Caution: They know much more!!

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
when asked to provide an example of how the hemet reflection wqs modified to reflect two astronauts and not one NASA proided this.


Are you convinced? you should be..it's from their official site..just look at the URL..




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
So is it your contention that this site which is full of gag photoshop montages is evidence of what? that someone at NASA has a sense of humor?

What version of Photoshop did NASA use back in 1969?

[edit on 3-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Shai, what's the NASA URL for the last pics you posted?

I can't tell whether the photos you posted (earlier) of the helmet reflections are 'photoshopped' fakes or not but, like Howard, I strongly suspect that they are considering the page is clearly intended for graphic doodlers and photoshoppers to have a bit of fun. However, whether they are or they aren't, it still looks to me as if the astronaut pictured in the foreground of the helmet reflection is probably taking the photo with his chest-mounted camera so a mysterious fourth cameraman would not be required.

Remember that the helmets are convex and so the reflected image would look artificially much further away.

Regarding the dust ...

" ... dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth." (from www.redzero.demon.co.uk...).

I do accept your assertion that there are inconsistencies in the records, but, as I've said before, this is only to be expected in such a massive, complex mission involving so many people.

It is therefore illogical to jump to the conclusion that small inconsistencies must mean a massive cover-up and falsification of evidence.






[edit on 3-2-2005 by harrisjohns]

[edit on 3-2-2005 by harrisjohns]


E_T

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
Regarding the dust ...

" ... dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
In fact even feather would drop as fast as stone in vacuum.
Without atmosphere only thing which affects to how long things stay "in air" is gravity, there mass and density of object doesn't mean anything.

If there would be cloud of dust behind them that would mean it was faked.
And considering dust clouds caused by vehicles and anything moving, it's turbulent air disturbed by vehicle which lifts that dust to air.
Same way like when standing in edge of road and big truck drives past you, you'll notice how it tries to pull you.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Dear Kipp,
The Project Apollo Archive
www.apolloarchive.com...

I thank you for writing back. The update of NASA Apollo pics is mentioned on a few sites , and on NASA sites..i will find the links and send them.
In the meantime, to settle an argument about authenticity of the famous 'astronauts in the visor' pic that a lot of 'hoax sites' post and refer to i went looking in thee Apollo archives and came across NASA's explanation for that pic. They say that originally there was only one astronaut reflected in the visor but "for fun' another one was inserted. They also say there are dozens of pics that were given to NASA personnel in the photo dept to 'play with'
So you can perhaps understand my confusion when, on the one hand they say hoaxers manipulate the photos which NASA doesn't do..and when an an anamolous photo is discovered they turn around and say they themselves altered the photo..for fun.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...
"10 April 2003
At 133:15:25, on the way to Halo Crater, Pete Conrad took a picture of Al Bean, who promptly returned the favor. Pete's picture of Al is AS12-49- 7281 and Al's picture of Pete is AS12-48- 7071. Each of the pictures shows the photographer reflected in the visor of the subject and Harald Kucharek has had some fun with the images. As Harald says, "take care not to get lost in the recursion." Hint: Reflected images are left-right reversed. "

It seems incredible to me that NASA would engage in distorting its owm historical records in such a fashion..and to what end?
But beyond that what i find disturbing is how well the alterations are made..almost indistinguishable from the 'real photos'.

It could just as easily be the case that there were two astronauts reflected in the visor and one was blanked out..instead of vice-vers ans NASA claims.
And since we have an entire website produced by NASA which shows how good they are at 'faking'their own evidence..I cannot in good conscience totally accept the 'official story' of what happened on the moon based on NASA's say so.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
You'll note that in this 'official photo there are two white figures in the visor..the one on the left breaks the horizon line....
Now look at this one..which many are saying is the 'original'and not the fake
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

and this one..which NASA claims is the original
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Could you also please comment on the evidence cited on this particular web page:
Could you comment on the this particular Aulis page..?
www.aulis.com...

As I said..given the nasa funpix site and their display of wizardry in doctoring their own photos..well no wonder there is a 'debate' going on, and no wonder Richard Hoagland has his adherents..

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
Shai, what's the NASA URL for the last pics you posted?

