It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Buzz Aldrin Book Signing in Atlanta 9/11

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



So your one of the first few humans to stand on another world... and you are so jaded or so wrapped up in your check lists that you don't just once look up and say "Wow... look at those stars...."


They made the whole trip to the Moon, I think that they didn't needed to wait to land on the Moon to look at the stars.

I can't find the quote, but I'm pretty sure that one of the astronauts on the first landing said he was amazed by the stars when on the dark side of the Moon.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Why are we focussing on stars???

We should be focussing on why they would 'fake' themselves being near the moon when it's obvious they are in Earth's orbit.

Why would they stage this? if they were near the moon???? Can anyone answer me that?

Can someone also ask me why 700 boxes of the most important footage in Human History of the moon landing... has conveniently gone missing?




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Why would they stage this? if they were near the moon???? Can anyone answer me that?



Uh oh.

Now you've gone and done it.


It was just a practice shot...

(just ignore the reality of the matter and pretend it was a practice shot
)



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Total Package

Why would they stage this? if they were near the moon???? Can anyone answer me that?



Uh oh.

Now you've gone and done it.


It was just a practice shot...

(just ignore the reality of the matter and pretend it was a practice shot
)


Yup when you are a debunker you can go to any lengths to "explain" something away as long as it sounds plausible. Sadly explaining it and proving it are 2 different things... but to the NASA sympathisers that doesn't matter


Poor old Buzz didn't want to know about this footage either... his only response was along the lines of "You're asking the wrong guy.... we were just passengers in that thing"



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


I'm still waiting for the explanation about the mirrors on the Moon.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Oh and while we are at it... explain what Neil Armstrong meant when he said:

[B]"breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers"[/B]

You don't have to be Einstein to know that "truths protective layer" means exactly that.... a layer or lies in front of the true that is meant to protect us.

Can anyone explain what Armstrong means by this and then try and tell me Armstrong landed on the moon and the footage we saw on TV and in photos is real and what actually happened.... and not the "lie" layer put in front of the truth to protect us.

These are the 3 questions I have.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Total Package
 


I'm still waiting for the explanation about the mirrors on the Moon.


Really? I didn't even need to think I had to explain it... but maybe if you could explain to me which Apollo/Shuttle mission went to Mars with astronauts to go and put the Mars rover on the surface there? You might have your answer then as to the mirrors.

Of course I have NEVER said we have not been to the moon.... I've maintained all along that it's the videos and pictures that are the issue. They are well and truly faked. Armstrong may very well have been to the moon and put a mirror down on the surface..... but if he did it sure as hell wasn't in the video and photos we've been shown. I mean you aren't going to show the world that Armstrong steps onto the moon and an alien hops out of a flying saucer to say Hello as he is putting the mirrors down.

The mirrors prove nothing either way. It could have been done remotely or it could have been done by the astronauts. The issue is with the video and photographs and what NASA are hiding.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't suppose the mission plan used their limited time on the moon's surface to have them standing there doing nothing but stargazing.


So your one of the first few humans to stand on another world... and you are so jaded or so wrapped up in your check lists that you don't just once look up and say "Wow... look at those stars...."


Well if I can't even see the stars at all due to my dark visor and the blinding bright light from the moon's surface, it might not occur to me to look up and say wow! Also I think Tifozi made a good point about limited flexibility in their space suits, I'm not sure they could tilt their head back very far in those to look up even if they wanted to. If they can't escape the moon's reflection.


You can work on convincing me that the CAMERA doesn't see them... you will never convince me that the human eye wouldn't see so many stars it would be awe inspiring...

This one fact, added to the fact that NASA says what we would see from Earth if the conditions were the same... is what keeps me believing something is not right...

Why will no one address that picture from Earth? Because to admit that NASA is right about that... would negate any 'no stars from the moon' theory'

I thought I answered your question here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and at the end of that answer I tried to answer the question about the video cameras before you even asked it, so see that for my thoughts on this:


And as you can see in this low level shuttle camera you CAN see the stars in space... and these are NOT ice, dust and debris... nor critters, ufo's or Bokehs... because you can clearly see Orion. Even when the bright reflecting moon glares into the camera, you can still see Orion and the other stars clearly.


