BBC article suspecting NASA is manipulating the colors

news.bbc.co.uk...

Read the article it's quite interresting. And if BBC allows it, you will be seeing a quite remarkable picture below this text:



When did NASA change the color of it's logo? Guess they use the same superpaint as is used on the sundial they now cut away from their pictures.

Another thing is that the sudden communications failure comes at the very same time there is a terrible storm in Australia. The continent which is reknown for it's vast, red and rocky deserts hmmm.... I wonder when Ayers Rock will show up on Mars pictures. And maybe it would be smart to look for prarie dogs and coyoties in the pictures

Blessings,
Mikromarius

There really isn't any regions that look like this though, any areas similar would have grasses and spinifex present.

Nor does the weather around Canberra really have anything to do with the weather in the middle of the country...

Originally posted by Kano
There really isn't any regions that look like this though, any areas similar would have grasses and spinifex present.

Nor does the weather around Canberra really have anything to do with the weather in the middle of the country...

Well, I used Australia as an example, since it was mentioned in the article. And you say there is grass everywhere in the deserts? That would be the simplest thing to remove. It's one of the things the family of Man has mastered above all, to degenerate the surface of the earth. Exterminate and whatever. Are you saying my theory is false simply because it is impossible in your mind to remove grass? Maybe there was a sandstorm on "Mars", or perhaps one of the backdrops at Area 51 fell down on the Rover, or they discovered that a prarie dog was sitting twenty meters to the left of the Spirit car eating a nut in their latest episode?

What is your take on the logo? Is it a pigment thing?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by mikromarius]

And your argumant that there isn't any place on earth which looks like the "Mars" pictures. I took a google search and chose a random picture. Send out someone with some chemicals, and in a week there wouldn't be a trace of life left:



Blessings,
Mikromarius

That theory is just like many's theory on the moon landing. i think we never really did go to the moon. And if we've never landed on the moon... then how come we can go to Mars which is so much farther away? I think your theory is very true. I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm also not saying I DON'T believe in it. I am leaning either way. It depends on which side has more evidence.

This is simple to me folks, NASA is run by the military and the military rarely tells the truth straight up. You can get the truth out of them in time but rarely straight up!

I totally agree with most people who doubt the US never landed on the Moon. There is even a good chance it is infact impossible to get up there and stay alive. According to Mr. Bill Kaysing, 7 year head of technical publications for Rocketdyne Research Department, it is infact impossible:

"About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead." Quote taken from batesmotel.8m.com...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

STANDARD MOON HOAX REPLY:

There is no 'evidence' against the moon landings that hasn't been solidly and repeatedly debunked.

A few sites:

www.clavius.org...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

www.badastronomy.com...

Or you could go to NASAs site and search on Moon Hoax.

Now, on the other hand we have the fact that the Russians could tell the landings werent faked from the direction of the radio signals (they would have kicked up a fuss if they could disprove it). The fact that a couple hundred kilos of moon rocks were brought back and have been examined by thousands of geologists on Earth, all of whom can see that the rocks are completely unlike anything on earth and would be utterly impossible to create artificially. Also of course the fact that three missions placed Laser ranging reflection devices on the moon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



There is also this picture of the Apollo 15 landing site by a lunar orbiter.

www.space.com...



Deny Ignorance my friends...

Originally posted by Kano
Now, on the other hand we have the fact that the Russians could tell the landings werent faked from the direction of the radio signals (they would have kicked up a fuss if they could disprove it). The fact that a couple hundred kilos of moon rocks were brought back and have been examined by thousands of geologists on Earth, all of whom can see that the rocks are completely unlike anything on earth and would be utterly impossible to create artificially. Also of course the fact that three missions placed Laser ranging reflection devices on the moon.

Hehe. Exactly which of the above statements prooves that there have ever been humans on the Moon? I don't doubt there have been landed vessels on the Moon, but humans? I just don't buy it. And as for the rocks? Nothing is impossible. A 100 years ago it was impossible to cross the Atlantic by plane too. Why do they never show stars on the pictures (well there have been spotted as many as three stars in the pictures)? I'll tell you why. It is because it would have prooven the hoax. And when they jump around on the Moon. Why does the sand fall down again? And below the Apollo craft. Why is there no crater after the massive blast from the rockets? And why on Earth is that flag waving? And there are some quite remarkable shadows in those pictures, especially those which turn 180 degrees in the visire, when the Sun was the only lightsource..... And how the American flag is always visible and fully lit, even when it is on the shadow side.

The below quote is from hoax theorist Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went to the Moon:

"The astronauts would have been overwhelmed by the sight of trillions of stars. But not one picture has ever come back from the alleged trip to the moon showing the stars in all their magnificence, nor do any of the astronauts comment on the stars."

