What lies in Copernicus crater.....

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
There's lots of Apollo images which have conclusively been shown to have been tampered with.

That is the problem, I have never seen any Apollo image with signs of tampering, and most people that I have seen that consider that there was some tampering do not know enough about photography or image processing or have only seen some copies with some kind of problem that does not exist on better copies.

reply to post by ArMaP

That is the problem, I have never seen any Apollo image with signs of tampering, and most people that I have seen that consider that there was some tampering do not know enough about photography or image processing or have only seen some copies with some kind of problem that does not exist on better copies.

Surely you've seen the so-called sticky tape pictures which have lengths of tape obscurring something on the moons surface? Why put that tape there if it Isn't to hide something? How do you explain those pictures which appear to have had objects purposefully smudged out or removed?
I'm no expert (You may already have guessed ) but I've seen enough dodgy images to satisfy me that there's something decidedly wrong with the Apollo imagery.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


The only examples from Apollo imagery that show anything close to "smudging" or "tampering" are stitched panoramas which will naturally have some blurring if they were taken by hand; the original source pictures do not show any signs of censorship.

reply to post by ngchunter


Okay, if you're right please explain to me how the reticules, placed on the film by NASA to help calculate distances, etc, can appear to be behind objects on the moon in some of the Apollo pictures? Even astronaut, Brian Leary has said, ' If some of the films were spoiled, it is remotely possible that they (NASA) may have shot some scenes in a studio environment, to avoid embarrassment!'
I'm not making any exciting claims here just that NASA, at some point, decided that they had to retouch, fake or airbrush some of the pictures before releasing them to the public.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

www.clavius.org...

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Okay, if you're right please explain to me how the reticules, placed on the film by NASA to help calculate distances, etc, can appear to be behind objects on the moon in some of the Apollo pictures?

If you overexpose part of an image on a bright object or reflection it will make it hard or impossible to see the fiducial. This is made worse when you shrink and compress an image on the web. Many, perhaps all, of the instances of "missing" fiducials are recovered just by looking at high res scans. As an example, here's AS15-88-11863 in low res, note the missing fiducial on the white stripes of the flag:
history.nasa.gov...
Now in high res, note the fiducial reappears:
history.nasa.gov...
Mystery solved.

I'm not making any exciting claims here just that NASA, at some point, decided that they had to retouch, fake or airbrush some of the pictures before releasing them to the public.

We appear to have very different definitions of an exciting claim. To me, you just contradicted yourself. Your claim is quite "exciting" and demands evidence.

reply to post by ngchunter

We appear to have very different definitions of an exciting claim. To me, you just contradicted yourself. Your claim is quite "exciting" and demands evidence.

I didn't contradict myself at all. You must be a very excitable person if you get all flustered because someone quotes an astronaut who says that NASA may have faked some of the Apollo pictures! God knows how you would react if any of this was ever proven? We'd have to pump you full of horse tranquillisers to calm you down. . .

As far as I'm concerned there's lots of evidence that NASA faked at least some of the pictures taken of, and on, the moon. Obviously you will say the opposite. If so, do you think Donna Hare and Karl Wolfe (I think thats right) of the Disclosure Project were openly lieing when they stated that they had seen first hand evidence of structures on the moon?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

Like ArMaP, I don't work for NASA, we are Europeans without a first hand experience of dealing with NASA. However we think that the accusations are unfounded based on the general dishonesty of videos and websites promoting Moon hoax and other NASA discrediting campaigns. I would like to read your feedback on my very recent posts at the bottom of page 6 here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It was about the Donna+Karl interview.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Why ASSUME there was anything to hide in the first place!
Seeing as they are a few mapping missions going on at the moment and still to be done maybe once they are complete all the Apollo hoax ,secret moonbases and alien building BULLCOOKIES will stop but it wont because you guys will just say the info is faked or altered because the truth would be to DULL for you.

There's lots of Apollo images which have conclusively been shown to have been tampered with. If they removed anything of interest from those why would they now release a photograph which spoils all their hard work and lets the cat out of the bag? The only "BULLCOOKIES" (whatever they are?) I know are those who still cling onto their fading dream that NASA has revealled everything to them. You know, the kind of guy who walks around with a NASA mesh backed cap on all day dreaming of being The Right Stuff.

