Do these manipulated Apollo images hide an unknown civilization?

page: 27
240
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

I have an open mind about this but am willing to question ALL CLAIMS which is not aligning with anything other than TRUE SKEPTICISM. I am not making an unsubstantiated claim I am questioning Proudbird's logic and asking Jim about Chatelain as he is likely to know more than I do. I am not a bleary eyed dreamer I am an honest enquirer.

I agree that there has been some fascinating footage of unknown objects that have not been explained but I have not been able to get a squeak about what they are from NASA employees directly so far.
edit on 4/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
[snip]
Now you guys will most likely respond as though I am saying something else or am a crazy nut-job living in bleary eyed fantasy. Sorry, I'm not. There's no need to be touchy, either of us could be wrong. I'm not sure how you would expect me to provide evidence that the Moon was filmed in a selective way or that some of the "live broadcasts" were recordings from space. You tell me if you can work out how.
[snip]
Cordially

Pimander


I want to reply to the above comments but not in the way the thread has developed. What I want to comment on about "filmed in a selective way" has to do with the fact that the lousy images that were shown to us seem to have some nefarious meaning because I read a long time ago that the black and white low resolution system used was not the first choice that there was a superior color system proposed and ready to go. I can not find that article again but it was on Rense.

Additionally, we could have had color film of the moon on the first trip because you can see the color film that was shot inside the capsule as the astronauts filmed each other. Why they couldn't take their hand-held film camera on the surface has never been made public, to my knowledge.

THAT is selective filming!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I'm not sure why we're discussing the overall reputation of NASA in this thread, when the OP's videos aren't really adding anything to the debate.

Regardless of your opinion of NASA, the methods presented in this thread by the OP are not meaningful evidence either way. If a person has other evidence related to NASA lying I'd prefer to see it in another thread, than mixed in with this one. I'm not a mod, but if you have a valid point and/or evidence either way, I'd say it will get more attention away from this thread.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Perhaps a resource available online can be perused, and used for research to answer this:


Additionally, we could have had color film of the moon on the first trip because you can see the color film that was shot inside the capsule as the astronauts filmed each other. Why they couldn't take their hand-held film camera on the surface has never been made public, to my knowledge.


The Cameras of Apollo

Disclaimer for the above (which to my mind implies that those who are interested can do more research):


This page is not meant to be all inclusive or in any way complete or extremely detailed.
For more information on these cameras, please refer to the links section at the bottom of the page.



However, despite the ^ ^ ^ above, I find it to be quite comprehensive.

Getting to "know" the various media used, and specifically on which missions....and then being able to cut through the way that much of what is shown has been edited from a compilation of sources.....I have seen "space program" videos that have been edited and cut in ways that destroy the historical narrative, in favor of "artistic" appearance.

This is what causes much confusion, it seems. However, knowing "when" and "what" camera is responsible for "which" image or video being displayed helps a lot. Not an easy task, but satisfying to make the journey to straighten it out.

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

edit on Sat 4 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
You post about this as though you know something about this. He worked for NASA didn't he? What was his specific role and what were his responsibilities?


I've never seen any evidence he worked for NASA. If you have some, please share it. The going-in presumption must be that he did NOT, until evidence that he did is offered and evaluated.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Moonatic
I sure hope ...we get to meet them soon before the worlds oil reserves runs out.

This is the BIGGEST secret of them all. The oil is not going to run out any time soon, or in the next five generations.

If anyone wants me to keep quiet about this then I'm waiting for my check!




You have any evidence of this, fella? Not saying you're a liar, or anything
Just a little piece of data to support your assertion would be nice.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazernation

Originally posted by Pimander
This is the BIGGEST secret of them all. The oil is not going to run out any time soon, or in the next five generations.

If anyone wants me to keep quiet about this then I'm waiting for my check!




You have any evidence of this, fella? Not saying you're a liar, or anything
Just a little piece of data to support your assertion would be nice.

I have started a thread to stop this one being further side-tracked.