I can't tell whether the photos you posted (earlier) of the helmet reflections are 'photoshopped' fakes or not but, like Howard, I strongly suspect that they are considering the page is clearly intended for graphic doodlers and photoshoppers to have a bit of fun. However, whether they are or they aren't, it still looks to me as if the astronaut pictured in the foreground of the helmet reflection is probably taking the photo with his chest-mounted camera so a mysterious fourth cameraman would not be required.

Remember that the helmets are convex and so the reflected image would look artificially much further away.

Regarding the dust ...

" ... dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth." (from www.redzero.demon.co.uk...).

I do accept your assertion that there are inconsistencies in the records, but, as I've said before, this is only to be expected in such a massive, complex mission involving so many people.

It is therefore illogical to jump to the conclusion that small inconsistencies must mean a massive cover-up and falsification of evidence.






[edit on 3-2-2005 by harrisjohns]

[edit on 3-2-2005 by harrisjohns]


Dear Harris,

Go here for a real good chuckle...: www.hq.nasa.gov...

As for the gravity experiment..that was duplicated on cosmic apollo..didn't you see it?
As for the dust argument....hmmm.yes..I get it..BUT..here's a quote from Armstrong talking to david brinkley of NBC news veru shortly after the Apollo 11 mission:
"ARMSTRONG: I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure—I can't recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust.
I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised. "

To me it seems contradictory to say in one breath that you were surprised at the trajectory of the dust you kicked up and to say there was no dust kicked up.....this is a real confusion here..
But I'm not the only one confused..
In an official NASA debriefing Armstrong and Aldrin are asked who took photos of what..who held the camera...

"Armstrong/Aldrin debriefed about photos/NASA transcript:AS11-40-5886

Aldrin - (Looking through the Apollo 11 photo catalog) "Now, where's the picture from the rear (of the spacecraft) that we tried to get the Earth? That was much later, wasn't it?"
Armstrong - "That's later. I took that. (Looking through the picture book) There."
Jones - "5923 (**)."
Aldrin - "Now, where the camera went and how you (Neil) got it to be able to go here (to get 5923), I'm not sure. Did we set it down somewhere? Did we ever do that, in transferring it? Set it down and pick it up? Or did we actually hand it, one to the other."
Armstrong - "I don't remember. Your recollection is essentially the same as my own."

Two paragraphs later in that same doicument we read:
Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong. Finally George Low or Bob Gilruth suggested that Duff call Armstrong to ask him. Duff clearly remembers the conversation with Armstrong who was sleeping in the LRL. It went like this."
"Duff: 'Neil, this is Brian. When did you give the camera to Buzz?'"
"Armstrong: 'I never did.'"
"Duff: 'Thanks.'"

But when David Brinkley asked Armstrong the very same question here was the response:
"BRINKLEY: When you were on the Moon, there are not that many photographs or you on the Moon. There seem to be much more of Buzz Aldrin. That's because you were taking more of the photographs?
ARMSTRONG: He's a lot more photogenic than I am. [Laughter] I had the job of taking a lot of the pictures. That was part of my assigned responsibility. There was a short time in the middle where I transferred the camera to Buzz and he took some pictures, and we each had assigned objectives that we were supposed to catch. I think we probably caught a fair share of the things we were supposed to take pictures of, and not too many really bad shots. [Laughter]

So we go from..I never handed Buzz the camera.....to I might have set it down and he picked it up..to I transferred the camera and he took pictures..

Anyone in the military who has ever been debriefed by people with a lower sedcurity clearance than you have will understand the coded phrase 'your recollection is the same as mine' for what it is.."stick to the script" or we are both reading from the same sheet here so whatever he says goes for me.
But that's my inference and doesn't have to be yours.