BULLCOOKIES is a more polite way to say BULLS**T and from what we have been told everyone one has some secrets but if you look at some of the EXTREME theories posted on here I really pmsl at them.
To many people look for the wayout reason for what they see rather than look for what its most likely to be .
Just look at some of the posts re objects in photographs of the Moon or Mars.
What will be really interesting if some of the really Hi-res images which will be taken of the moons surface that will be able to show landers etc what will all the guys who dont believe we landed on the moon say! They will no doubt say they are fake the only way would be to take them to the moon.
LRO mission will have 0.5 mtr/pixel resolution THAT will hopefully end the debate.

reply to post by nablator

However we think that the accusations are unfounded based on the general dishonesty of videos and websites promoting Moon hoax and other NASA discrediting campaigns. I would like to read your feedback on my very recent posts at the bottom of page 6 here:

Hi nablator. I've read your comments on page 6 and now have to admit to being even more confused. You say;

The interview is misleading because it depends on people automatically assuming any editing is done to hide things."

How can someone saying that they've found a base on the moon and that these things have to be airbrushed out before we sell them to the public, be in any way misleading? I've even been on youtube to have another look to see if what they are saying is the result of clever editing, splicing together video while leaving the most important parts of the discussion on the cutting room floor, yet the interviews seem flawless.
Both Donna Hare and Karl Wolfe claim to have seen structures on the moon. They both knew what the interview was for and weren't mislead. You say that they weren't lieing;

I'm not saying the two interviewed people are lying.

So, are they telling the truth? Are they the pawns in some, as of yet, unknown game being played out by NASA to make the general public believe we are not alone?
It's all very confusing. I for one think we're not being told the whole truth however, I have to partially agree with you, the lies and deceit may not be to hide the existence of ET or buildings on the moon, but down to incompetence within NASA.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter

 

We appear to have very different definitions of an exciting claim. To me, you just contradicted yourself. Your claim is quite "exciting" and demands evidence.

I didn't contradict myself at all.

You said you weren't making any "excitable" claims. Then you said you were claiming that they faked the photographs. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

You must be a very excitable person if you get all flustered because someone quotes an astronaut who says that NASA may have faked some of the Apollo pictures!

I don't care what a O'Leary said, what YOU said was a contradicting statement from my point of view.

As far as I'm concerned there's lots of evidence that NASA faked at least some of the pictures taken of, and on, the moon. Obviously you will say the opposite.

I proved your "evidence" to be wrong. I didn't just make claims without proof. Do you have a problem with my proof? If so, state it.

If so, do you think Donna Hare and Karl Wolfe (I think thats right) of the Disclosure Project were openly lieing when they stated that they had seen first hand evidence of structures on the moon?

Have donna hare and karl wolfe been to the moon? Of course not, so no, they haven't seen first hand evidence of anything. They're delusional or mistaken.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by ngchunter]

Anyways, I have a telescope, and in early january i was looking at the moon, into one crater, dont know wich, I dont know the names of things up there, but, I saw an 'nail/spike' (the thing you hammer into wood ) shaped thing inside the crater, it was huge and took up at least half of the crater diameter.

Any one know what is was ? it was brownish in color ....

Based on what you've told us so far, I'd say it's probably a great big nail or spike. Brown you say? Obviously it's rusted!

Wow! Do you have any idea what you've just proven my friend? You've just proven that the moon has an atmosphere. Rusty nails just don't happen without oxygen.

Good job

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
How can someone saying that they've found a base on the moon and that these things have to be airbrushed out before we sell them to the public, be in any way misleading?

No, this was about the first interview. Donna talks about things that could be UFOs, (her interpretation), my interpretation is different. For example the black sky that was discussed a few days ago has many white dots in some pictures. They can't be stars, with the glare of the Moon in the foreground. So what are they? Some people will jump to conclusions (UFOs) and some will study many pictures and conclude, like ArMaP and me, that removing obvious defects is in no way cheating or hiding anything.

Both Donna Hare and Karl Wolfe claim to have seen structures on the moon.

Donna talked about UFOs only if I'm not mistaken. I will look again, but I'm pretty sure this is what she said.

They both knew what the interview was for and weren't mislead. You say that they weren't lieing;

No, I don't. I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the video. In my opinion Donna has a creative interpretation of photographic "editing" and Karl is probably lying. The photographic evidence presented (Lunar Orbiter and Clementine) is misleading. Its only my opinion, not worth much, but it's an educated opinion, I try to explain why I came to this conclusion.

Are they the pawns in some, as of yet, unknown game being played out by NASA to make the general public believe we are not alone?

