get Fetzer's attention, or everyone elses?

Or sidetrack the more important issues?

BK

[William Kelly]

Yea Evan, I'll repeat what I said before you accidently errased it.

I said that as a military man, I thought you would be more precise in your use of language, and not randomly fling disinformation around and call anything you disagree with "disinformation," a term that is classically defined as intentionally deceitful information dissimenated by a secret intelligence agency or network in order to influence public opinion.

How is the Moon landing intentionally deceiving "disinformation" the source of which is a national intelligence sevice? Or can you attribute it to a foreign intelligence source, which excludes Jack White?

Maybe it really is Soviet Dizinformation, dreamed up in some Ruskie cellar and suspiciously leaked through underground channels in order to discredit NASA and America? I don't think so.

John Barron, the American journalist/propagandist who wrote the book on the KGB and propagated the use of the term "Dizinformation," like you, only applied it to the Ruskies, implying that nobody else did it.

The USA also propagates real disinformation, or as Paul Linebarger called it "black propaganda," and very specifically attributes it not only to an intelligence source, but one who tries to pawn off the info as if it originates from the enemy.

And I will tell you as a fact, that the USA space program would not have gotten anywhere if it wasn't for the NAZI rocket technology and scientists brought in by the CIA via Project PAPERCLIP, and the union of NASA and the DOD- Dept. of Defense - in the development of ICBM - using the same Saturn booster, precluded Apollo from not becoming a propaganda opportunity, but also required the use of disinformation and doctored photos of the rockets, in order to keep the Soviets guessing. We knew they were looking at our rockets just like we were looking at theirs, through magnifying glasses.

So don't tell me the USA put out unretouched photos of the Apollo missiles, because I would bet that every one of them was doctored in some way.

As I wrote:

In addition I would like to call you attention to the fact that the American moon mission was successful only because it adopted the resources, technology and brain power from the Nazi rocket program, and many of the early photos of the moon mission were doctored in order to keep the Soviets from knowing exactly what the photos portayed. Those doctored photos were genuine DISINFORMATION because they originated from a known intelligence source - NASA, and were meant to deceive the Soviets, though the general public were also hoodwinked.

That's wrong Bill. The images were always public information and they weren't 'doctored'. Let's see an example of an image which was 'doctored' by NASA to portray a false situation, to deceive the Soviets.

After all, the launches were always public affairs; the Soviet launches were military secrets.

The crews were always announced well in advance of the missions; the Soviet crews were often not made public until after a mission had been completed.

The designers, engineers, contractors, and facilities were always publicly known; the name of the head of the Soviet space programme (Sergi Koryolov) was a state secret until after his death. The location of the Soviet launch facility was always referred to as 'Baikonur Cosmodrome', even though it was located some 300km to the south-west of the town of Baikonur.

There you go, sounding off just like John Barron, when we all know that the Soviets, who coined the term "Dizinfomation," and even had a "Department of Dizinformation," - we all know what they did, but like John Barron, you refuse to even recognize that WE TOO DID IT. And continue to do it today.

In fact, the disinformation campaign that was started to implicate Castro in the assassination of JFK continues today - see Gus Russo and company.

But the faked Moon Landings is not disinformation, as you imply in the title of your thread.

And despite Professor Fetzer's attempt to change the classic definition of disinformation so it can be attributed to anyone he disagrees with, and the apparent adoption of this definition by others, including Jim DiEugenino, who calls McAdams a disinfo agent and now calls Reitze "Disinformation Dave," I think it is important that disinformation be a term applied to real disinformation agents who clearly are sprouting intentionally deceiving black propagada, the source of which is an intelligence service or network.

Because, if we are going to apply it to McAdams, Reitze, Jack White and the fake Moon Landers, then what are we going to call those who really are disinformation agents?

Bill Kelly

Oh, yea,

The other question I had for you is how could a modern warship be sunk by a submarine and the cause of its sinking not discovered - or disclosed for two months? And then only disclosed on the eve of an election? And then found out not to be true at all? And allow this type of incident develop into a lead up a nuclear confrontation, as we are now at DEFCON 3 in Korea?

Now there's some real DIZINFORMATION at work.

And I'm glad you aren't the naval officer sitting at the nuke missile swtich, or you could have wipped us all out by sneezing.

BK

[Evan Burton]

NASA erased moon footage

http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_science/25244.html

Okay, now let's get the story straight and everyone can decide for themselves.

When the Apollo 11 landing was planned, believe it or not, TV was not a priority. In some ways it is understandable: NASA was concerned with landing men on the Moon and returning them SAFELY to the Earth. Still, there were many voices that pointed out that this was a historical and it would almost be criminal not to have the people of the US - who were paying for the journey - not to be able to see it. So a TV camera was included for the lunar landing. There was a small problem, though. The majority of the bandwidth from the spacecraft was needed for communications, data monitoring, biomedical data, etc. There wasn't a lot left for TV.

Even so, a TV camera was designed and the bandwidth allocated. It would be what was known as a Slow Scan TV (SSTV), giving a resolution of 320 lines at 10 frames per second. This is what was sent to Earth from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. That transmission, however, could not be sent directly to the TV networks. Those systems operated 525 lines at 30 frames per second. During the conversion to the 525 line format, there was some loss of quality.. but no-one really cared. This was a live broadcast of a man walking on the Moon. The transmission was sent via Honeysuckle Creek (HSK) in Australia until Goldstone (in the US) was in the transmission footprint.