As for inconsistencies in the records, etc....sure humans make errors and get their facts wrong..and this was a complicated project...so of course s*** was bound to happen..that's the first rule of any operation...one of the constants.
So it defied all logic that with such primitive tools and training, and with a history of major training accidents up to the time of launch that our guys made it without a hitch....
I can still accept that they made it...but what I find difficult to this day is reconciling glaring anomalies with the official story....like the footage seen in Australia..and the sabotage of their transmitter on the day of the launch so that all feeds had to go through Houston
Australian transmitter problems:

Quantum: The pictures were received by the NASA Tracking Station at Honeysuckle Creek in the ACT, and from there they were relayed to Houston. The Honeysuckle Creek Station was one of a dozen or so tracking stations around the globe. In Australia, it was supported by dishes at nearby Tidbinbilla and Parkes. Tidbinbilla had been planned as the major link. But at the 11th hour, things went wrong.
Australian Engineer: The transmitter supplied to Tidbinbilla blew up before the mission started, and despite the fact that the engineers repaired it very quickly, the managers at Houston decided to switch the support of the lunar module from Tidbinbilla to Honeysuckle.
www.abc.net.au...

So what the australians saw was different that what Houstaon was feeding the press from their monitors..and that would explain the flurry of news reports the day after about seeing astronauts kick a coke bottle on the lunar surface. I will post that article from the west australian as soon as I can get the ciopy..but it doesn't explain the coke bottle.

One theory is that NASA was filming or using film of ground-based doubles at Edwards who mimicked the actions of their colleagues on the moon..and that once NASA engineers saw the unexplainable on the lunar surface they swithced to the ground feed.

Again, no one has explained that back flap on the astronauts PLSS that isn't there on the video..

Whatsmore..the arguments tend to switch between what makes sense on earth and what makes sense on the moon.
For instance...the explanation for the anamolous lunar mountain pictures ..in which hoaxers claim it is impossible to have the same background from two seperate landing sites kilometers apart..that with mountains so high it wouldn't make a difference:



That's an earthly argument and is inconsistent with what we see on so many other lunar pics..the dramatic closeness of the horizon line, due to the much more profound curvature of a smaller orb....meaning just a few hundred feet should already make a difference..let alone several kilometrs.
Rememebr what Armstrong said about what surprised him on the moon..
" I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon."

So look at those mountain photos again....

Or go here and see the photgraphic evidence through different eyes.

www.geocities.com...

And here's another helmet pic with two astronauts visible in the background.AGAIN..the official record says only 2 astronauts were ever on the surface at any one time with the other in the LM..so we DO have an extra astronaut on a lunar walk who shouldn't be there.



As for phot0-shop techniques in the 60's...again this is mixing things somewhat....on the one hand we have the tools to take national geographic like fotos of the moon while on the moon..and we have NASA's own assurance that they composited some photos at the time..and that later they played even more with the pics...so how can one turn around and say that since there was no photo shop in the 60's splicing and composing pics like this was impossible?
Look at the photos and visit the links and decide
And get back to me with your thoughts.

-sincerely
-shai



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai

To me it seems contradictory to say in one breath that you were surprised at the trajectory of the dust you kicked up and to say there was no dust kicked up.....this is a real confusion here..



I don't see the confusion here. Yes, the dust would have been kicked up, but no it wouldn't have hung in clouds and would have fallen straight back to the surface. There's nothing ambiguous about what Armstrong is saying here.



..but it doesn't explain the coke bottle.


It isn't a coke bottle, it is and, I quote, "The object in the frame is not actually a physical object. It is the highlight on Aldrin's visor reflected in a peculiar way inside the television camera lens. As Aldrin lopes across the frame from right to left, the object bounces from left to right reflected through the optical center of the lens. The technical term for this is catadioptrism, but photographers usually call it "ghosting".

Here's a page with images and a link to a downloadable video of the sequence:

www.clavius.org...

Regarding, the Australia connection in general, this is authoritative and interesting and puts your concerns into some context:
www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...





Again, no one has explained that back flap on the astronauts PLSS that isn't there on the video..



I haven't checked this out yet, to be honest.



For instance...the explanation for the anamolous lunar mountain pictures ...



Again, most likely parallax and more proof that we most certainly did go as this would be impossible to achieve within a studio environment.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Dear members,

In a pervious post you will see the text of a letter I wrote to Kipp Teague at apollo archives.
I quote from his letter received this morning;
" I will pass this question along to someone who would know
more about this than me. As far as my involvement is concerned, photos
are never retouched except to remove dust and scratches. Can you point me to the NASA site that mentions Apollo photo updating? This may refer to
the re-scanning of original Hasselblad negatives which has occurred over
the past year and a half (approximately).

