Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
Unfortunately, as in any venue, there are going to be those whom for the lack of education and open mindedness, are going to "automatically " debunk any material put before them.

I would think those people would tend to believe it was real and not use the education to discover that it is not.

Hello NLDelta9, gosh you sure can bring out the best in controversial stuff. Happy to see yah here posting Sir.

Sorry, I watched your suggested vid and believe it's a dusty old ship but I'm not a photo analyst. But since it's suggested by you as being fake or real, it really does make me think what is it?

Regards,
Dallas

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
Unfortunately, as in any venue, there are going to be those whom for the lack of education and open mindedness, are going to "automatically " debunk any material put before them.

I would think those people would tend to believe it was real and not use the education to discover that it is not.

I would tend to agree...but the opposite has been shown frequently on this thread, many have posted "Oh this is FAKE why do people keep faking videos and putting them on youtube..bla bla bla " without offering a rebuttal whatsoever, educated or not...on how their opinion is factual or conducive for finding the truth....that is the meaning behind the statement.

Originally posted by scepticsteve
However his so-called video of the Apollo 20 launch is so fake looking and so clearly computer generated that it discredits all the rest of his videos in my eyes.

I can't understand why someone would go to all the trouble of making a decent fake of a wrecked spaceship on the moon, and then post such crappy launch footage. I mean, all other discrepancies aside, the footage of the "ship" looks great to me, even if it does turn out to be fake, it's much better IMO than the standard YouTube UFO video. It had to have taken time and effort. To post such dodgy looking footage of a launch alongside it defies all logic. I wonder if any explanation will be forthcoming.

First thing of things have any of you seen a prism, of prism can create an array of colors incluing green and brown. But the reason why the camera made the surface betray the brown color and the lighting and especially the camera isn't modern so only an array of colors are there for the camera to use. Kinda like how black always seem to look olive green under a low res camera. Black lines well if you look real carefully you'll see numbers and I know plenty of you have played FPS and you can't tell me that those line on there isn't but similar to the lines you'd see through the scope of a sniper rifle. The swinging effect well cameras back then didn't exactly weigh 3 oz especially analog ones, and if you keep zooming in and out while look around it would clearly look like there were more than 2 angles but there weren't look again. Another thing guys Nasa never incorporated Apollo so it doesn't entitle this to be a fake, because this mission wasn't Apollo 20 it was 11. Look at this beginning of the video when you the blue hit pause. As for the locations before the site Delporte, Lutke, Izsak, CSM DSKY?. Well anyways this enough for right now.

Originally posted by government_lies2000
First thing of things have any of you seen a prism, of prism can create an array of colors incluing green and brown. But the reason why the camera made the surface betray the brown color and the lighting and especially the camera isn't modern so only an array of colors are there for the camera to use. Kinda like how black always seem to look olive green under a low res camera. Black lines well if you look real carefully you'll see numbers and I know plenty of you have played FPS and you can't tell me that those line on there isn't but similar to the lines you'd see through the scope of a sniper rifle. The swinging effect well cameras back then didn't exactly weigh 3 oz especially analog ones, and if you keep zooming in and out while look around it would clearly look like there were more than 2 angles but there weren't look again. Another thing guys Nasa never incorporated Apollo so it doesn't entitle this to be a fake, because this mission wasn't Apollo 20 it was 11. Look at this beginning of the video when you the blue hit pause. As for the locations before the site Delporte, Lutke, Izsak, CSM DSKY?. Well anyways this enough for right now.

The author already answered about the Apollo 11 initial screen. This is what he answered at Youtube just minutes ago:

you'r right, wrong title, should not be this one, but compare the video to apollo 11 or other missions, you won't ever ever find this moon flyover , craters lutke and delporte , compare the coordinates given on a lunar map . Only apollo 15 and 17 passed right over these craters before, and this film is not one of these mission. I ll ask to make realize another film on the apollo 15 and 17 flyover, you'll be able to compare.

Originally posted by Cygnific
Lot's of craters and rock formations match the picture, but the NASA picture is not of great quality to see more detail. And also has some lighting differences that doesn't make things easier to interpret. And the picture from "Leonov" is having a higher angle.

yeah. the lightning plus angle i noticed too. this in my eyes also makes it a "tougher" fake (more time consuming).

see if i were to fake it, it would be very much less hassle to build of the original perspective and lightning. in the AS20 image the sun/light seems to be (from the perspective of me looking down on the image) to the top left and on the original more straight above from the top, more intense. and as you said the AS20 seems to have it's camera positioned fairly much like the AS15 albeit a bit higher which gives more of a top-down.

it's just..hard..(by no means impossible) to do this. to like 'adlib' with the lightning and go all 'artistic freedom' with something like this.

i made some new side by sides and so on. this time with markers to interesting points to match the pics off with. i avoided doing this the last time so not to lead the eye and let everyone draw their one conclusions.
-

-

-

-

-

-


It's either a well done hoax or the real deal. As for the "so obviously" fake rocket launch...I don't know. Haven't actually seen one or don't have enough material to compare it with.

