Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Apollo Hoax Coverup In High Gear

Author
Message
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 02:09
Link
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/07/nasa_ksc_itar_r.html

NASA KSC ITAR Run Amok

Saturn V pictures are now ITAR Controlled, Sci.Space.History

"But then I got this message from a contact who worked at KSC: "However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we took them down and shredded them."

Editor's note: Check out all of this ITAR-violating goodness at MSFC. And this report online at Astronautix.com probably means a life sentence in prison for someone if the KSC ITAR Cops have their way. Meanwhile, I guess they will have to throw big bags over the restored (and publicly accessible) Saturn V's on display at JSC, MSFC, and KSC.

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 02:12
Link
What happened now?

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120....
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
jasonhtml
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2004
Location: OC, California, USA
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 02:17
Link
ya, im confused too... but it sounds serious whats ITAR thingy? shreading Saturn V pics sounds really strange

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
GatorHex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 02:34
Link
If they are worried about copies I think both India and China have already used them to get into space, they are 40 years too late!

DinoHunter (still no nVidia compo voucher!), CPU/GPU Benchmark, DarkFish Encryption DLL, War MMOG (WIP), 3D Model Viewer
Back to top
Profile PM Website
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 03:26
Link
I wonder which side has the most pointy tinfoil hats on?



I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
John Y
Synergy Editor Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 12:38
Link
Damn, I thought it was something interesting about the forum.

Synergy IDE and Synergy Editor
http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_read&i=29
Http://www.digitalzenith.net
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Manic
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Completely off my face...
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 14:00
Link
yeah, Rich lied to us, we've been using phpBB all this time.

I don't have a sig, live with it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
cjb2006
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2006
Location:
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 15:21
Link
As an Aerospace Engineer I will say that I am offended by the title of this thread. There was no "Apollo hoax" to be "covered up". A lot of brilliant and brave people spent the better part of their lives achieving mankinds greatest technological triumph to-date.

As for the ITAR stuff, in the second link you provided, if you pick on the "view profile" link next to Scott Lowther's name you will see that this is all nonsense.
Back to top
Profile PM
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 19:16
Link
cjb2006, you must be psychic or have great analytical skills because that user does not even have a profile!

As a US taxpayer, I am very interested whenever I am receive reports of corruption and tend to investigate.
Don't you?

If you have a bit of time,
Google search "Apollo Hoax" and peruse the links on the search result page.

I used to get up before dawn and watch the Mercury space capsule launches on TV whenever they were on Saturday mornings.
Hours of brain numbing commentary and shots of a rocket with steam coming off it.
"T-Minus 19 minutes and holding"
Exciting times the early sixties to a little boy.
I wanted to be an astronaut.

In a classroom copy of TIME magazine dated sometime in June 1968, I noticed a Sylvania TV ad which contained a cut-in B&W picture of astronauts holding up a Merry Christmas sign for the camera. Odd timing I thought.

The following December the Apollo 8 mission circled the moon and the EXACT SAME PICTURE that I had seen in TIME was on the front page of the major newspapers with a caption that it was a holiday greeting to Earth from the Apollo 8 crew in space.

Somebody screwed up.

That planted the seed of cynical doubt in my mind.
Over time there has been more and more contradictory information to the NASA story.

When Capricorn One (starring O. J. Simpson – as Commander John Walker)
came out I was fairly convinced that it was government disinfo.

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Manic
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Completely off my face...
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 19:52
Link
i like that site's strapline;
Quote: "Remember: It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU."


"Hi NASA, I've got a few satellites knocking around in my garage, could you come over, pick them up and fire them into space? PLSTHNXBYE!"

I don't have a sig, live with it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
GatorHex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 21:25 Edited at: 31st Jul 2007 21:26
Link
As for man landing on the moon hoax, I always wonder why they don't just turn the most powerful telescope toward to the landing site and find the evidence?

Damn, it can see almost to the begining of the universe so why can't it see the crud we left on the moon?

DinoHunter (still no nVidia compo voucher!), CPU/GPU Benchmark, DarkFish Encryption DLL, War MMOG (WIP), 3D Model Viewer
Back to top
Profile PM Website
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 22:50
Link
Quote: "why they don't just turn the most powerful telescope toward to the landing site and find the evidence? "


Because as counter-intuitive as it seems, we don't have telescopes that can resolve those items at that distance. Hubble for example can see objects of around 90 meters at that distance.

Anyway, I prefer this moon-landing conspiracy site more

For free Plug-ins and source code
http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk
New Utility plugins collection
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 23:04
Link
Quote: "Anyway, I prefer this moon-landing conspiracy site more
"



LOL

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."
Back to top
Profile PM
jasonhtml
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2004
Location: OC, California, USA
Posted: 31st Jul 2007 23:05
Link
lol! that site was funny.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 01:02
Link
IanM, that was a really nice site.