Kipp Teague
The Project Apollo Archive
www.apolloarchive.com..."

So imagine my surprise [not!] when I clicked on this site;
www.hq.nasa.gov... and got half way down the page... and read:

Coloring the Moon
Before Kipp Teague supplied a high-resolution scan of a good color print of AS11-40- 5886, which shows Neil Armstrong at the MESA, Mauro Freschi produced a colorized version of a high-resolution scan of a good black&white print done by Ron Wells.



Now this seems like Mr. Teague was not quite accurate when he said he only edited out dust and scratches..don't you think?

And just below that confession we get this MOST INTERESTING revelation:

The Real Secret of Apollo 12
David Harland (tongue firmly in cheek) has released a previously unknown Apollo 12 picture of Al Bean. The picture was taken by Pete Conrad, who's reflection is clearly visible in the center of Al's faceplate. Note, however, the reflection of a third astronaut, presumably Command Module Pilot Dick Gordon. What is amazing about this picture is the apparent fact that the Apollo 12 crew was able to keep secret Gordon's presence on the lunar surface for so long a time. The picture is similar to AS12-49-7278.





So the visor picture is actually from Apollo 12 and not Apollo 11..that's the claim....BUT that must be a bold faced lie and here's why...
Apollo 12 astronauts had their names on theie suits and at chest high so they could be identified from photos.: if you look at this phot below you will see the Apollo 11 crew..and clearly see their name tags.
Where is the name tag ? behind the camera you say..well look at the suit again..it was modifeied slightly for apollo 12..and the astronaut in the pic is wearing the apollo 11 version.





posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...


Apollo 11 crewmembers participates in simulation of moon's surface

Two members of the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission participate in a simulation of deploying and using lunar tools on the surface of the moon during a training exercise in bldg 9 on April 22, 1969. Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. (on left), lunar module pilot, uses scoop and tongs to pick up sample. Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, Apollo 11 commander, holds bag to receive sample. In the background is a Lunar Module mockup. Both men are wearing Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMU).
Catalog Date: 22 April 1969
Film Type: 35mm
NASA image: S69-32245


This is the officially shot on the moon photo.

Notice how absolutely similar the lighting, the ground, and the horizon in both photos?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Take a look at the helmet visor of this image and notice the reflected horizon line. See the horizon line in the background. We're talking an awfully small distance between horizon lines..don't you think?

Now, do what I did and put this pic in your PC's image viewer and magnify the helmet visor ..keep doubling the size of your image until you get a really close-up view of the visor......you will note that the astronauts arm is reflected in the photo..lower left of visor as wee see it....you will note two curious shadows, the one in the middle looks like the shadow of someone [n taking a photo..and directly in the center top of the visor is yet another bright white reflection...another astronaut.
Again there are only supposed to be two guys at any one time outside the vehicle LM...

And what gets me is how in all the photos those reseau plate cross-hairs are still there..meaning they are an effect that can be added to any photo to make it look genuine...

Do you still believe the official story?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   


www.apolloarchive.com...

If it is then why isn't it in the other Apollo moon pics..somehting so big and bright should be hard to shoot around if it was really like this on the surface..or is this another light source than the sun?
www.hq.nasa.gov...




notice not only the sun but the asrtronaut on the far right..if you look carefully you will note it is the same exact pose as is seen in the visor here top left:



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Dear group,

Here's another official NASA photgraph of the astronauts training for Apollo missions..notice how far in the background the 'mock lunar surface'extends behind the astronuat pictured here..compare that to the horizon line in apollo pics..you'll note they are exactly the same.
Go figure...

-Sincerely
Shai



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this now, but you are mixing up pics from Nasa's 'fun pix' site with those from the official record. The two aren't comparable for obvious reasons.

Also, the simulation pic is clearly a simulation (the lander is actually on the 'horizon' next to the dark backcloth in a relatively small space) compared to the real pictures from the lunar surface where the horizon is far distant and the foreground extensive in many of the shots. Again, I can't see what your driving at?

