Moon landings - faked, met with aliens or the official story?

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: pfishy

Yes, if it's real then it would count to me. But, it's a composite, nonetheless.

But as has been pointed out, all digital images are taken like this (i.e., stacking several images seen through various filters) -- Including your own personal consumer digital camera.

All digital cameras are essentially color blind (their light sensors can only "see" in shades of gray). These cameras relay on viewing each grayscale image through various filters that produce different grayscale images of differing grayscale intensities. In your digital camera, the computer in your camera compares thes different grayscale images and reproduces a color image based on computer algorithms that tell it what comparative intensities are what color (it basically makes an educated guess as to that color

The difference with many NASA cameras is that they prefer to keep the various grayscale images as seen through the various filter separated. Those various greyscales get transmitted back to earth where a computer puts them together later -- rather than doing so inside the camera, like a consumer camera does. But also just like a consumer camera, that color information is basically an educated guess based on what is known about the science of color theory.

NASA does this because more technical information can be found by using the various filter images rather than combining the. Much of that information would be lost by combining them in the camera and only thransmitting the combined color image back to earth.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Yeah, the real problem is that no craft is ever going to use film again. So composite color is the only way we are ever going to see anything in or from space.

Even then you are relying on the chemicals in the emulsion to provide true color when exposed to those colors. Those chemicals do not magically do that, but rather were chosen because they react in a way that best emulates the true color of the light that made them react in that way.

If those chemicals in the color film were chosen poorly, then the colors they produce might not be a true color.

a reply to: pfishy

"Yeah, the real problem is thatno craft is evergoing to use film again"


So we'll never send man past the VABs again?

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: wmd_2008

are you going on record stating the the EPIC shot of earth is NOT A COMPOSITE?

If that's a "no" then the rest of your comment is obfuscating my entire message and rendered useless in the scheme of this thread. Feel free to digest my entire posts instead of your authority-worship post dancing that confuses the casual reader and leads off into a fallicious narrative all prompted by you misunderstanding what I posted.

And I'll comment on anything, thanks.

Now, back to the thread! Sorry for the hiccups.

No I take the chance to EXPLAIN things YOU obviously don't have a clue about

Each image is a FULL Earth image in blue green & red SO its actually more accurate than from a digital or phone camera which uses a Bayer Filter to produce the colours.

What your are trying to make out is it is a false image all digital images are false in theory unless the sensor records all three colours at once.

Like this Foveon Sensor

So if you have a phone/digital camera are all the pictures YOU have ever taken FAKE AS WELL

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'll succomb to my earlier contention/challenge. Their now exists TWO images of the blue marble! Which is a bit disappointing considering how much we've put out into space. At least in my perspective.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes, I know. But it is a method of photography that is easier to prove the authenticity of. Especially Polaroids. I'm not saying that it's perfect, though I do admire your apparent level of knowledge on the subject.

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Lol. I meant robotic craft. But the likelihood of an astronaut carrying a Polaroid into space is fairly low, too. It's just an outdated and almost dead technology.

I kind of find it odd we abruptly stopped going to the moon. Not to mention neither Russia or China ever sent a manned mission to the moon. You would think Russia would have at least wanted to out do America's manned moon missions. After all these years and still no other manned moon missions. Very odd, considering there still must be resources on the moon yet to be discovered. It would also serve as a great off-earth planetary laboratory.

a reply to: johnb

I'm going with the thinking that Apollo 11 was a hoax, but only because we realized we weren't going to meet Kennedy's claim that we'd be there by the end of the decade...so in order to bolster nationalism, we pretended that we did. Couple that with the fact that Russia beat us with putting a satellite into orbit, and we had to make a name for ourselves somehow.

I think the subsequent missions were real, but like some others point out, I don't think we know the whole story. I'm not saying I think that there are alien bases or anything like that, but I do think that we quit going for reasons more than just funding or a lack of public interest.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
i am on the edge..call me 1.5. here are some concerns. NASA loses all the original tapes. for economy reasons! BS. there are no blast marks under the lunar lander, and no dust on the pads. NO stars ever... and they had full control over shutter speed, lens opening... and were in the perfect spot to take earth and stars. conclusion...even one star shot would give away the location. shadows are not parallel..like the sun would provide. astronauts on media appearnces are weird about stars and other things .. the pics of earth from the lunar module indicate they went to orbit, stayed there and returned to earth. that clever little shade pulled over the window is a give away.
also, they had to accelerate above 17,000 mph to head to the moon, then decelerate from 20,000 to zero to land...then accelerate to say 10 k to get back. can we calculate the fuel load needed to do this????? the original rocket was longer than a battleship and did less than half the acceleration to get to the moon and back.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: johnb

I'm going with the thinking that Apollo 11 was a hoax, but only because we realized we weren't going to meet Kennedy's claim that we'd be there by the end of the decade...so in order to bolster nationalism, we pretended that we did.