Here is another equally nice document (pdf) containing another skeptical view.

I wonder if those decades old first, second, and third stage Apollo engine diagrams in the Press Kit will actually be pulled?

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 01:13
Link
Then there's Physics PROFESSOR Jim MCCANNEY's take on all of this.
He really hammers Dan Golden who was head of NASA until October 2001.
There is some VERY interesting information about NASA in this particular broadcast.

(This is the same show in two different file resolutions but both use the Real Media format.)
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/sh02-16-06-3megfile.rm
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/sh02-16-06-7megfile-bestsound.rm

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 01:18
Link
Finally this Google Video that I have not even seen yet!

Did we land on the moon? - by Fox TV

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 01:51 Edited at: 2nd Aug 2007 01:51
Link
They did land on the moon, sorry conspiracy theorists, but you are wrong
Back to top
Profile PM
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 03:03
Link
I don't know Chenak... I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that is some very convincing evidence on those videos that something is up. Those little crosshairs being occluded by the equipment in the background is most intriguing... If anyone has an explanation for that I'd like to hear it.



Back to top
Profile PM
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 03:43 Edited at: 2nd Aug 2007 03:49
Link
Well consider this, if there is a conspiracy you would have to shut up the actors, the people who made the stage props and scene, the people who filmed and took pictures of the moon landing, the politicians at the time and the people involved at NASA not to mention their relatives, friends and stuff that they may have told.

I find it very hard to believe no one has come forward.

It is impossible for them to cover that much up. If they can't cover up watergate, then they can't cover up anything due to their complete incompetence. Shutting people up is the hard part, faking the moon landing would have been easy.

As for the crosshairs, could be because of the lighting, the crosshairs only seem to be hidden at pure white areas. But it depends if the crosshairs are the product of the camera in which case it could be reflecting light between the glass in which the crosshairs are held and the lens. The causes bleeding and an over exposed effect.
Back to top
Profile PM
cjb2006
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2006
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 05:54
Link
The S-V booster was placed on ITAR as soon as ITAR became ITAR. The reason is that it would be one hell of an ICBM. That was decades ago. The crap about posters being shredded at Kennedy is not substantiated. This is a story about one little peon and his blog running amok. But even in that there was no suggestion of any "hoax". That was purely the invention of this threads author. Since he has subsequently expounded on his beliefs - which are clearly on the lunatic fringe - he should be willing to accept that his views would be challenged. I will always be offended by such nonsense.
Back to top
Profile PM
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 05:58
Link
Before you start throwing full wine bottles at the NASA center, why don't you read the other side:

Fox TV point-by-point: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Another:
http://www.clavius.org

That PDF was a joke right? A things about that really honked my knockers.


Argument 1: We had technology too primitive to make the crafts.

I don't know, we did kind of build nuclear weapons 25 years earlier, so I guess we know what we're doing in the whole engineering department.

Argument 2: The sun is too bright.

Yes it is, on a virtually atmosphere-less environment. Why do you think the glass in the astronaut's helmets are so dark? Style?.

The crosshairs is an easy one. Every loves the new bloom/HDR effect in new video games right? Guess where that comes from: real life! The light from bright objects bleeds out depending on how bright it is. Don't believe me? Shine a bright laser directly into your eye. Notice how you can't see a danged thing over the massive red blob of laser light, despite the fact that its about a quarter of a centimeter in radius.


On a side note: come on, you're listening to Fox TV? You can't pick and choose what's biased and whats not!

That's not as bad as you think you said.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 06:11 Edited at: 2nd Aug 2007 06:13
Link
I laughed so much when I watched that program. First of all, it had Renee defending that the moon landing was fake... a world renowned idiot. Heck all of those "theories" can be proven wrong with a basic knowledge of GCSE science, LOL.
Back to top
Profile PM
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2007 07:41
Link
Quote: "That was purely the invention of this threads author. Since he has subsequently expounded on his beliefs - which are clearly on the lunatic fringe - he should be willing to accept that his views would be challenged. I will always be offended by such nonsense."


cjb2006, if you examine the thread you'll discover that my lunatic fringe belief is that I have doubt in the official story.

To be fair and not regret your response post (foot in mouth) later,
I suggest that you listen to Professor McCanney first before posting another uninformed response.

ionstream, i'll do myself a favor and investigate your links.
But that pdf is as serious as a heart attack.
I haven't seen the FOX piece being on dialup,
but considering the source I can believe it is a piece of junk.