[edit on 5-2-2005 by harrisjohns]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this now, but you are mixing up pics from Nasa's 'fun pix' site with those from the official record. The two aren't comparable for obvious reasons.

Also, the simulation pic is clearly a simulation (the lander is actually on the 'horizon' next to the dark backcloth in a relatively small space) compared to the real pictures from the lunar surface where the horizon is far distant and the foreground extensive in many of the shots. Again, I can't see what your driving at?

[edit on 5-2-2005 by harrisjohns]


www.apolloexplorer.co.uk.../photo/html/as11/default.htm

Its another official site with Apollo pics from NASA...you will see some 'training photos' with the exact same lighting and the exact same distance to the horizon line..you will even see the astronauts in the exact same positions as in the official 'shot on the moon pics' and these are not updates or funpix..these are the official archive photos..

MY point is that NASA was very very good at tampering with photos way back when...and the photgraphic evidence has flaws in it..along with some of the explanations. You don't see that?

Even Teague can't explain the photos on the area 51 site or the previously posted forbiddenknowledge pics either...he has to get back to me..his own words.

can you explain the horizon line and the curve being so close in some apollo photos..and so far away in others...

How much clearer can I be ..what plainer english can be used to get through to you....the photos lie...so I don't believe the official story.
NASA admits faking its own phots, and not just for fun...aren't you reading the sites..or are we back to just skimming the pics again?
NASA says that it redid some panoramic shots to include what wasn't in the originals..and that is not on their 'funpix' site it is on the official archives site.

And do you care to comment on the discrepencies between the astronaut statements about the camera?
Or on the revelation..not a fun fiction... a NASA explanation for the three astronauts in the visor reflection apollo 12 pic..that the 3rd astronaut [Gordon]concealed his presence on the moon..and hence the confusion .

Yet we see where the reflection of the 3rd astronaut was culled from in another photo ..it is not Gordon but Bean.
And we see the same image with only one astronaut reflected..also an official snap..so which is real?

Go back and look at the pics above...don't you see it?

If they are this good at playing with their own photos, and since they admit they did it even as far back as earlier Apollo missions why do you believe the photgraphic evidence as genuine...because They say it is?


If the photos aren't genuine either is the story that goes with them.

Nuff said.

-Sincerely
-shai



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shai


MY point is that NASA was very very good at tampering with photos way back when...and the photgraphic evidence has flaws in it..along with some of the explanations. You don't see that?





Uh, no, I do beleive that all of those "fun Pics" are recent inventions. At least recent in terms of being from the photoshop era. Also it would appear that those are subbmitted from private parties, artists and the like.

I have a question for you Shai. How old are you?

[edit on 5-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shai

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Take a look at the helmet visor of this image and notice the reflected horizon line. See the horizon line in the background. We're talking an awfully small distance between horizon lines..don't you think?


????? what are you talking about?????



Now, do what I did and put this pic in your PC's image viewer and magnify the helmet visor ..keep doubling the size of your image until you get a really close-up view of the visor......you will note that the astronauts arm is reflected in the photo..lower left of visor as wee see it....you will note two curious shadows, the one in the middle looks like the shadow of someone [n taking a photo..and directly in the center top of the visor is yet another bright white reflection...another astronaut.


Shai, I don't want to belittle, or insult you, but damn. . . You aren't really be that dumb, are you?

There are three shadows in the visor. Remember that the visor is a concave surface, kind of like the right hand side view mirror on your car. The visor is reflecting what is in front of the astronaut. To the left of the astronaut is the solar wind experiment. It casts a shadow on the ground in front of the astronaut. That is the left most shadow that you see reflected in the visor. Now look at the shadow of the solar wind experiment on the ground. Just to the right of it is the shadow of the astronaut in the center of the picture. That is the middle shadow that you are talking about
The shadow on the far right of the visor is from part of the LM to the right of the astronaut.

The white reflection in the distance is the other astronaut.



Again there are only supposed to be two guys at any one time outside the vehicle LM...


Yes there were only two men on the surface of the moon on each mission.