Got an answer from him on youtube stating that filetransfer is tricky since he lives in Rwanda plus the information that everything will be posted plus that a website with PDF files, videos, hasselblad photos and more will be available.

Let's wait and see. I've gotten good at that over the years

Originally posted by Implosion
I can't understand why someone would go to all the trouble of making a decent fake of a wrecked spaceship on the moon, and then post such crappy launch footage. I mean, all other discrepancies aside, the footage of the "ship" looks great to me, even if it does turn out to be fake, it's much better IMO than the standard YouTube UFO video. It had to have taken time and effort. To post such dodgy looking footage of a launch alongside it defies all logic. I wonder if any explanation will be forthcoming.

I've been thinking the exact same thing. The "alien spaceship" flyover video and accompanying photos are simply amazing. If that video is a hoax, then someone sure put a LOT of time into it. But then the launch video looks completely amateurish and ridiculous, as does the video of the "city." Hell, even the video of the Apollo 20 patch looks like a bad CG animation.

So what's the deal? Is the guy posting the videos not the one hoaxing them? Maybe there are multiple hoaxers at work here.

People want attention and they want recognition for things they do well. Where else is a hoaxer going to get kudos for his work than places like this and YouTube? I don't think someone like this is trying to convince anyone, they're more interested in all the arguments they start.

I looked at the city video and it was utterly fake. The city itself looked like a chalk drawing on black art paper and the tone and value of the B&W was different than the tone & value of the surrounding landscape.

As far as the thing in the crater, I'm not buying it either. Since most of my arguments have already been covered, I will just state that one of the subtitles was extremely amateurish, spelling "buried" as "burried." I don't think that an official government film would have such a glaring error. Maybe I'm wrong, but it struck me as very similar to some of the misspelled words in "phishing" emails.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
People want attention and they want recognition for things they do well. Where else is a hoaxer going to get kudos for his work than places like this and YouTube? I don't think someone like this is trying to convince anyone, they're more interested in all the arguments they start.

I looked at the city video and it was utterly fake. The city itself looked like a chalk drawing on black art paper and the tone and value of the B&W was different than the tone & value of the surrounding landscape.

As far as the thing in the crater, I'm not buying it either. Since most of my arguments have already been covered, I will just state that one of the subtitles was extremely amateurish, spelling "buried" as "burried." I don't think that an official government film would have such a glaring error. Maybe I'm wrong, but it struck me as very similar to some of the misspelled words in "phishing" emails.

Hm. Well I certainly don't buy the tone & value argument of the city. First of, unless the city were actually made of moon rocks it makes no sense it should have the same tone and value. I see what you're getting at though but I don't agree that any fair analysis of tone & value can be made of this rather blurry, sometimes "mistakenly" (by the alleged cam) color saturated images can be made.

Subtitles could have been added by anyone? Or have I missed something where the poster states that NASA has done them? I figured that he added them since audio was #ty or N/A. Also makes zero sence, spend a couple of weeks hoaxing material and then mess up on subtitling?

To me, there is simply nothing proving this to be a hoax. Ain't nothing proving it's real either, but the videos sure are interesting enough.

All I'm saying is that it takes more information before being able to succesfully completley bunk this. Well from my point of view atleast.

Edited to add this side note; By far the funniest reason for debunking this I have seen is that "there were no Apollo 20 - End of story". That just cracks me up There were no B2 either until..what..1988?

[edit on 6-5-2007 by lasse]

This first picture is taken from the movie above Delponte and Lukte craters.

The second picture i made from combining 2 pictures taken from the Nasa website, AS15-P-9615 is Delporte crater and Lukte_AS15-P-8995 is Lukte crater..






Edit: the space between both pictures is simply because NASA never made a picture of the whole range, you can verify this on the moon chart and check my numbers of the photo's taken.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by lasse

I see what you're getting at though but I don't agree that any fair analysis of tone & value can be made of this rather blurry, sometimes "mistakenly" (by the alleged cam) color saturated images can be made.

I beg to differ. Doesn't matter what the materials are, the shadows would have the same value & tone -- all rocks, no matter what kind, cast the same density shadows.

The "city" is clearly a chalk drawing. I've made drawings like that myself. Not of a moon city per se, but I know what chalk on black paper looks like, and that is the real deal. Chalk on paper that is, and not an "alien moon city."