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Wiggett
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2003
Location: Australia
Posted: 3rd Aug 2007 16:29
Link
Like many conspiracy theorists arguments it becomes a matter of who is telling the truth. I can supply you with five pictures that are faulty and say that they came from NASA and were said to be proof, but who says I got them from NASA? maybe I got them from a magazine who doctored the photos to fit their printing capabilities. Maybe I'm just an anti NASA nutbag who is trying to put the seed of doubt in your mind for my own personal gain.

It's funny because my brother is so left wing and I always argue right wing against him, always I use the argument of "where are you getting your information from? how is it any more credible than where I am getting my info from?" . You weren't there when the moon landing happened, so really, how can you REALLY know what happened?

Syndicate remastered: Corporate persuasion through urban violence.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 3rd Aug 2007 16:48
Link
It's good to be a skeptic. Never take what the government tells you as undeniably true. However, you have to have a balanced view at everything.

In the example of the Apollo moon landings, there is some evidence which seems to suggest it was a hoax. Having said that, there's loads of evidence that suggests it was true. So while it's good to look at things with some skepticism and not blindly accept the crap our governments and media feed us, you need to ensure you don't concentrate solely on the counter-evidence.

In the vast majority of "hoax-theories" these is vastly more evidence suggesting the event was true than was false. In the case of the Apollo moon landings, there's loads of snippets of evidence suggesting it could've been faked, but vastly more evidence from reliable sources suggesting it did actually happen.

So, personally, I'm always a skeptic, but I don't jump on the hoax-theory band wagon like a lot of people do and concentrate only on the counter-evidence. You have to take a totally unbiased view before you argue, imo.


Back to top
Profile PM
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Aug 2007 18:35
Link
None of evidence for the faking of the moon landing is correct, none of it. Everything can be proved either with basic scientific knowledge or of photography. Plus the fact that the conspiracy theorists are making up false evidence which I think is disgraceful
Back to top
Profile PM
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 05:04
Link
Quote: "None of evidence for the faking of the moon landing is correct, none of it. Everything can be proved either with basic scientific knowledge or of photography. Plus the fact that the conspiracy theorists are making up false evidence which I think is disgraceful"


Why don't you back up that "suggestion" with links to the facts to support you.

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."
Back to top
Profile PM
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 05:54 Edited at: 4th Aug 2007 06:08
Link
Why? Because I believed it to be so simple that I didn't bother. But if you really want to I will.

Its not a pretty website, but its a lot better than the moon hoax crap. Took 5 seconds to find on google, had a read of it and it seems they came to pretty much the same conclusions I did. I unfortunately don't have time to write my own report but I know enough to know that these are more plausable than the so called facts the theorists are saying.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax
http://www.braeung.us/space/hoax.htm

There are more, lots more, many reports from university students and such.

By fabricating evidence I mean some conspiracy theorists has the cheek to post photos of astronauts in full suits in say a studio somewhere in the desert and say they were filming a fake landing. What they fail to mention is that THEY WERE TRAINING! Its that kind of thing that irritates me.

But what I really find disgraceful is that some go as far as to try and say some astronauts died in tragic accidents and such because they tried to apparently reveal a hoax... I mean bloody hell. These are people who risked their lives to goto the moon, and the way the theorists talk about them... well I won't go into it, but it makes me angry and disturbed.

But if there is something you are unsure about and can't find on the sites, post here and I'll gladly explain it

[edits to correct spelling and such]
Back to top
Profile PM
cjb2006
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2006
Location:
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 14:32 Edited at: 4th Aug 2007 14:33
Link
@Chenak

I'm disappointed that you gave in to these nuts and posted links. The problems the believers in the hoax have are the simple facts as you correctly stated earlier.

Not a single scientist or engineer has ever taken the design of any component (electrical, hydraulic, mechanical, structural, environmental - from Mercury, Gemini or Apollo) and been able to demonstate that it a) couldn't work b) was needed but not included or c)was included but not needed.

Once the designing work was done, puchase orders were issued, the parts were fabricated, tested, shipped, assembled, tested again and finally flown. The paper trail on that is indisputable.

So we are left with a "purpose built" machine that was constructed and flown (we all watched the launches) and all of the science and engineering were validated 100%. Pretty damned good for a bunch of geeks with sliderules.

On the other side we have a small group of doubters who's main arguement is "gee, that doesn't look (sound, seem) right to me - so it must be wrong". They need take a step back and ask the critical question - Does it just seem wrong or is it truely impossible? Then go back and examine your own links to find where the impossible has been proven. That's the basis for a healthy skepticism and in this case there is nothing to be skeptical about.