And what gets me is how in all the photos those reseau plate cross-hairs are still there..meaning they are an effect that can be added to any photo to make it look genuine...

Do you still believe the official story?




Again, what is your point? The cross hairs were built into the camera system. If they were going to fake it, then they could have just used a reseau plate in the camera in the first place.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shai


If it is then why isn't it in the other Apollo moon pics..somehting so big and bright should be hard to shoot around if it was really like this on the surface..or is this another light source than the sun?

notice not only the sun but the asrtronaut on the far right..if you look carefully you will note it is the same exact pose as is seen in the visor here top left:



That is because the astronaut in the top left of the visor was added via photoshop. That is the whole point of the fun pics site. They aren't suposed to be take as real

Sheesh. Didn't you figure that out?



[edit on 5-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai


can you explain the horizon line and the curve being so close in some apollo photos..and so far away in others...



As has been explained many times before, it is notoriously difficult to judge distances on the moon because there is no atmosphere and therefore perfect clarity. On the moon, what may look like small hills quite nearby are often huge mountains many kilometres away, and vice versa. As on any planet or planetoid, the distance of the horizon depends on the size of the planet, the surrounding terrain, the position of the sun, and the clarity of the atmospheric conditions.

The photos are entirely consistent with these sorts of conditions and this is further proof that these photos were not taken on earth.

The horizon line would have varied depending on the subject of the photograph, the position of the camera, the background and foreground terrain and the position of the photographer. Obviously.



And do you care to comment on the discrepencies between the astronaut statements about the camera?


No, because in my mind it is totally irrelevant and even if there is a small inconsistency, it doesn't prove anything.

Ask any three people who went through something big together for a highly detailed account of the event a little time afterwards and there will always be inconsistencies. Humans are incapable of perfect recollection, particularly when the activity in which they are engaged is dramatic or stressful. I'm sure that as someone who worked for intelligence agencies, you'd be more than aware of this. I cannot comprehend why you are fixated on this tiny detail - it means nothing.



[edit on 6-2-2005 by harrisjohns]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns

Originally posted by Shai


can you explain the horizon line and the curve being so close in some apollo photos..and so far away in others...



As has been explained many times before, it is notoriously difficult to judge distances on the moon because there is no atmosphere and therefore perfect clarity. On the moon, what may look like small hills quite nearby are often huge mountains many kilometres away, and vice versa. As on any planet or planetoid, the distance of the horizon depends on the size of the planet, the surrounding terrain, the position of the sun, and the clarity of the atmospheric conditions.

The photos are entirely consistent with these sorts of conditions and this is further proof that these photos were not taken on earth.

The horizon line would have varied depending on the subject of the photograph, the position of the camera, the background and foreground terrain and the position of the photographer. Obviously.



And do you care to comment on the discrepencies between the astronaut statements about the camera?


No, because in my mind it is totally irrelevant and even if there is a small inconsistency, it doesn't prove anything.

Ask any three people who went through something big together for a highly detailed account of the event a little time afterwards and there will always be inconsistencies. Humans are incapable of perfect recollection, particularly when the activity in which they are engaged is dramatic or stressful. I'm sure that as someone who worked for intelligence agencies, you'd be more than aware of this. I cannot comprehend why you are fixated on this tiny detail - it means nothing.



[edit on 6-2-2005 by harrisjohns]







This is the lunar rover as it makes tracks across the moon..notice the dust being kicked up by the wheels...with no air on the moon, and according to everything said about how dust shoulld fan out in all directions when disturbed and not follow an air flow pattern like on earth..how do you explain this picture.

You don't comment on the short horizon of 85% of the moon shots and the comaprable horizon line in the training shots..and seem to deliberat ely overlook the inconsistency between the curvature of the short horizon line and the utterly flat horizon line extending way back in frame with no curvature and the mountains so far away as to be featurless.

The only reason you dismiss arguments such as the discrepencies in Armstrong's statements about the camera, who held it, who was in shot..and the "my recollection is the same as yours' quote is due to never having had experience debriefing or interrogating witnesses..and you probably lack military training..certainly never held a position of rank within such a service or you'd recognize the coded phrases ..the 'tells' of a cover-up.
Or is it simply a case of refusing to comment on damaging evidence and refusing to take it on board.