Lastly, why do you guys care whether the astronauts could see stars or not? What difference does it make? Does it have anything to do with the moon landing hoax theory? Because if anyone is suggesting that the astronauts could lie about going to the moon, couldn't they just as easily lie about whether they saw stars or not? If this is supposed to be some attempt at evidence that they didn't go to the moon, I have to say it has to be one of the weakest arguments I've heard yet.

The human eye is like a sophisticated camera and while it has some differences from a still camera (like no shutter speed) it has some similarities too like difficulty dealing with very high levels of contrast. The iris in the human eye can open, or it can close, but it can't do both at the same time which it seems to me is what you are asking it to do to see the stars and not be blinded by the reflection of sunlight from the moon's surface.

By the way the shuttle video showing the moon and the stars keeps showing the stars when the moon comes into view but the sun is WAY overexposed. The human eye would close the iris when the moon comes into view, it has automatic exposure control. Cameras can have automatic exposure control too but they must have had it disabled on that shuttle camera.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
I'm still waiting for the explanation about the mirrors on the Moon.

Maybe they were already there, and the best way to hide that was to claim they were 'ours'?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Does it have anything to do with the moon landing hoax theory? Because if anyone is suggesting that the astronauts could lie about going to the moon, couldn't they just as easily lie about whether they saw stars or not?

It does if they knew hundreds of photos had been prepared containing no stars.

Just playing devils advocate



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Oh and while we are at it... explain what Neil Armstrong meant when he said:

[B]"breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers"[/B]

You don't have to be Einstein to know that "truths protective layer" means exactly that.... a layer or lies in front of the true that is meant to protect us.


You might interpret it that way but you might be wrong. Another possible interpretation is that "truth's protective layers" means protective layers of the truth and the layers have nothing to do with protecting us but with protecting the truth. It helps if you put that quote in context:

"Today we have with us a group of students among Americas best,
To you we say: We have only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers."-Neil Armstrong

So he is talking about making discoveries, which can reasonably be likened to revealing the truth and revealing the truth is like removing the layers of misunderstanding or ignorance that separate us from the truth.

I do find it interesting that he chose the word "protective" but only he can tell you why he chose that particular word. But taken in the context of his speech, at the most it's interesting but far from any smoking gun.

As for Buzz Aldrin's reply that he was only a passenger in the thing, that was a good answer! I'm sure the large staff at NASA did lots of things he wasn't aware of so of course he can't explain everything that everyone at NASA did. I can't explain everything that everyone does where I work either.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You might interpret it that way but you might be wrong. Another possible interpretation is that "truth's protective layers" means protective layers of the truth and the layers have nothing to do with protecting us but with protecting the truth. It helps if you put that quote in context:

"Today we have with us a group of students among Americas best,
To you we say: We have only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers."-Neil Armstrong

So he is talking about making discoveries, which can reasonably be likened to revealing the truth and revealing the truth is like removing the layers of misunderstanding or ignorance that separate us from the truth.

I do find it interesting that he chose the word "protective" but only he can tell you why he chose that particular word. But taken in the context of his speech, at the most it's interesting but far from any smoking gun.


That my friend is really reaching to join the dots.... I'm afraid. In fact it's when you take it in context of what he is talking about (great discoveries) that it makes even more damning that we are not being told everything to protect us... and as a result there are great things undiscovered.

In fact if you look at his entire quote there is a bit right after which is often left out... and it goes:

"Today we have with us a group of students among Americas best,
To you we say: We have only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief"

Now when you take this speech in context.... you have to ask yourself.... What places are there in our solar system that are "beyond belief"? The moon is a rock with nothing on it apparantly... Mars is just red rock... Venus is apparantly just gas
or so they tell us..... what is there is our solar system that we can go to that is "beyond belief" if we remove truth's protective layer?.

I cannot see how anyone can not see this as a smoking gun. You have to ask yourself is Neil Armstrong's lack of public exposure in the last 40 years because he is shy and avoiding limelight? or does he not want to be part of the coverup... and only does what he is forced to do... which is turn up to anniversary celebrations? All questions that need answering.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur

As for Buzz Aldrin's reply that he was only a passenger in the thing, that was a good answer! I'm sure the large staff at NASA did lots of things he wasn't aware of so of course he can't explain everything that everyone at NASA did. I can't explain everything that everyone does where I work either.