Possibly. I wish I knew. It could also be a way to discredit conspiracy theories, if needed. It could be the real purpose behind Greer's Disclosure project, that has discredited itself quite thoroughly. Nothing is simple.

reply to post by ngchunter


Oh dear! Donna Hare has spent most of her life working in and around the space programme. She used to draw the lunar maps and was a sub contractor to NASA for over fifteen years. She has won numerous awards including the Apollo Achievement Award in 1969 from NASA, the Skylab award and a recommendation for her work on the Advisory Committee for Psychology Associates. And what is your evaluation of her testimony;

Have donna hare and karl wolfe been to the moon? Of course not, so no, they haven't seen first hand evidence of anything. They're delusional or mistaken.

Delusional or mistaken!!!

Brian O'Leary is an astronaut and scientist who you aren't interested in listening to because he accepts that NASA may have faked pictures if they found it necessary.
But of course, you're not interested in either are you?
You have nothing of interest to say.

ngchunter, please pick up your credibility on your way out the door. Thank you.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Oh dear! Donna Hare has spent most of her life working in and around the space programme. She used to draw the lunar maps and was a sub contractor to NASA for over fifteen years. She has won numerous awards including the Apollo Achievement Award in 1969 from NASA, the Skylab award and a recommendation for her work on the Advisory Committee for Psychology Associates. And what is your evaluation of her testimony;

Delusional or mistaken!!!

Yes. They've never been to the moon, so no matter what they say, they do NOT have first hand experience because they've never been there themselves. Unless you're saying they saw for themselves in a telescope, in which case, tell me where to look.

Brian O'Leary is an astronaut and scientist who you aren't interested in listening to because he accepts that NASA may have faked pictures if they found it necessary.

I've seen enough evidence that they didn't fake a thing. O'Leary was thrown to the back of the line in the "basement" that was the apollo applications program, basically a holding pattern for astronaut canidates that didn't make the cut for the moon missions. He was a scientist without flying experience. Occaisonally when they'd lose an astronaut they might recruit an AAP astronaut to replace him (that's how Al Bean got a ride on apollo 12). O'Leary resigned from the corps during flight training having never gone to space. He does not have his full astronaut wings. He seems rather jealous of those who stuck it out and got the chance to fly. You didn't even get his name right at first and apparently you didn't know he isn't a real astronaut. Now whose credibility looks tarnished?

But of course, you're not interested in either are you?
You have nothing of interest to say.

My debunking of the whole "reticle" thing wasn't of interest to you (of course not, it went against your beliefs)? I'm not leaving just because you don't like what I have to say.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ArMaP



I got it downloaded at home last night. It took 50 minutes there and at work it would still be downloading. When I get home tonight I'll play with it.

I do a lot of photo manipulation and I'm very interested in seeing what can be seen in the hidden details.

At first viewing it appears to be scanned to the level the actual films grain is visible which means everything on the film is there. The 16 bit format would be capable of more than the film has most likely.

When I get time, I'll chop it up into manageable chunks to play with.

What I see so far is rock and dirt. Pretty much what I expected.

There was a company working on an HDR Monitor called Brightside Technologies but their site appears to be shut down so I don't know what happened to them. We likely have a few years to wait and then only the CG Industry would be interested.

16 or now 32 bit I only need for gradients in some CG applications like displacement mapping. It gives smooth transitions. The need for it in these photo's is exaggerated though. We don't need any more than our eye can perceive in this case. If there is nothing to find, there is nothing to find.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


The cases I have seen with "sticky tape" also had the previous or next photo with the same tape, so I think of that as the only copies of those photos that could be found (and this is a different situation, the missing photos) to be digitised and put on the Internet, and they had been previously been mounted in some kind of "manual" panorama.

reply to post by Blaine91555


It's true that nobody needs a 16 bit per channel monitor and graphics card, but the higher amount of data is useful to avoid reaching the limits too soon.

Imagine you have a photo that, like this one from Copernicus crater, goes from pure white on the overexposed areas to the pure black of the sky. On a common 8 bit image you have only 254 possible values between black and white, so if you crop a small area that does not have the extreme values, you can only work with 254 shades of grey, and that could not be enough to distinguish between two features next to each other; with a 16 bits image you would have 65,534 possible values, so it is easier to adjust the brightness to make visible the difference between those two features that looked the same in the 8 bit version.

I will see if I can open this image on ISIS.

reply to post by ArMaP

If it's a question of dynamic range, won't that still be a problem? It will be limited by a) the original film, b) the scanner on board the orbiters.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, it's limited by all those things (and probably some more), but if some method can avoid introducing even more limitations then we should use it.