The Peak Oil Lie: Oil is NOT going to run out,


 


Originally posted by The Shrike
Additionally, we could have had color film of the moon on the first trip because you can see the color film that was shot inside the capsule as the astronauts filmed each other. Why they couldn't take their hand-held film camera on the surface has never been made public, to my knowledge.

THAT is selective filming!

Extremely interesting point. There is a great deal if mileage in a thread about some of the strange ways material has been presented to us, such as the absence of colour on the Moon.. Time is so precious though and I have too much in the "in tray". One day I hope to see a killer thread about this but whoever does it will see their material rapidly buried. Is it worth bothering?

 


Originally posted by ProudBird
Getting to "know" the various media used, and specifically on which missions....and then being able to cut through the way that much of what is shown has been edited from a compilation of sources.....I have seen "space program" videos that have been edited and cut in ways that destroy the historical narrative, in favor of "artistic" appearance.

This is what causes much confusion, it seems. However, knowing "when" and "what" camera is responsible for "which" image or video being displayed helps a lot. Not an easy task, but satisfying to make the journey to straighten it out.
For this the blame lies squarely with NASA. Proper record keeping seems to have been beyond the best funded research organisation on Earth. That in itself is seen by many researchers as suspicious. Let's face it they have been buying scrap Saturn 5 components to reverse engineer them!!!


 

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
You post about this as though you know something about this. He worked for NASA didn't he? What was his specific role and what were his responsibilities?


I've never seen any evidence he worked for NASA. If you have some, please share it. The going-in presumption must be that he did NOT, until evidence that he did is offered and evaluated.
I saw a quote of an ex-employee. I wasn't working on that at the time so have no notes on it. It may have been a fabricated quote or a misquote of course.



 
reply to post by Pinke
 

Sorry to members about the side track. I responded to a point made about 16mm tapes and everyone jumped on me. I've never been one to back down to false logic.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
 

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
You post about this as though you know something about this. He worked for NASA didn't he? What was his specific role and what were his responsibilities?


I've never seen any evidence he worked for NASA. If you have some, please share it. The going-in presumption must be that he did NOT, until evidence that he did is offered and evaluated.
I saw a quote of an ex-employee. I wasn't working on that at the time so have no notes on it. It may have been a fabricated quote or a misquote of course.


Thanks for the rapid and candid answer.

I've seen a lot of internet repeats that Chatelain was a 'former chief of NASA communications', but I've never seen any evidence he ever claimed that, and all NASA records [such as phone books] debunk that allegation. Somewhere, somebody seems to have made it up, and it spread unchecked across the UFOric internet.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 




Let's face it they have been buying scrap Saturn 5 components to reverse engineer them!!!


You lose so much credibility with spews like this. Why should we take anything you spew out seriously?

You seem to just be an angry man who's daughter was raped by NASA. Hitting on all the classic conspirator's arguing punch-points doesn't make what you have to say have any more impact than using all caps. Yet the classic way of throwing in these little asides off the main discussion points hoping to create an overall aura of doubt, fails miserably with critical thinkers.

If you insist on using these obsessive asides then finally support one, or you will just be ignored as an angry father with something uncomfortable stuck up somewhere.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
[snip]


Thanks for the rapid and candid answer.

I've seen a lot of internet repeats that Chatelain was a 'former chief of NASA communications', but I've never seen any evidence he ever claimed that, and all NASA records [such as phone books] debunk that allegation. Somewhere, somebody seems to have made it up, and it spread unchecked across the UFOric internet.


A lot of misconceptions are spread via the Internet, as you mention about Chatelain. But you are also a victim of the UFOric Internet virus for you have been accused many times in this forum and many others where you participate(d) of being a disinfo agent when all you've been is a hard-working opposite of such. We have "clashed" in the past as well as had some fun but the one thing that I always respected about you is that you are a seeker of truth, a rare concept in this age of beliefs first, evidence later.

I hope someone comes up with definitve proof of Chatelain's real status by finding the originator of false rumors.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
You seem to just be an angry man who's daughter was raped by NASA. Hitting on all the classic conspirator's arguing punch-points doesn't make what you have to say have any more impact than using all caps. Yet the classic way of throwing in these little asides off the main discussion points hoping to create an overall aura of doubt, fails miserably with critical thinkers.

