The 2nd TV Transmission from Apollo 11

The 2nd TV Transmission from Apollo 11 (July 1969) is the strongest proof that Apollo 11 really left the Earth's orbit. No one yet claim that this video is faked. I really challenge you to find any anomalies in this video. And what we see in this footage is a beautiful round Earth! I invite you to watch the full video (7m42);

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E51C064E79E74AACB3DFA98D6EABD24B/lunar-legacy-episode-1-part-5-did-we-land-on-the-moon-.aspx

It sure is a beautiful thing isn't it?

I sort of feel bad for FEers, it must suck to refuse to believe in in the beauty of what earth is.

If that's not proof that what is? It sure beats what proof they have anyways..

It shows a round earth. Therefore it is faked.

Did this really happen then?



or this

that's adiemus by enya



i only know it because of that delta airlines commercial

It shows a round earth. Therefore it is faked.

Assuming a flat earth, which there remains no proof of.

It shows a round earth. Therefore it is faked.

Johannes, do you really think that your sentence convinces me? As I said in my first post, I challenge you to show me one single anomalie in this video (no matter what is the shape of the Earth showed in this footage). If you show me one anomalie, then the entire footage is not an evidence for whatever we see.

Until then, I have only one conclusion: the Earth is round.

It shows a round earth. Therefore it is faked.

Actually, it shows a gibbous earth (more than 1/2 full).  How could a spotlight sun account for such a lighting patter?

The 2nd TV Transmission from Apollo 11 (July 1969) is the strongest proof that Apollo 11 really left the Earth's orbit. No one yet claim that this video is faked. I really challenge you to find any anomalies in this video. And what we see in this footage is a beautiful round Earth! I invite you to watch the full video (7m42);

Here's an anomaly: The earth appears as a globe in that video. It's not.

The 2nd TV Transmission from Apollo 11 (July 1969) is the strongest proof that Apollo 11 really left the Earth's orbit. No one yet claim that this video is faked. I really challenge you to find any anomalies in this video. And what we see in this footage is a beautiful round Earth! I invite you to watch the full video (7m42);

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E51C064E79E74AACB3DFA98D6EABD24B/lunar-legacy-episode-1-part-5-did-we-land-on-the-moon-.aspx

NASA is using another method for depicting the earth. The transparency is outside of the craft this time.

Johannes, do you really think that your sentence convinces me? As I said in my first post, I challenge you to show me one single anomalie in this video (no matter what is the shape of the Earth showed in this footage). If you show me one anomalie, then the entire footage is not an evidence for whatever we see.

Why do we need to hunt through this low quality two minute video clip and find an anomaly? There are already leaked videos where the astronauts can be seen faking the image of the earth on the module window. See Bart Sibrel's work.

See Bart Sibrel's work.

I did.  I'm not impressed. 

Quote

The 2nd TV Transmission from Apollo 11 (July 1969) is the strongest proof that Apollo 11 really left the Earth's orbit. No one yet claim that this video is faked. I really challenge you to find any anomalies in this video. And what we see in this footage is a beautiful round Earth! I invite you to watch the full video (7m42);

Here's an anomaly: The earth appears as a globe in that video. It's not.

I don't see any evidence backing up that claim.

I did.  I'm not impressed. 

That's not his work.

I don't see any evidence backing up that claim.

There's a library of evidence in my signature link.

There's a library of evidence in my signature link.

Except that none if it proves the flat earth model (or disproves the round earth one). Besides the fact that I don't see any proof that Rowbotham's results are valid or correct, I also don't see how his results are not possible on a round earth, when I just recreated them with a full-scale computer model of a round earth and got the same results. Then there's the fact that bendy light also contradicts his results (so there would be no reason to believe in a flat earth in the first place), and the points I brought up (which are impossible on the other earth model, unlike Rowbotham's experiments). One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe is a stack of flawed logic and silly assumptions. Of course the water surface would be level, water is level on a round earth as well, and last I checked, gravity didn't work in a universal 'down' direction.

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2009, 08:14:13 PM

I did.  I'm not impressed. 

That's not his work.

That's right.  It's someone debunking his work.  Didn't take me long to find it either.

That's right.  It's someone debunking his work.  Didn't take me long to find it either.

I believe my instructions were to watch Bart Sibrel's movie where astronauts can be seen faking the earth image on the module window:

The footage wasn't shown or even mentioned in that "debunking" video you posted.

Tom's a crack-head!
Yes I'm bored of this game, the Earth is round.

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2009, 09:51:41 PM

That's right.  It's someone debunking his work.  Didn't take me long to find it either.

I believe my instructions were to watch Bart Sibrel's movie where astronauts can be seen faking the earth image on the module window:

The footage wasn't shown or even mentioned in that "debunking" video you posted.