In any event, we (the USA) are planning a return trip to the moon early next decade. A new lunar surveyor satellite will be launched soon and is going to take high resolution images of the moons surface to help choose potential landing sites. The cameras have a fine enough resolution so that the old sites will be captured with enough detail to end this nonsense. Can't be soon enough in my book.
Back to top
Profile PM
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 15:26
Link
Quote: "The cameras have a fine enough resolution so that the old sites will be captured with enough detail to end this nonsense."


I think with modern technology (image manipulation) those photos won't do anything to dispell hoax theories. These days a photo doesn't prove anything ... even videos can be faked convincingly with a big enough budget!

That's the great thing about hoax theories. No matter how much evidence there is to prove it wasn't a hoax, hoax theorists can always find another hole and ignore the big picture.


Back to top
Profile PM
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 16:57 Edited at: 4th Aug 2007 16:57
Link
I don't mind posting links that prove their theories wrong, If they choose not to take them into account its their problem. The real facts are there, and if they want more evidence they can just do the research themselves.

I didn't really have the time to explain all of them myself so I took the lazy way out It really didn't take anytime to find them.

A true skeptic will compare the arguments for and against and come to a logical conclusion. A conspiracy theorist will just turn around and say "NOTHING you say will change my mind". A real skeptic demands to be proven wrong, with evidence of course.

So I'm hoping that they will read the websites, then do their own research to come out with a conclusion that makes sense
Back to top
Profile PM
Wiggett
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2003
Location: Australia
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 17:45
Link
@fallout: Lol I especially love it when the hoax conspiricists say "don't trust what the government tells you, do your own research!", then expect you to take their views as truth.

Syndicate remastered: Corporate persuasion through urban violence.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 18:53
Link
I just asked him to post links for his statement so he could provide it as a fact instead of a opinion. If thats so wrong then why even debate? Or share a point of view?

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."
Back to top
Profile PM
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 19:39 Edited at: 4th Aug 2007 19:46
Link
Yer I quite like debating, and generally only post evidence and such if asked or I think it's really needed Nothing wrong with asking for evidence.

I have quite a few friends that believe the moon landings were fake, at one time we had a rather large debate about pretty much what was on the website has posted. My mates give an argument and their evidence then I attempt to prove them wrong.

We talk for a bit then eventually they say ok some of our evidence is wrong and some is unexplained, but we're still skeptical about them landing on the moon. And that is ok, at least they took the time to go through the evidence and not dismiss them on the word go.

People like Ralph Renee, if you even attempt to provide evidence against their theories will just give you the magic words before you even start, "NOTHING you say will change my mind". This is when you go from a debate to an argument about belief.

I admit that I was skeptical at first, but then I did some of my own research and found that none of the evidence in my opinion for the faking of the moon landing was credible proof
Back to top
Profile PM
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 19:57
Link
I'll remain skeptical since NASA and the government still have not explained a few things about the training and or moon landing its self. But thats just me.

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."
Back to top
Profile PM
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 20:49
Link
Just out of curiosity, what have they not explained?
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeff Miller
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posted: 4th Aug 2007 22:48
Link
Chenak's earlier point - namely that after so many years we have none of the necessarily vast numbers of actual conspirators blabbing - is quite strong.

American investigative reporting has always been comparatively strong (reporting Presidental adulterous trysts with their slaves 200 years ago), but after the assasination of President Kennedy it simply took off the gloves and has been no-holds barred ever since.

I know that my government's officials have led the public astray many times. As an example, since my father was nearly killed in the Pearl Harbor attack that served as the justification for the US to enter into WWII, I did quite a bit of reading on that subject over the years, and I am now of the belief that my father and many who died were misled into taking a strategic position of vulnerability (prepare for sabotage) when they could have defended themselves much better having been given what was fairly known by the higher-ups (prepare for air attack).

But that was fairly exposed within 25 years at most, and the majority of that period was when the press still kept their gloves on to an extent. The wartime President Roosevelt was so revered that the press seldom or never photographed him in a wheelchair. He was an unfortunate victim of polio.

The moon landing, when I was a college student, happened during a Presidency where virtually everything was under the most intense press scrutiny - so much scrutiny that the President at the time was eventually forced to resign, which was unprecedented. Anyone with any dirt on him had an open forum for years to come, and for that matter still today even though he is deceased. Negative effigies of him (President Nixon) were ubiquitous, negative movies about him were playing in the theatres, negative books about him lined the shelves of the bookstores. Anything that happened during his tenure was a target for heavy investigation.

So after 38 years since the landing, having seen nothing in the way of a whistleblower with hard personal knowledge, I lay it to rest. I believe it happened. It was thrilling at the time - my eyes were glued to the tube; it was thrilling years later, such as when I brought my children to the Smithsonian to touch a piece of the moon, and it's a good memory to hold from the days when space exploration was important.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 01:32:37
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 01:32:37