If you insist on using these obsessive asides then finally support one, or you will just be ignored as an angry father with something uncomfortable stuck up somewhere.
How rude. Calm down dear. I appreciate your concern but I am a happy and relaxed if slightly amused by your childish uncalled for attack.


I was responding to a point, it wasn't me who created the aside but the member I responded to.

I remember a PBS documentary that showed some NASA employee admitting that they were looking at scrap components to see "exactly how they went to the Moon" or something to that effect. Regarding keeping I also remember this...


NASA engineers who did view them knew what the public was missing, but the relatively poor picture quality of the broadcast images never became an issue because the landing was such a triumph. The original, high-quality lunar tapes were soon stored and forgotten.

Only in recent years was the agency reminded of what it once had -- clean and crisp first-man-on-the-moon video images that could be especially valuable now that NASA is planning a return trip.

About 36 years after the tapes went into storage, NASA was suddenly eager to have them. There was just one problem: The tapes were nowhere to be found.

What started as an informal search became an official hunt through archives, record centers and storage rooms throughout NASA facilities. Many months later, disappointed officials now report that the trail they followed has gone cold. Although the search continues, they acknowledge that the videos may be lost forever.
Washington Post: The Saga Of the Lost Space Tapes




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 



I remember a PBS documentary that showed some NASA employee admitting that they were looking at scrap components to see "exactly how they went to the Moon" or something to that effect.


Your memory seems a bit questionable. The use of the word "admit" suggests that they were attempting to hide the fact that they were examining the old technology. In fact, they were explaining what they were doing on television. If the Apollo missions never really happened, there would be no need to recreate the technology. As for your five year old article from the Washington Post, it is not accurate. Here is the result of the investigation:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
what would the purpose of a "foreign" species base on the moon?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Ooooh, look, another moon thread. Go figure. I see some familiar faces as well.


Any-who, at least this time the guy in question actually seems to believe we went to the moon to fake the pictures.


Anyway, while I concede that this is guy is absolutely 100% a looney tune, it does seem some of the photos may or may not have been touched up. The blue guy for example I don't know how to explain. Maybe some sort of ghosting. Who knows. Another photo looks like a few things in the sky were cut out.

But frankly, I know you guys think this is all some huge conspiracy, and like I've said in other threads on the subject, I don't claim to know for a fact that it is or it isn't, but professional photographers touch up their photos all the time to make them look better. I understand that it looks suspicious, but maybe there was some dust on the lens that was really mucking up the photo or something.

Then again, maybe it was aliens, who really knows.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
 

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
You post about this as though you know something about this. He worked for NASA didn't he? What was his specific role and what were his responsibilities?


I've never seen any evidence he worked for NASA. If you have some, please share it. The going-in presumption must be that he did NOT, until evidence that he did is offered and evaluated.
I saw a quote of an ex-employee. I wasn't working on that at the time so have no notes on it. It may have been a fabricated quote or a misquote of course.


Thanks for the rapid and candid answer.

I've seen a lot of internet repeats that Chatelain was a 'former chief of NASA communications', but I've never seen any evidence he ever claimed that, and all NASA records [such as phone books] debunk that allegation. Somewhere, somebody seems to have made it up, and it spread unchecked across the UFOric internet.



ronrecord.com...
Critical Note:
"when James Oberg contacted Chatelain's employers he learned that Chatelain was no longer employed by them when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. If he was no longer an employee of a NASA sub-contractor then he could not have been present in any so-called "secret room" where he could overhear the confidential communications of the astronauts on the lunar surface. He was a low-level engineer who worked for a NASA sub-contractor who built the Apollo communications systems. His status as the "head of communications" (as some UFOlogists have claimed), is entirely false."



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks for the rapid and candid answer.