If Bart Sibrel lied about the Apollo 16 moon walks, why should I assume that he's being honest about anything else?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2009, 05:06:57 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2009, 09:51:41 PM

That's right.  It's someone debunking his work.  Didn't take me long to find it either.

I believe my instructions were to watch Bart Sibrel's movie where astronauts can be seen faking the earth image on the module window:

The footage wasn't shown or even mentioned in that "debunking" video you posted.

If Bart Sibrel lied about the Apollo 16 moon walks, why should I assume that he's being honest about anything else?

If everyone from NASA lied at some point in their lives why should I assume they're being honest about anything else?

If Bart Sibrel lied about the Apollo 16 moon walks, why should I assume that he's being honest about anything else?

Well seeing how the author of your video is a NASA disinformant who has a vendetta against Sibrel, I'm not sure how you can present your video as anything approaching "evidence" for Sibrel's dishonesty.

Secondly, NASA is going back and making adjustments to its old Apollo images and movies all the time to fix mistakes, so I'm not sure how you can know which is the real footage. Just look at the "C" rock for example. After it was found NASA edited it out of its raw images on its website.

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2009, 09:51:41 PM

That's right.  It's someone debunking his work.  Didn't take me long to find it either.

I believe my instructions were to watch Bart Sibrel's movie where astronauts can be seen faking the earth image on the module window:

The footage wasn't shown or even mentioned in that "debunking" video you posted.

OK, if you insist:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/DC96911A35554EC890CD7D06606742C5/lunar-legacy-episode-1-part-4-did-we-land-on-the-moon-.aspx?m_tkc=1639959

Quote

If Bart Sibrel lied about the Apollo 16 moon walks, why should I assume that he's being honest about anything else?

Well seeing how the author of your video is a NASA disinformant who has a vendetta against Sibrel, I'm not sure how you can present your video as anything approaching "evidence" for Sibrel's dishonesty.

How can Bart Sibrel's disinformation vendetta against NASA be considered any more reliable?

bart sibrel completely fails. in an other part of the video posted in the first post his evidence is destroyed.

btw wasn't it sibrel who got hit by e aldrin?

OK, if you insist:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/DC96911A35554EC890CD7D06606742C5/lunar-legacy-episode-1-part-4-did-we-land-on-the-moon-.aspx?m_tkc=1639959

I'm not sure what that video is supposed to be proving. First the narrator says that a realistic cropped earth isn't possible and shows us some ISS video with a cropped circle in the middle. Then the narrator says that a cropped earth is possible and shows us a lighted globe behind a black piece of cardboard with a circle cutout in the middle. The narrator doesn't seem to know whether it is or isn't possible.

In the second example the cameraman moves his camera left and right, showing a different angle to that small model globe. When the camera moves to the left or right the globe can be seen to change angle in relation to the camera. The narrator's conclusion is that since his small model globe is seen to change angle with left or right movement of the camera, the earth behind the cutout in the NASA video should also change angles with left or right movement of the camera. This is a completely ridiculous conclusion, since the earth in the NASA video isn't a small model globe which changes angle dramatically with small movement.

I'm not sure why you think that video proves anything when the narrator can't even make up his mind whether the cropped earth is possible and is making comparisons of angle changes between a small model globe a foot away and a full sized earth hundreds of miles away.

I'm not sure why you think that video proves anything when the narrator can't even make up his mind whether the cropped earth is possible and is making comparisons of angle changes between a small model globe a foot away and a full sized earth hundreds of miles away.

I think that the point is that both possibilities are equally unlikely and that Sibrel is full of BS.

I think that the point is that both possibilities are equally unlikely and that Sibrel is full of BS.

First the narrator says that it isn't possible. Then a couple minute later he says that it is possible. I'm not sure what we're supposed to believe when the narrator doesn't even know himself what is and isn't possible.

Also, unsurprisingly, the main part of the NASA video where the cutout is removed and the window opens up revealing a bright and large earth in the background isn't even mentioned. See:#t=5m50s

I think you missed this one, Tom.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2009, 08:48:37 PM

There's a library of evidence in my signature link.

Except that none if it proves the flat earth model (or disproves the round earth one). Besides the fact that I don't see any proof that Rowbotham's results are valid or correct, I also don't see how his results are not possible on a round earth, when I just recreated them with a full-scale computer model of a round earth and got the same results. Then there's the fact that bendy light also contradicts his results (so there would be no reason to believe in a flat earth in the first place), and the points I brought up (which are impossible on the other earth model, unlike Rowbotham's experiments). One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe is a stack of flawed logic and silly assumptions. Of course the water surface would be level, water is level on a round earth as well, and last I checked, gravity didn't work in a universal 'down' direction.