Hmmmm

As for your proof (coming from the horse's mouth naturally), that picture showing the "landing sites". Hehe, strange how it looks like something has touched down and taken off on these pictures, when you don't see any traces of such craters in the pictures from the "actual" Moon landing..... And where is the part of the ship which is still up there? Can't seem to see that one there.....

Edit: The rocks again: There are millions of meteorites around the Earth. Go eat some rocks yourself!

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by mikromarius]

The dust? For the same reason the astronauts came back down to the surface, gravity?

There wasn't technology to go and retrieve moon rocks at the time. Nor is it possible to pass of meteorites as moon rocks. Meteorites are scarred from their passing through the atmosphere, and they are also typically metallic. The moon rocks are not.

The questions about the 'crater' from landing are just plain stupid, as you might realise if you actually read any of the links. They didn't come flying in at top speed and slam the reverse rockets in at the last second to stop, it was slow and controlled all the way. SLOW and controlled.

As far as the dust thing, the moon still has gravity, that is why our white-suited friends didn't go flying off into space..

The stars have been explained ad nauseum on numerous threads.

Clinging to your pseudo-religious beliefs that these things are all false is well and good. But if you wish to challenge these things in a Science forum, it is advisable to actually learn some of the aspects of the relevant science before doing so. Noone here has the time or patience to explain this to someone who clearly has no scientific understanding whatsoever, that is not the intention of this forum.

If you wish to add more to the moon debate, I suggest you go and learn some of the relevant science then add your post to the numerous moon hoax threads already in existence.

As far as the original article, there is nothing in it we didn't already know. It appears the coloring of the logo is also more reflective at near-IR ranges.

The flag is clearly being pushed by WIND, not by by twisting the pools. Anyone can see that debunking has no basis, it's clear, that wind is pushing it

"""The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter."""

Originally posted by mikromarius
news.bbc.co.uk...

Read the article it's quite interresting. ...

When did NASA change the color of it's logo? Guess they use the same superpaint as is used on the sundial they now cut away from their pictures.

Another thing is that the sudden communications failure comes at the very same time there is a terrible storm in Australia. The continent which is reknown for it's vast, red and rocky deserts hmmm.... I wonder when Ayers Rock will show up on Mars pictures. And maybe it would be smart to look for prarie dogs and coyoties in the pictures

Blessings,
Mikromarius

~*~

i did read the article.

it was informative.

all kinds of manipulations, seems obvious,

even creating a staged scene is not beyond a Hollywood enterprise...(although unlikely; to my mind)

this whole Mars program seems wrapped in illusions & crafted discoveries....
SCIENCE UBER ALLES, as it were

Surely an instant camera on the lander dropping the picture onto a small scanner could give us a better idea than filtered digital images?

Ok, that's a silly idea, but I wonder if they could miniaturize a film/scanner based camera rather than digital cameras specifically for this purpose. It's a pity the digital calibration isn't a clear-cut thing and we are left with no real idea of the exact colors.

Could this work?


[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Zzub]

Originally posted by Thinker
The flag is clearly being pushed by WIND, not by by twisting the pools. Anyone can see that debunking has no basis, it's clear, that wind is pushing it

"""The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter."""

Its apparent that many don't read but what they only want to read....get my drift?
The issue of the flag is well explained here:

"ENVIRONMENT: fluttering flags"
Link:
www.clavius.org...

Excerpts:

"In a certain photograph you can see the flag waving. That's impossible in a vacuum.

It's always amusing to hear assertions of motion based on the evidence in a still picture.

It would seem that this question needs no rebuttal. But we should clarify that the apparent waving "motion" in the still photos is the wrinkles remaining from its packing. In earth gravity the weight of the fabric itself is often enough let wrinkles "hang" out. But because the flag was made from a very light nylon [Platoff93, note 10] which is even lighter in lunar gravity, the force of the wrinkles wanting to stay wrinkled overcomes the force of gravity for longer.

Here (Fig. 1) is an example of a flag that appears to wave. It's worth belaboring a trivial point to emphasize that observers will tend to "fill in the gaps" in their perception by applying past experience. The still photo doesn't actually show motion -- no still photo can. But the visible ripples cue our recall of all the other flags we've seen where rippling is caused by wind. And if we are not conscious of this extrapolation, we may strongly convince ourselves that we have indeed "seen" the detail provided by our memories.

This is why great care must be taken in interpreting Apollo photos. We cannot allow our prejudices of the behavior of objects in air and strong gravity to influence our interpretation of behavior on the moon.


In the video coverage you can see the flag waving. That's impossible in a vacuum.

