My Self-Found Proof of NASA lies - Video of Image Evaluations Included - 11 17 and Red Bull

NASA hoax theories are one of the most popular and intriguing theories. I have been interested in this for years ever since I heard John Lear describe the problems with the space program. This was years ago, and it has been an interest for that long. It wasn't until last week that I attempted to PROVE it.

I saw a video where the Blue Marble was downloaded from NASA archives, and they proposed that you could see right angle copy and paste remanents when you maximize contrast and brightness. I decided to test this for myself, because there's a moment when the image leaves the screen in the video I was referring to.

My Ultimate proof lies in my 4th image evaluation video, at the 23rd minute mark. I will now list them in order.
Apollo 17 images debunked Live - www.youtube.com...
Apollo 17 images part 2 (not live) - www.youtube.com...
On Earth Apollo 11 Images - www.youtube.com...
Apollo 11 color Images - www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

In addition to these image evaluations, I also decided to debunk the Red Bull Stratos jump with 3d models. This shows why I had a problem with that perspective of the capsule.
Red Bull Stratos with 3d models - www.youtube.com...


What they tell us and what they show us does not line up
The convenient Lie - www.youtube.com...


These videos do not prove anything, other than NASA's lies. Thanks for your time. I want you to know that I put these together myself with what I believe is legit images from the internet. In the 4th video, I did grab some images from external sites, but the important ones and the ones that are suspicious came right from NASA or LPI.

originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
In addition to these image evaluations, I also decided to debunk the Red Bull Stratos jump with 3d models.

So basically you have no clue at all how a wide angle lense works!

More flat earth garbage!

did I ever say that this proved Flat Earth... obviously you failed to read the thread..... and you talk about garbage.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

There is heaps of evidence that makes you think twice like footage of the lunar lander that couldn't fly and nearly killed Armstrong,the problem is you now have 2 generations of Patriotic Americans that have grown up with 'The Right Stuff'' and there were some mighty real achievements such as breaking the sound barrier,it is a passionate issue and the pro Nasa members are some of the best arguers on this board, but just as the flat earthers must of had a hard time accepting they were wrong at some stage in the future I fear Stephen Spielberg and Warner Brothers animators will eventually be revealed to have figured prominently in NASA history

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

We all know NASA doctors a lot of their pictures.

Your OP isn't real clear to me on what exactly you're trying to prove.

My Ultimate proof lies in my 4th image evaluation video, at the 23rd minute mark. I will now list them in order.

I watched this video at the 23rd minute mark and seen the green lines that can be found all over the internet. You're not the first to discover this information.

Perhaps you could give a little better info without me or anyone else having to watch 3 hours of your crappy YouTube channel?

I have also found that NASA lies. I do not believe a single thing that they tell us. Too many people take what NASA says as gospel truth, forgetting that they are the product of the U.S. Govt and NAZI collaboration in Project Paperclip.

As for the flat earth? well....“Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance.”

They used MS Paint? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Too funny!! Good find!

double post

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

Apollo 17 images debunked Live - www.youtube.com...

i only have the time and patience to watch that vid - but all you "proove " is your utter ineptitude

you really have no idea how digital imaging works

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You are obviously lieing, and didn't watch the video, because the problem at the 23 minute mark is no way that it is digital imaging distortion.

I expect a good portion of you to respond or of ignorance, but I never thought you would actually choose that as a screen name.

People who have true problems with my video would be able to state their problem with it, and not a general "digital imaging" spew from their mouth.

And, regardless what you think, the videos prove that I know digital images. Expecting you to notice that without watching any videos is a bit much, but you commented without watching any ..... So..... Your response is exactly what I expected.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

the vid i quoted was only 9 min long - so you dont even know what you are even posting .

all you did was edit the crap out of an image till it " looked wierd "

the problem is that that works with any digital image

the problem is you - not us

I watched the first video, and all you've shown is a complete lack of understanding of digital imaging. I'm not going to waste my time with the others.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I told you that you could go to the 23 minute mark, and you tell me those squiggly lines are from digitizing.... Hilarious. What a load of crap.


Then you try to give me crap for having a 9 minute video. I really apologize buddy. Obviously you have never seen ms paint.

In the other videos, I slow that those squiggly lines are not present in other photos.... So your little soak on me is ridiculous. You sir obviously know nothing about digital manipulation of you suggest this is normal.


As I suggest, you never watched the video, or you would've laughed like the other guy.

Sounds like assumptions to me admiral. I show dozens of different types of photos, and I show that is not digital abhorations that I point out, or else they would be seen in more similar photos. They aren't.

It just shows that you believe you know more than others and are unwilling to E the evidence. You saw the first video, at the 23 minute mark? Funny if you think that discredits me....

How anyone can say these images are results of digitalization is beyond me.

The first is obvious a paint tool, 3 different places with same brush size stroke, and you can see the obvious movements with hand jitter with a mouse. It's obvious.

And the second has an item that passses through an astronaut, from behind him into supposedly his reflection. It's as if the astronaut is see-through. Why? Because I propose that the astronaut was never there.

originally posted by: occrest
I have also found that NASA lies. I do not believe a single thing that they tell us. Too many people take what NASA says as gospel truth, forgetting that they are the product of the U.S. Govt and NAZI collaboration in Project Paperclip.

As for the flat earth? well....“Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance.”

My head just exploded...literally.

Let's see, you do not believe a single thing NASA says, but NASA says the earth is round, so are you saying you don't believe this because NASA says so?

Either way, saying that you don't believe a single thing NASA tells us is you condemning them without investigation.

I guess you're saying that you suffer the highest form of ignorance.

the moon is a smaller globe than Earth, supposedly, which means it must have MORE curvature to it.

So how does the area behind the camera not curve down. How does that horizon not curve from left to right.
Even in his vizor, they only made one little part of curve (on the left side from our vantage point). Sure, this made it look like it curves a little, but their entire vizor is greatly curved... This is off... at least in my opinion.

Reflections off of mirrored semi circles do not appear like this.

Mate, i say this in all honesty. Your videos are garbage. You know nothing about anythign you are talking about or doing.

"i mean..these pixels look different to me...i dunno. Should they be like that? They are different..i dunno"

Thats the extent of your knowledge? You adkusted brightness and contrast? You're a grown man!