Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by azbowhunter

 

I don't have to be in the middle of the ocean to know its wet.

-> But you had to be in water to know its wet once before.

So have you been in space before?

I agree with you totally but wanted to show you the flaw in this argument

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by Sagittarian69

 

You cannot point to one person in the entire Apollo saga - from James Webb down through Wernher Von Braun and Neil Armstrong to the most junior bolt-turner - who would not be derisive and offended by the suggestion that they fake it.

Who on earth would not be derisive and offended by suggestion that they faked something?
Everybody would. Flawed argument

Originally posted by Reggae
I find it hard to believe during the entire length of the video they had no convincing audio. All you hear is them discussing setting up the lighting. Which is something every video broadcast has to deal with, especially back then. The light in the cabin was creating a glare on the window. To get a good shot they had to get rid of unwanted light. This video is full of baseless statements.

There's more than that, what Sibrel ignored completely was the actual image of the Earth seen in the video. He must of seen it as 'just' a picture of Earth, but it was more, the actual image is proven to be the image only seen on that day, in three ways, as you see it in the video, as the photograph taken by camera from the spacecraft, and the image, (black and white) from the ESSA satellite of that day, they are all the same, and featuring hurricane Bernice. The picture you see in the video then, could only have been of Earth on the day.

ESSA image,



ESSA/asa image combined



I don't yet have the video image, but you can check it out on the zoom yourself, gif was not done by me and I don't have that source.

Originally posted by verschickter

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by azbowhunter

 

I don't have to be in the middle of the ocean to know its wet.

-> But you had to be in water to know its wet once before.

So have you been in space before?

I agree with you totally but wanted to show you the flaw in this argument

As you say, what makes what is presented in the video more valid than what I say?

I don't use trickery and deceit, I presented an actual photo of the inside of the command module showing the round window, I graphed out lines of sight at various altitudes from earth with a pixel value of 4.3 miles per pixel to illustrate how far away you have to be to view a near half globe, I presented the distance the famous photo of earth from Apollo 17 was taken from, all that is right there for error corrections. I didn't make up any mumbo jumbo on what people might mean in what they say, that is another field of experimental crapola, and cannot be proven whatsoever.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Reggae
I find it hard to believe during the entire length of the video they had no convincing audio. All you hear is them discussing setting up the lighting. Which is something every video broadcast has to deal with, especially back then. The light in the cabin was creating a glare on the window. To get a good shot they had to get rid of unwanted light. This video is full of baseless statements.

There's more than that, what Sibrel ignored completely was the actual image of the Earth seen in the video. He must of seen it as 'just' a picture of Earth, but it was more, the actual image is proven to be the image only seen on that day, in three ways, as you see it in the video, as the photograph taken by camera from the spacecraft, and the image, (black and white) from the ESSA satellite of that day, they are all the same, and featuring hurricane Bernice. The picture you see in the video then, could only have been of Earth on the day.


I don't yet have the video image, but you can check it out on the zoom yourself, gif was not done by me and I don't have that source.

edit on 15-1-2012 by smurfy because: Text.

I'm sorry I don't understand what's wrong about showing the same side of the earth a few different times. If you mean the messed up dates they were talking about. It would be extremely easy to fake the slates to misinform the viewer.

reply to post by Reggae

I haven't a clue what you are talking about, but remember this 'lost' piece of film was supposed the 'smoking gun' that there was no Moon landing, in fact it does the opposite and only reinforces the mission by virtue of the Earth image that is seen in the module window. Why? because it is the Earth image of that day and time, it fits perfectly with the weather satellite image in B/W which includes hurricane Bernice, and that image has been around for a long time and has nothing to do with Apollo. So why would NASA want to hide this film?

www.youtube.com...

Look at this video, (how mant times do I have to post it) it will explain all to you without any music, speakers or sod all else, a teaching work of art, much better than my effort.

Then there is also the Apollo, (whole Earth) photo image, definitely not LEO as Sibrel would have you believe, compare it with the satellite image which was in LEO !!

reply to post by smurfy


OK it seems we both agree there is no fake earth illusion.

Originally posted by Reggae
reply to post by smurfy

 

OK it seems we both agree there is no fake earth illusion.

Agreed, I was noting your correct observation about the measures they, (the astronauts) were taking to 'get a decent picture', a total contrast to the biased over emphasising voice of the actress narrating the documentary, I've never heard a documentary scripted in such a way, with no real qualification. I guess with so much 'fuzzy' history the story isn't over yet.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Reggae
reply to post by smurfy

 

OK it seems we both agree there is no fake earth illusion.

Agreed, I was noting your correct observation about the measures they, (the astronauts) were taking to 'get a decent picture', a total contrast to the biased over emphasising voice of the actress narrating the documentary, I've never heard a documentary scripted in such a way, with no real qualification. I guess with so much 'fuzzy' history the story isn't over yet.

Sadly, in the US, we have this thing called "The History Channel" and it just feeds on the gullible with great narrators following absurd scripts.

Some athletic trainer in a suit and tie comes on the screen in what appears to be a University faculty office with some vague "title" on the screen, saying outlandish stuff, and the narrator continues,

"What if Jesus Christ and Adolph Hitler really were fraternity brothers and World War II was nothing more than a hazing ritual as some researchers and theorists believe?"