Yeah except Buzz's reply came after he was shown never before seen footage of them faking the view of the moon from their capsule. He thought he was there for something else... and got hit with this footage and was not keen at all to watch it. Instead he got up and almost begged Sibrel to leave him alone because he was "You're talking to the wrong guy... we're passengers going on a flight". You note that he not once denied the footage was fake or not real... his only issue is that he didn't know he was going to be hit with the footage and that his reaction was going to be taped.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
Yeah except Buzz's reply came after he was shown never before seen footage of them faking the view of the moon from their capsule. He thought he was there for something else... and got hit with this footage and was not keen at all to watch it. Instead he got up and almost begged Sibrel to leave him alone because he was "You're talking to the wrong guy... we're passengers going on a flight". You note that he not once denied the footage was fake or not real... his only issue is that he didn't know he was going to be hit with the footage and that his reaction was going to be taped.


Maybe you can't find that video in English because Buzz threatened to sue?

If I had been to the moon and a sleazy journalist called me a liar in the middle of an interview I'd get up and walk out too, what's so surprising about that?

And why would he try to deny the video? It's all been explained here:

www.clavius.org...

You can choose to believe the explanation or not, it's your choice. Or you could do a little research yourself to see if it's true instead of believing what Bart tells you.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well I think your concept and definition of "fake" is a bit "out there" for me.

I think we can all assume that color adjustments are done on any sold print (and the Earth-rise scenes are the most popular). That by no means changes the definition to "fake". I see now you've retracted the notion of fake, not long after saying "absolute proof of a faked image".

Most of these misconceptions come out of a lack of knowledge about how images are enhanced, produced, or reproduced.

1) The image you have initially posted as "fake" - is color and saturation enhanced and adjusted. The original being sold here seems to show accurate color representation to your liking. However due to the large format film and whatever method of printing - you can vary in color representation. is it an exposure to original negative or even print? Is it a print several generations out? Again, lineage is not concretely verifiable.

2) You are also presenting digital images from scans. Another variable into the mix. Color adjustment and saturation are often adjusted in scans. So no real surprise there.

3) The "overlay" notation of a colorless Moon is fairly ridiculous (sorry) when you know how image processing actually works and is put into practical work.

If this were some attempt to "get over" on anyone, there would be no trace. I can desaturate any portion of any photo you give me with no "overlay" of anything. It's not a question of overlay, its a question of saturation and area. Your orange edge has more to do with a scanning and digitization process than anything else. Not any sort of an overlay - there's no need to do that to desaturate any portion of an image.

4) The "odd edge" on the earth's gradated underside - is again nothing but a product of saturation and level adjustment. Slight over adjustment can produce jagged edges rather than then the clean gradation - because colors and brightness levels are being raised and showing more subtle data such as smooth gradation as "harsh".

Digital processing or even traditional dodge and burn darkroom techniques can have this effect. It is again, not proof of anything being "faked", but simply adjusted.

Seeing as the print is for sale at the link provided, I have to question the sourcing of the image you originally claimed as "absolute proof of a faked image". We also have no idea as to the transfer process that enabled it to be posted on the internet - which is relevant also. Transferred from what medium? With what equipment? What sort of adjustments? When making sweeping statements of "fake" it's good to have these under your belt, because without them you cannot understand what you are looking at.

Much of this relates well to all the NASA video footage of "UFOs". People don't understand basic video aberrations, focal lengths, proximity or the nature of the environment, etc. But boy howdy, when we see odd moving objects...they must be extraterrestrial craft. It's born out of ignorance of information.

So really it comes down to basic imaging awareness, being misinterpreted as trying to pass off an image as "faked".

You seem to take some sort of pride in noting (inaccurately) that I "missed" something, or alluding to some sort of ineptness. That really doesn't help your position, as it's pretty clear (and I mean no offense in saying this) that you don't understand basic imaging.

There's nothing to miss here, images range in color and saturation all the time on the internet. There are all sorts of items and operations that can effect image quality and color, and to not understand that process at all, doesn't leave you much ammunition to go after any image as "fake". My best guess (because I don't know sourcing for sure) is that your "faked" image was probably a sale piece, or an internet based image. I can easily see both being adjusted, both to increase desirability of "art" for sale or internet presentation based on someone's monitor.