All of the footage - let me stress that - ALL of the footage went out to the networks and it ALL is available today.

The SSTV tape was kept as a backup. It was recorded onto the same type of tape as other telemetry. It was shipped back to NASA and stored along with all the other telemetry data such as heart rates, temperatures of the engines, etc.

In 2005, some 8mm footage of the scenes from HSK made their way into the wider public eye. They showed the clearer quality of the SSTV footage and some of the ex-NASA people asked: "Hey - what happened to the SSTV footage?" An investigation was launched and they discovered that the one or two tapes were amongst 700-odd tapes that could not be found. The majority of the tapes contained mundane telemetry which had been recorded and stored elsewhere. It was highly likely that the tapes had been erased and re-used for later Apollo missions, as well as Skylab, ASTP and unmanned exploration missions, which used the same type of tape for recording data.

The search continued for a couple of years, but eventually it was determine that the tapes had been erased. So NASA decided to instead hire industry professionals, and using the bestavailable technology, enhance the quality of the tapes.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/index.html

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html

[Evan Burton]

Yea Evan, I'll repeat what I said before you accidently errased it.

I said that as a military man, I thought you would be more precise in your use of language, and not randomly fling disinformation around and call anything you disagree with "disinformation," a term that is classically defined as intentionally deceitful information dissimenated by a secret intelligence agency or network in order to influence public opinion.

How is the Moon landing intentionally deceiving "disinformation" the source of which is a national intelligence sevice? Or can you attribute it to a foreign intelligence source, which excludes Jack White?

Maybe it really is Soviet Dizinformation, dreamed up in some Ruskie cellar and suspiciously leaked through underground channels in order to discredit NASA and America? I don't think so.

John Barron, the American journalist/propagandist who wrote the book on the KGB and propagated the use of the term "Dizinformation," like you, only applied it to the Ruskies, implying that nobody else did it.

The USA also propagates real disinformation, or as Paul Linebarger called it "black propaganda," and very specifically attributes it not only to an intelligence source, but one who tries to pawn off the info as if it originates from the enemy.

And I will tell you as a fact, that the USA space program would not have gotten anywhere if it wasn't for the NAZI rocket technology and scientists brought in by the CIA via Project PAPERCLIP, and the union of NASA and the DOD- Dept. of Defense - in the development of ICBM - using the same Saturn booster, precluded Apollo from not becoming a propaganda opportunity, but also required the use of disinformation and doctored photos of the rockets, in order to keep the Soviets guessing. We knew they were looking at our rockets just like we were looking at theirs, through magnifying glasses.

So don't tell me the USA put out unretouched photos of the Apollo missiles, because I would bet that every one of them was doctored in some way.

As I wrote:

In addition I would like to call you attention to the fact that the American moon mission was successful only because it adopted the resources, technology and brain power from the Nazi rocket program, and many of the early photos of the moon mission were doctored in order to keep the Soviets from knowing exactly what the photos portayed. Those doctored photos were genuine DISINFORMATION because they originated from a known intelligence source - NASA, and were meant to deceive the Soviets, though the general public were also hoodwinked.

That's wrong Bill. The images were always public information and they weren't 'doctored'. Let's see an example of an image which was 'doctored' by NASA to portray a false situation, to deceive the Soviets.

After all, the launches were always public affairs; the Soviet launches were military secrets.

The crews were always announced well in advance of the missions; the Soviet crews were often not made public until after a mission had been completed.

The designers, engineers, contractors, and facilities were always publicly known; the name of the head of the Soviet space programme (Sergi Koryolov) was a state secret until after his death. The location of the Soviet launch facility was always referred to as 'Baikonur Cosmodrome', even though it was located some 300km to the south-west of the town of Baikonur.

There you go, sounding off just like John Barron, when we all know that the Soviets, who coined the term "Dizinfomation," and even had a "Department of Dizinformation," - we all know what they did, but like John Barron, you refuse to even recognize that WE TOO DID IT. And continue to do it today.

In fact, the disinformation campaign that was started to implicate Castro in the assassination of JFK continues today - see Gus Russo and company.

But the faked Moon Landings is not disinformation, as you imply in the title of your thread.

And despite Professor Fetzer's attempt to change the classic definition of disinformation so it can be attributed to anyone he disagrees with, and the apparent adoption of this definition by others, including Jim DiEugenino, who calls McAdams a disinfo agent and now calls Reitze "Disinformation Dave," I think it is important that disinformation be a term applied to real disinformation agents who clearly are sprouting intentionally deceiving black propagada, the source of which is an intelligence service or network.

Because, if we are going to apply it to McAdams, Reitze, Jack White and the fake Moon Landers, then what are we going to call those who really are disinformation agents?

Bill Kelly

Oh, yea,

The other question I had for you is how could a modern warship be sunk by a submarine and the cause of its sinking not discovered - or disclosed for two months? And then only disclosed on the eve of an election? And then found out not to be true at all? And allow this type of incident develop into a lead up a nuclear confrontation, as we are now at DEFCON 3 in Korea?

Now there's some real DIZINFORMATION at work.

And I'm glad you aren't the naval officer sitting at the nuke missile swtich, or you could have wipped us all out by sneezing.

BK

Thanks for doing that Bill - I apologise again for my stupid mistake. lesson for everyone: when you can't sleep and get up in the middle of the night to read the internet, do NOT attempt write things.

I'll address the NK situation in my next posts, but it should be in the thread associated with that subject.