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]

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!

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."""

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."""

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.