OK -- But what specific reasons do you have that makes you think they couldn't meet Kennedy's mandate?

a reply to: darkstar57

As far as the acceleration, the Saturn V was required to get the entire payload to escape velocity. The return trip required far less fuel because a good bit of mass was either left behind or expended as fuel by the different component craft of the mission. And the command module was also not sitting still. It was in orbit around the moon. So it already had a good deal of momentum. All it had to do was accelerate to escape velocity.

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
i am on the edge..call me 1.5. here are some concerns. NASA loses all the original tapes. for economy reasons! BS. there are no blast marks under the lunar lander, and no dust on the pads. NO stars ever... and they had full control over shutter speed, lens opening...

Lets start with these tapes were lost and tape were found, cost how MANY nations to build the ISS NOT ONE a few why COST !

They may have control of camera settings but not the laws of physics , expose for the surface NO stars expose for stars WHICH MEANS many seconds and you get blurry shots & over exposed surface or astronauts etc.

They did have some images of stars they have been shown on here before.

There are blast marks under the landers if YOU know were to look !!!

under Apollo 11

You can see radial marks in the dust which wasn't thick the bent landing probe shows it wasn't far to a solid surface Landing Probe

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'll succomb to my earlier contention/challenge. Their now exists TWO images of the blue marble! Which is a bit disappointing considering how much we've put out into space. At least in my perspective.

Loads more at the link I gave you for Apollo Image Atlas

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes, I know. But it is a method of photography that is easier to prove the authenticity of. Especially Polaroids. I'm not saying that it's perfect, though I do admire your apparent level of knowledge on the subject.

Film works the same way

In color film, the top layer is sensitive to blue light, the next layer is sensitive to green and the bottom layer is sensitive to red. When you expose the film, the sensitive grains at each layer react to light of that color, creating a chemical record of the light and color pattern.

Nothing has change only the method of recording it !

My biggest question is: Why are there all these stories about structures on the moon. People telling stories about "He showed me the pictures... And he knew what he was doing was high risk, and he shouldn't have been doing it, but he said look at this... And I couldn't believe it. Huge structures, definitely made by some other race who had been there before." Where do these stories come from? Why have I read this so much?

a reply to: HowAreTheyDoingThat

I believe it's all disinfo. Most people who believe that aliens are messing with the earth or near here are also very open-minded folks. What better way to make them believe we went to the moon than to start alien disinfo from Apollo and subsequent satellite missions?

Now, they have the everyday average Joe, authority worshipers (people that don't question), and the alien believers will now check in as people that believe Apollo astronauts stepped foot on the moon.

Just peer through the thread and you'll also find the other type of Apollo reviewer and that's the know it alls. Who, haven't stepped foot in space but know everything about it and will tell you how a trash-can with optics can survive the rigors of deep-space or even the near earth orbit.

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
...there are no blast marks under the lunar lander, and no dust on the pads.

Here is an image of a radial pattern of dust lines radiating away from the engine bell. There would be no crater because (1), the surface is hard-packed beneath the top thin layer of dust, (2) the engine was able to be throttled down to about 1000 pounds of force, and (3) the engine was shut down 4 to 5 feet above the surface (when the 5-foot long contact probes touched the surface).


No dust on the pads may also be a result of the engines being shut down before landing. Plus, there is no atmosphere in which the dust could billow and linger. All of the moon dust would take a parabolic trajectory away from the engine bell and fall to the surface after the engine is shut down.

There would be no lingering dust cloud to fall back on the pads, because there is virtually no atmosphere.

NO stars ever... and they had full control over shutter speed, lens opening... and were in the perfect spot to take earth and stars.

Here's one. It's a long exposure image of Earth and some stars (Image number AS16-123-19657):

conclusion...even one star shot would give away the location.

The stars are not that much different on the moon as they are on earth. A picture taken from the Moon would not provide precise enough data to be able to tell where the picture was taken.