You're reaching at straws that don't exist to somehow validate your position to others, because of simple artifacts of imaging. This happens all over paranormal topics, from ghosts to UFOs - i.e. see "orbs" with faces for one drive towards some sort of legitimacy -- and see any UFO photo in a clear sky with any pixels around it for false evidence of hoaxing through composite...this goes both ways-false positives to inaccurate negatives.

So, if NASA is guilty of making prints people would like to have on their wall by level or color adjusting...so what. That has no bearing on original data, as it's probably so far removed from that. Your stance is more on the notion of cherry picking what fits your notions. That's dangerous ground.

"USGS Also pulled the same trick"

Again, it clearly an art piece. I doubt it was presented as some sort of real "Moon" based image. They "fessed up" and probably said this was an interpretative piece. So...what. That kind of thing just makes one appear like Dale Gribble - "AHA! So it is faked!"...when, yeah, it's not meant to be accurate representation in the first place. No one was really "caught" in the first place.

The endgame here is photo sourcing and methods of transfer and duplication. NASA images will be enhanced and that's just the way it is. Raw images don't sell or present as well as dramatic art...even if it's subtle changes.

I'm quite sure those Hubble images also do not reflect accurate colors on the net - but it's a far cry from labeling them "fake".

It's all about the process - so the best way to understand that is to try and get those issues under the belt. Otherwise you're largely unarmed when something truly interesting does surface.

Have a great weekend all.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


Well, you do. Because of some flaws in that logic that you presented.

"It's easier to put a bunch of mirrors on the Moon than put 3 men walking around the Moon".

This is not true, at all, and one thing that pops in my mind in this theories is that the conspiracy theorie goes a long way from reality and goes into complex detail to justify something that is simple.

According to the NASA version:

They went up there, put the mirrors down, adjusted them so they face Eart correctly, cleaned up around them and left. Simple, if you ignore the travel to the Moon.

Those mirrors are used for scientific porpuses like judging the distance of the Moon, if it's coming closer or getting away.

They are there, it's a fact

Now, according to the conspiracy theorie:

They didn't land on the Moon. So they have to come up with an idea to put those mirrors up there. They have to figure out how to launch those mirrors to the Moon (putting this way actually sounds easy), release them on the face of the Moon, and then place them correctly without using hands or another advanced technology that even today would have some trouble in accomplishing such a task and then have some type of "scape" system that would evacuate all of that technology that installed the mirrors.

HONESTLY, what do you think is true?




Of course I have NEVER said we have not been to the moon.... I've maintained all along that it's the videos and pictures that are the issue. They are well and truly faked. Armstrong may very well have been to the moon and put a mirror down on the surface..... but if he did it sure as hell wasn't in the video and photos we've been shown.


You never said it, but you claim it indirectly.

Saying "I don't deny we have been to the Moon, it's the proof that bothers me" is the same thing that saying you don't believe they have been to the Moon. If you don't believe the proof, why do you believe the story?

They are manipulated, and that's a HUGE difference from being fake. Still nobody explained to me how we got pictures to fake if we haven't been there.

How can you claim that the timing isn't correct if universities across the World SAW the mirrors after they were installed? They appeared when Amstrong installed them, on the last hour of their mission, simple as that.


I mean you aren't going to show the world that Armstrong steps onto the moon and an alien hops out of a flying saucer to say Hello as he is putting the mirrors down.


They don't need to manipulate or fake images to hide that.


The mirrors prove nothing either way. It could have been done remotely or it could have been done by the astronauts. The issue is with the video and photographs and what NASA are hiding.


Yes, they do. They prove that they were there when they claim they were.

Again, it couldn't have been don remotely. Fail to understand this is failure to understand the technology at the time.

Nasa will always hide stuff, they have to know more than you and me to even justify some of their existance, I don't know why that bother people so much.

And about the lost pictures and movies, why can't people simple believe that someone was stupid enough to ruin them? I mean, two Boeing 757 have crashed because someone forgot to take the ducktape out of the pressure sensors, but someone messing up some videotapes is impossible and means that NASA is hiding stuff?

If they wanted to hide anything, they would do what everyone does. Stamp a "TOP SECRET" on it and forget about it somewhere...

Honestly, going that far to justify some theories isn't logical at all.



And to be clear:

I'm with you with all the weird stuff around the Moon. I also believe that it's possible that they went there before they claim they did, and there are some details that don't add up.