I've seen a lot of internet repeats that Chatelain was a 'former chief of NASA communications', but I've never seen any evidence he ever claimed that, and all NASA records [such as phone books] debunk that allegation. Somewhere, somebody seems to have made it up, and it spread unchecked across the UFOric internet.



ronrecord.com...
Critical Note:
"when James Oberg contacted Chatelain's employers he learned that Chatelain was no longer employed by them when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. If he was no longer an employee of a NASA sub-contractor then he could not have been present in any so-called "secret room" where he could overhear the confidential communications of the astronauts on the lunar surface. He was a low-level engineer who worked for a NASA sub-contractor who built the Apollo communications systems. His status as the "head of communications" (as some UFOlogists have claimed), is entirely false."
I completely accept what you are saying. Thanks to both of you for the info.

 


Originally posted by DJW001
Your memory seems a bit questionable. The use of the word "admit" suggests that they were attempting to hide the fact that they were examining the old technology. In fact, they were explaining what they were doing on television. If the Apollo missions never really happened, there would be no need to recreate the technology.
I do not dispute that an Apollo craft has been to the Moon, as I suspect you are well aware. As I have repeated many time on ATS, I am suspicious of some of the footage.
edit on 5/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
[snip]
I do not dispute that an Apollo craft has been to the Moon, as I suspect you are well aware. As I have repeated many time on ATS, I am suspicious of some of the footage.
edit on 5/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)


I gotta tell you, one of the concepts that keeps me going on the subject of did Americans really go to the moon is the footage. A few individuals have become famous for their questioning of these events and they use photos and films to express their incredulity. I found that a lot of their claims did not hold water but I recently bought a set of DVDs showing some of the lunar footage and "what's wrong with this picture" presentations. I'm not going to mention any of them now 'cause I'm just writing from memory but some of the arguments look good and for example, footage or photos showing the Rover but no tracks in front or behind as if it was dropped on the spot. Or when one of astronauts has his photo taken while jumping near the flag and the photo showing him in the "air" you can see that his "backpack" has a flat top but the view from behind him during the same photo shows the "backpack's" flap is up and not flat.

There are a lot of good examples and, of course, the detractors not commenting on what is seen but just badmouthing the efforts to expose these "discoveries".



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Anyone with half a brain claiming that none of the footage is suspect is well, ahem...suspect, in my opinion. Or delusional.

Jumping to the well known tactic of attacking a persons credibility or outright insults to deflect the debate is also suspect. Accusing me of being obsessed when I clearly comment on the "hoaxed" Moon footage less than the accuser is also embarrassing and rather lame. I think the apocalyptic 2012 material is nonsense but I don't waste my life trying to persuade delusional people that the world is not about to end. :shk:


The footage where astronauts are clearly hanging from wires takes the biscuit for me. After the other astronaut helps him to his feet (which looks suspect anyway as his feet lift more than his shoulder end) the astronaut then has his feet skimming around because the wire is holding him up and his weight is not on the "lunar surface".




P.S. BTW Ed, you surprise me. Why don't you just stop trolling the slower members and pick up a Lightsaber? The dark side always turns upon itself in the end.


edit on 7/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 



The footage where astronauts are clearly hanging from wires takes the biscuit for me. After the other astronaut helps him to his feet (which looks suspect anyway as his feet lift more than his shoulder end) the astronaut then has his feet skimming around because the wire is holding him up and his weight is not on the "lunar surface".


Clearly hanging from wires? Where do you see wires? Those flashes above the PLSSs are radio antennae. How long would the wires have to be, given that in some shots, you can see dozens of meters above the astronauts, and the astronauts cover very long distances in a single sequence. Why can't you see these wires, given that in a single shot they would pass across both the bright surface of the Moon, and the pitch black of space. If you think the way the astronauts get to their feet after they take a tumble looks unnatural, that's because it would be unnatural on Earth. The Moon has 1/6 th of Earth's gravity. It's much easier to push yourself up off the ground with a single arm.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Hmm made me think. Well done!
A, how did you acquire this special software?
B, fascinating, but now what? Where do we go from here?
C does make me ponder if the ‘we never went to the moon’ theory is a distraction.
D, good lecture voice, too!
E, blue man made me instantly think of Cumberland spaceman.
F, More!





new topics
top topics
 
240
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join