If the only arbiter of what was really 'snapped on the moon', and the only distributor of 'official photos' is NASA, the agency that admits, even demonstrates its ingenuity and proficiency in compositing, editing, enhancing and changing the content of its photos..so well as to be indiscernible from the 'genuine' film...and if there are, as has been demonstrated, reasonable doubt as to who took the shots, how many astronauts were on the moon,..indeed photgraphic evidence of splicing as seen on area51's site [which you also won't comment on]..WHY on earth are you son stubborn in your iresolve to believe the 'official story' of what went on up there from 1969-1975?

Again I wonder how old you are, and if you even have a glimmer of an idea of what it was like to grow up in the 60's...between the age of 6 and 16 I witnessed the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, The Kennedy Assassination, The Gulf of Tonkin incident[ a gov't fake which got us fully fledged into the Vietnam war, which cost 54,000 American lives and the lives of almost 1/2 a million Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, and thousands of allies...]The [Russian] Rape of Czechoslovakia, The MLK & RFK assassinations, The release of the Pentagon Papers, Watergate....and those are the highlights.
Do you know how many cover-ups and secrets have been reported on since....And you still believe 'official stories'...

I guess you believe the gov't tells you everything you need to know, and that what it keeps secret is for your own good..yes?
I guess you think American and American gov't is an open book..right?

It never occurs to you that the people who grant security clearances to the President have a HIGHER security clearance THAN the President, does it?

Nor does it occur to you to consider the ramifications on societal health, wealth and international relations if we spilled the beans about everything we discover or uncover in our secretly funded and secretly flown space missions.....the existence of UFO's and such.

And that's ok with me..honest..if you want to go on believing the Fox news channel and the offically enhanced and continually updated 'historical record'.
Go right ahead..it doesn't rock my world in the least.

I don't believe it...the 'official story' that is.

I don't believe also that 35 years after we took primitive technology and a vast amount of unknowns to the moon..and all in less than a decade, using computers as powerful as calculators..and pressurized plastic spacesuits to stop micro-meteorites [!!!]....that it would now take 23 years to pull off the same feat.....that was the NASA estimate before George W called for a Mars mission.
I don't believe a lot of things 'on faith'...not in the way you seem to have faith.

Again I ask how old you are..do you remember the cold war..or is everything you learned about 1969 from movies and pop-doc.s on the history channel?

Those of us who actually lived through the times have a whole different notion of things, given it happened to us or in front of us...we were in the heart of it all, the context, the confusion..the monumental delusion when it was proven to us daily, that the powers that be were lying about a bunch of things, keeping secrets, operating against our common interests, using illegal wiret-taps.....
You don't rememebr 'duck and cover'do you? or fallout shelters and air-raid drills..how necessary it was for us to get out from under the tables or the bunkers.
You don't remember scared parents huddling with their kids because the Russians had nukes and rockets that went into orbit above the planet...that they were inches from claiming the moon for themselves.

And I guess you don't rememebr the UFO wave that was even on the cover of LIFE magazine with dumbfounded officials trying to explain hovering discs and bright lights over Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania..chased by police and air force jets..hundreds of eyewitnesses and no official comment except to say it wasn't the Russians, and might have been ball lightning[!]

And you weren't there on July 20th 1969 when the first pics were beamed back, in awfull TV lighting showing us the footage of Apollo 11.
We were not only proud but relieved.
We were confident of moon bases and space tourism in our lifetime....we had the technology..yes?

So here we are 35 years later discussing the evidence.....in a thread entitled 'caution : they know much more'.

Well my contention is that they DO know much more...and they have even used false [or tampered with] evidence to hide truth from us..truth they don't think we are mature enough or wise-enough to handle.
They believe we'd rather have the fairy tale ..the big lie..so we'll keep waking up every morning to go to work..to pay our taxes, and spend at the mall.

Reading your letters...and realizing how relcutant you are to discuss the ..what is it you said..'rrelevant' discrepencies ....makes me sad becuase with every sentence..with every response you end up proving them right.

-Sincerely
-Shai





new topics
 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join