I just think you are pointing out the wrong ones.


[edit on 11/9/09 by Tifozi]

[edit on 11/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Most of these misconceptions come out of a lack of knowledge about how images are enhanced, produced,

or reproduced.


Oh give it a rest.... changing an image from true color showing that the moon is indeed more brown

with touches of green, blue and reds to one that is grayscale is hardly 'enhanced'. It is completely

misleading and pushes an agenda to keep the public brainwashed into thing the moon has no color.

I have no idea why this is important to them save what Ingo say on the matter...

But I find it a joke that skeptic constantly scream for proof of tampering from NASA then when you do

show images that have been tampered with all of a sudden the image tampering is defended and

justified...


Same with the color of Mars... endless useless arguments...

NASA used to show them like this...



The conspiracy folkes went over board the other way...



But the Viking was not reddish nor bluish it was white as the 40th anniversary image shows



And suddenly no more deep red martian images...



A little touch of frost on the ground?



A steep climb for the Rover...



Vesicular Basalt of Earth...



Vesicular Basalt on Mars...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

P2562L234567C1.JPG" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Of course... like it says in my signature... the skeptics will now say "Oh yeah it's always been that

way.." just like Phage and others are now saying NASA has always said 'atmosphere'


Do I have to go dig up all the posts on how many arguments there were the other way? That is why I say

its a joke... and seems a waste of time...

So one last comment on the color of the Moon and I am done with that... believe what yawl will


Brightness adjusted for website..



Original

80% version Large Image


That was taken with a 10inch scope with 137 images painstakingly assembled...

Got three emails from NASA folks that agree its the best ever



So you guys want to believe the moon is Gray when its not... or Mars is dark red and dreary when in

looks more like the Nevada or Atacama Desert... or that Venus is Lava Orange when NASA says they only

picked that color based on one old Russian image....

Go right ahead... Enjoy your bliss



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



So you guys want to believe the moon is Gray when its not...


I find it amazing that the US governament went as far as to cover-up my own eyes.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Total Package
 


I'm still waiting for the explanation about the mirrors on the Moon.


Me too... Me too...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Oh and while we are at it... explain what Neil Armstrong meant when he said:

[B]"breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers"[/B]

You don't have to be Einstein to know that "truths protective layer" means exactly that.... a layer or lies in front of the true that is meant to protect us.

Can anyone explain what Armstrong means by this and then try and tell me Armstrong landed on the moon and the footage we saw on TV and in photos is real and what actually happened.... and not the "lie" layer put in front of the truth to protect us.



Ok, this is an easy one.

First off, the concept of a Veil which protects us from "Truth" is as old as the Sufis. The Sufis, and other Muslim mystics like Rabia constantly referred to this veil, saying that if it were removed we should be burned out of existence.

It's referring to the uniqueness of ourselves and our senses through which our concepts of reality are construed. We see only reflections, and nothing directly, so that if we were to remove all of that which allows us to perceive reality through these senses and other physical metaphors, all distinction would vanish.

Yet if you can at least pull one of the layers of the veil away, you can have amazing breakthroughs in enlightenment.

Now Neil wasn't waxing as philosophically deep as this, but it was the basis of what he was referring to. It's a pretty common perspective of reality, that we place layers of abstraction on reality in order for us to maintain our own survival. Those layers may be religious views, or simple denial, so that fear doesn't get the best of us little insecure creatures.

Neil was attempting to inspire a "new group of taxpayers" to see beyond themselves, not to allow things like the atmosphere (a hugely protective layer) to stop them from pursuing the breakthroughs which will make mankind even greater.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by zorgon
 



So you guys want to believe the moon is Gray when its not...


I find it amazing that the US governament went as far as to cover-up my own eyes.


How about the astronaut's eyes. This photo was taken during the Apollo 16 mission, photo ID is AS16-120-19279:


A lot more color photos here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

This is what the Apollo 10 astronauts said in the photo debriefing after the mission:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

The two photos mentioned in the debriefing, AS10-34-5079 and 5149, can be found here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

And just for fun, look at the headline of this article in "Time" June 24, 1966. It reads: "The Moon Is Brown":
www.time.com...

So it certainly seems like the moon was brown some years ago...


[edit on 11/9/09 by ziggystar60]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join