...and the next fifty minutes of the "documentary" continues as if we accepted the initial hypothesis, jumping from one absurdity to the next, "supported" with great graphics and more never-heard-of and un-credentialed "theorists"helping the insanity along.

The problem is, of course, that some persons lack the critical thinking to even suspect, much less know, otherwise.

"Reggae" v.s "smurfy" - who to believe, who to believe?

reply to post by ProudBird


alright jesus never said i was an expert i was giving my opinion ffs.

also i used the word "fake earth" because thats how he described it.. i watched it im not dumb and i know that wasnt the "whole" of the earth.

dont beat someone up for expressing their opinion .. did i state any of it was FACT? no i didnt .

reply to post by wmd_2008
You havent seen those photos where the crosses go behind an object or have been faded away? Just an example..

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You havent seen those photos where the crosses go behind an object or have been faded away? Just an example..

That's just silly, its simple overexposure washout. Higher intensity light objects bleed light through the etched glass reseau plate fitted in the Hasselblad cameras, called "fiducials" by some and "reticles" by others. As each film frame is drawn into place, it is pressed against the reseau plate so that the picture is taken through the plate. This results in an image of the fiducials being superimposed over the image focused through the lens.

In some Apollo moon images some fiducials seems to go right up to the edge of a white object photographed and then completely disappear. That would apparently suggest that a separate picture of a white object had been pasted over the background, photo manipulated, which contained the fiducial. But closer examination of the photograph reveals what's really going on. It's obvious that white objects don't cover the fiducials, it just makes them fainter and harder to see. Very often the JPEGs and other poor-quality versions of the photos that appear on the Internet do not faithfully reproduce such fine details. So it's easy to see why people using those sources would believe that the fiducials simply disappear.

reply to post by Illustronic
You should look for those where they have just made the space behind them black. Crosses go missing so they hide whatever is behind them in space above. And those pics you show is not what I meant.
And Im not really interested of disinfoagent's opinion. NASA can give you all the tampered photos they want, its easy for them to alter these photos, but the thing is that I + many more people have seen the originals so nothing you say afterwards changes the fact that NASA is a f***ing liar and so are many of you defending those cover-ups.

Peace!

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You havent seen those photos where the crosses go behind an object or have been faded away? Just an example..

Why don't you and others of your go a learn a bit of the photographic process before you jump to conclusions about what you think you see in a photograph

Like the no stars problem its exposure nothing more nothing less the white either side of the black line which is cut into the Reseau plate in the camera bleeds over like colours on a cheap tv.

Here is a link to someone who bought a cheap camera a did his own shots to prove a point

www3.telus.net...

Then an example of what happens!

www3.telus.net...

Exposure is the answer.

NEXT!

reply to post by WeekendWarrior


When you've lost the argument, is't it better to just admit you were wrong, instead of digging the hole deeper?

Now, in the post above, you have resorted to trying to "prove" NASA tampering by noting that the "crosses" (fiducials) cannot be seen when the black of space is behind them.

Um.......think about that for a minute.

Black lines etched on the glass reseau plate in the camera, those are the fiducials.....then, they are photographed against a black sky.

Think carefully........

Here, for more reading:

"Crosshairs"

And, the "crosshairs" HAD a specific purpose....weren't just there for "fun". In fact, the fact that they ARE there proves the veracity of Apollo!!!

A reseau grid is used in the science of photogrammetry to establish a geometrical basis for measuring objects in photographs. It can be used to correct for any misalignment of the film in the camera, or distortions in the image after development or electronic scanning. Since the location of the marks on the reseau plate is known with great precision, correcting for distortion is a simple matter of manipulating the image until the marks are in the correct location.

Why else would they have bothered, if the intent was to "fake" it all? The presence of the fiducials would have made the job of "faking" it even that more difficult!! An added step, and more chance for "mistakes".....

reply to post by WeekendWarrior


My great grandfather worked for NASA during it's glory days. Before he died he took me to see 2nd generation prints of the Apollo photos. I KNOW that these images are clean, incredibly detailed, and certainly not "photoshopped."

A liar is someone who says something they know isn't true. I'd be careful where you throw that title.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos
I have made my point clear enough and seen plenty of evidence of these photos tampered, not only apollo, there has been so many that its hard even remember all of them. But I have had my evidence to know that Nasa is full of it! NASA= never a straight answer
Night!

I agree,I cant believe a single person on earth still thinks Nasa are genuine.

You only have to look a the faces of the astronaunts at the press conference after "returning" from the moon.

They are a mixture of disgust and utter helplessness...

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by Illustronic

 

You should look for those where they have just made the space behind them black. Crosses go missing so they hide whatever is behind them in space above. And those pics you show is not what I meant.
And Im not really interested of disinfoagent's opinion. NASA can give you all the tampered photos they want, its easy for them to alter these photos, but the thing is that I + many more people have seen the originals so nothing you say afterwards changes the fact that NASA is a f***ing liar and so are many of you defending those cover-ups.

Peace!

What a sad little person you are typical hoax believer response when they are shown something that they dont understand and have realised how STUPID they look. Black cross doesn't show on black background call the press and tv stations quick!

I blame the education system worldwide, it seems which over the last 30 years has went into serious decline judging by the level of knowledge shown re science subjects on this site and others!