In fact, during Earth's orbit around the Sun, Earth will often move into the spot that the Moon had previously occupied (when the moon is in "last quarter" phase). Furthermore, the Earth and moon are continuously moving through space, and Earth can cover the distance between the earth and Moon in only a few minutes time, meaning the star locations are continuously changing...

Of course you would need very precise instruments to see these changes, considering the stars are so far away. As I said above. a picture taken from the Moon would not provide a precises enough data set to determine the photo's location.

shadows are not parallel..like the sun would provide.

It is not true that the Sun would provide parallel shadows in pictures. It is perfectly normal for the shadows NOT to be parallel, and could be due to a couple of reasons:

1. Because the surface is not level. A shadow would follow the contours of the surface.

2. Even if the surface is perfectly level, shadows in picture would normally not look parallel, due to the relatively wide angle of view many cameras provide.

astronauts on media appearnces are weird about stars and other things

I can't respond unless I know a specific example of what you mean.

the pics of earth from the lunar module indicate they went to orbit, stayed there and returned to earth. that clever little shade pulled over the window is a give away.

I'm not sure what "clever little shade" you mean, but if you are talking about the false allegations in the film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the moon that there was some sort of stencil cut-out in the Command Module window that only made the Earth appear small and far away, then please explain THIS part of the Apollo 11 video (which the "A Funny Thing happened..." filmmakers conveniently ignored when making there allegations about the stencil cut out).

Here is the full video, which they didn't bother showing. Watch this video showing the ENTIRE Earth in the command module window with NOT "stencil cut-out" in the window (Starting at about the 5:55 mark and again at the 7:15 mark). This is the part of the Apollo 11 video that the people who are pushing the "the small Earth was just an illusion" idea failed to show us, probably because it proves they are making it all up (probably just to sell videos to hoax believers):


By the way, here is more evidence showing that the image of the Earth in that video is really the entire Earth, and not just a fake stencil cut-out in the window of the Command Module:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

also, they had to accelerate above 17,000 mph to head to the moon, then decelerate from 20,000 to zero to land...then accelerate to say 10 k to get back. can we calculate the fuel load needed to do this????? the original rocket was longer than a battleship and did less than half the acceleration to get to the moon and back.

By the time they got to the moon, their velocity was slowed somewhat by the earth trying to tug them back.

The maximum speed of the Apollo spacecraft towards the moon was about 25,000 mph. However, this was the maximum speed, and that was only achieved immediately after the 3rd-stage main thruster was shut while the craft was barely away from the Earth. From that point on, the craft generally coasted toward the moon, with the earth continually tugging on it and slowing it down.

By the time the craft reached got near the Moon's gravity, it was moving only about 3,000 mph -- until the moon's gravity started pulling on it and speeding it up somewhat as it achieved lunar orbit. However, it was no longer moving as fast as 25,000 mph, and the LM did not need to slow down the incredible amounts that you claim.

To get back to earth, they made an engine burn that was enough to push them out of the moon's gravity well toward earth -- PLUS they used the gravity of the earth to assist them in getting the craft back. There was engine thrusting involved, but you can also think of the return back to Earth as the craft "falling" back to Earth -- falling due to gravity.

This idea of using the gravity of the Earth to pull them back from the moon is called a "Free Return Trajectory". This website provides an example and explanation of a free return trajectory.

Free Return Trajectory

Basically, the proof that we went to the moon is outstanding. We did it. The footage wasn't slowed down to look better, there were no strings, we didn't shoot the footage on Earth. It's really fun playing up the idea the moon landing was a hoax, it is a lot of fun watching people tell us it was all fake, we were lied to. But it's clear we did it. I just like the idea that there were bases and stuff on the moon we had nothing to do with, I love NASA employees coming out and saying "Yes it was a cover up we saw these pictures of the moon bases". I can't link to anything but that stuff is all around. Of course, how the hell do we prove that. I'm sure there's a video somewhere of NASA employees saying the moon bases are real at some UFO conference or something.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

How did that surface below the dust become "hard-packed" without moisture? Or is it rock? If it's rock, then the probes would have snapped and the LEM would have crashed down in 1/6th gravity from 5ft. But we're told the probes penetrated the surface so it's not "rock" now is it? So, I guess I'm confused. How did that layer of dust/sand/dirt or whatever become hard-packed?