The simple answer is inertia. The Apollo flag assembly starts with a telescoping tubular pole shoved vertically into the lunar soil. But the resemblance to terrestrial flag arrangements stops there. On earth we attach flags to the pole at the top and bottom corners. And the same would work on the moon, except that the flag would hang limply without ever being visible for what it was.

The astronauts said it was hard to drive the pole into the lunar surface. [Ibid.] Apollo 11 had no means of hammering it in. In later missions they reinforced the top of the pole so that a geology hammer could be used to drive it. During the process the flag pole was twisted in the fashion of a drill bit to bore it into the denser layers. Twisting the pole would cause the outer tip of the crossbar to describe an arc with a radius of about five feet (1.5 meters). The free corner of the flag, suspended from the tip, could whip back and forth.


In one video you can see the flag move even though no astronaut is touching it. That could only be caused by wind

In these instances the astronaut has just let go of the flagpole. The flagpole and its horizontal rod are bouncing, resonating in response to the residual motion from the astronaut's manipulation. If the wind is causing this motion then why are the flagpole and horizontal rod moving (bouncing), but the flag itself doesn't move at all? And why, in any of these cases, is there no secondary indication of wind such as blowing insulation on the lunar module or dust raised by the wind.

The flag is off-balance when the pole is perfectly vertical. It is balanced when tilted back slightly. Frequently the crossbar will rotate slightly just after being released by the astronaut, much as the door of an off-balance refrigerator will find its own equilibrium point."



IMHO, you going to 'bunk' the Moon landing, better come with much harder evidences then 'debunked' claims.




regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Thinker
The flag is clearly being pushed by WIND, not by by twisting the pools. Anyone can see that debunking has no basis, it's clear, that wind is pushing it

"""The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter."""

If it was that obvious do you think that the government would release it with the whole world being able to see these mistakes? I doubt it. Oh, and if you were going to say it was live, it was an accident, then I'd have to say that is rubbish.
If the government were going to fake something like this, there is no way it would be live. They would shoot the thing, then watch it over and over until they made sure it was perfect.
If the flag waving was an imperfection, it never would've saw the light of day in the public domain, or they would've filmed it again without that happening. I'm sorry but we did go to the moon.

Referring to the ORIGINAL TOPIC:

Good find, mikromarius! Thanks for posting this article. Is that a picture of Africa? I haven't traveled much, myself.

PS-Try to stay on topic, guys. You can start your own thread and thoroughly debunk the arguments against the moon landing. This is about MARS.

Originally posted by Thinker
The flag is clearly being pushed by WIND, not by by twisting the pools. Anyone can see that debunking has no basis, it's clear, that wind is pushing it

"""The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter."""

No it didnt.... if you actually seen the footage, its clear that the flag is STIFF and moves... Its funny how you could believe something ridiculous like that

how is the nasa logo red then???

no - one has exactly explained this yet.......(well in a way i can understand)

if we get a picture with that red logo on and change the colours so its 'blue' the actual colour will that be closer to true colour than the current pictures???

The logo background shows as a dark red because of the filters that NASA is using to construct the "color images".

Instead of using a set of filters that are all close to a human's range of vision (and the colors that a computer can accurately display), they have chosen to use an INFRARED filter instead of a red filter.

This creates color problems because of the way some pigments show up. The background logo paint gives a VERY strong infrared signal... much stronger than the blue signal from that logo in the blue channel.

So when they mix the infrared, the green, and the blue filter images, they get a very strong INFRARED signal that shows up as a very strong RED signal on your computer screen.

Unfortunately, since they have chosen to use that infrared filter and there are objects in the picture that give a much-too-strong signal when compared to a red filter, we can't really "fix" the red channel data.

That's because any given pixel in the picture might be bright for at least two DIFFERENT reasons... it might be bright because it's actually bright red... or it might be bright because it is blue-that-shows-bright-in-infrared.

So if you try to remap the colors, there's no way to choose which way to map the set of all bright pixels.

That's one of the reasons that I've been objecting so strongly to NASA's choice of the L2 (infrared) filter for their "color" images instead of the L4 (red-orange) filter.

Pictures that they have made with L4-L5-L6 all come out looking very, very close to what humans would see. Yet they persist in taking almost all of their landscape pictures using the L2-L5-L6 filters instead. (L5 is a green filter, and L6 is blue).

The logo is "wrong" for exactly one reason... NASA is making wrong-headed choices about which filters to use when taking pictures for later display as press releases.

They are not tampering with any data, they are not "altering" anything... they are simply using their equipment wrong if they want to show humans what they would see.

That's stunningly bad PR, as far as I'm concerned, but not particularly sinister.

Hope this helps clear the matter up for you.

Thank you for putting the explanation in proper terms. It's funny how as soon as something is a little odd the sinister conspiracy flags go up. Sometimes it's just a simple matter of bad decisions.