Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 46
105
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Duh!, I gave you proof!...He is the man with the foreign accent in the video I linked to, basically saying he has no explanation for how it could be.


Unfortunately, as we've seen time and time again, moon hoax pushers love to lie, Sibrel did it in order to stalk his victims, and got a punch in the mouth for his troubles, when Jarrah White can't find an expert to appear in his video, he gets someone to pretend to be an expert. Do you have any proof of what picture he was shown? Notice how they never show on camera what he's being asked to explain? It's well within logic to believe that he was handed a doctored photo and asked to explain it. That entire fox documentary has been shown time and time again to be a work of fiction. Please provide real, tangible evidence, not anecdotes and hearsay




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I dont know if any of you guys, no matter if you believe they went to the Moon or not, are any good at reading body language or have studied Psychology at all, even at a basic level? Whatever, I thought I should show you all an interview that took place with all three Apollo 11 Astronauts, in front of the press, after the Apollo 11 Moon landing:

www.youtube.com...

OK, now imagine how you would have felt if it were you sitting there, and you had genuinely been to the Moon and back.
What emotions would you have? Joy?, Eurphoria?...You would certainly feel great relief that you made it there and back completely unscaved. You would almost certainly feel extremely proud of yourself, your fellow Astronauts, NASA, the USA, perhaps the whole world.
You would think that all these positive thoughts and emotions would have surely showed in their faces and allowed their words to flow freely during press interviews, BUT...Look how miserable they all are, their guilty expressions and stumbling, slurred words!
Now I ask you, do these three really look the brave and proud men that went to Moon and pulled off the mans greatest achievment of all time?
As someone who has studied Psychology all I see is three men struggling as best they can to contain a guilty secret. This secret is so great, and weighs so heavily on their shoulders that despite being extremely brave and intelligent men, they look more like frightened Rabbits caught in someones headlights...Their facial expressions, their body language they way they stumble over getting their words out, their obvious shame.
What could a guilty secret of such magnitude be? You know where I stand on the matter!

edit on 30/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Sigh, you are repeating the same stuff we've heard about a million times over. All of which has been debunked here and other places btw. Like this little gem of apollo 11 confrence. Never mind the tens of photos of smiling and laughing and obviously happy astronauts after they landed.
Beating a dead horse
edit on 30/1/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Duh!, I gave you proof!...He is the man with the foreign accent in the video I linked to, basically saying he has no explanation for how it could be.




Unfortunately, as we've seen time and time again, moon hoax pushers love to lie, Sibrel did it in order to stalk his victims, and got a punch in the mouth for his troubles, when Jarrah White can't find an expert to appear in his video, he gets someone to pretend to be an expert. .


This has nothing to do with Jarah White...The guy in question appears in the Fox Conspiracy Theory documentory I posted earlier. There is a longer version of it available somewhere on youtube where he is introduced as the guy who designed the cameras for the Apollo missions.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Sigh, you are repeating the same stuff we've heard about a million times over. All of which has been debunked here and other places btw. Like this little gem of apollo 11 confrence. Never mind the tens of photos of smiling and laughing and obviously happy astronauts after they landed.
Beating a dead horse
edit on 30/1/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)


Fair enough, if you can't handle the truth you can continue living the lie.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
By definition when something is proven to be false it is a lie. You're spouting off stuff that has been proven to be false more times than I can recollect.
So who is living a lie? Try again?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


After being stuck in quarantine for a month and having that much time on my hands with my crew to consider the fact that I will never do anything as awesome, meaningful, or profound as what I had already done, that there was no going back, and that I had truly "peaked" in life, I'm quite certain I would look just as somber as Neil Armstrong himself. This press conference was not immediately after the landing. Stop the lie.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

OK, now imagine how you would have felt if it were you sitting there, and you had genuinely been to the Moon and back.
What emotions would you have? Joy?, Eurphoria?...You would certainly feel great relief that you made it there and back completely unscaved.


Well when you have traveled 470,000+ miles in 8 days in cramped conditions and spent a few days after going over the mission THEN and only then would you be able to comment on how anyone should look and feel.

I have seen people moan about jet lag for a couple of days after a flight from the USA to the UK all of 3,500 miles and 9 hours on a plane !!!

Anyway pro photographer your comments about washout, the examples I linked to were done with film cameras not digital. The WTC picture was taken before completion and was a film camera obviously.

May be your young and brought up only on digital photography, my first camera was a manual SLR , manual focus manual exposure the best way to learn 30+ years ago, so post some other lunar images your not happy with give your reasons why? plenty of people on here are pro, semi pro or long time hobby photographers like me so give it your best shot and gives us all a good


jra

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
BUT...Look how miserable they all are, their guilty expressions and stumbling, slurred words!


I think you're just seeing what you want to see in their expressions. The press conference happened weeks after they returned. They spent a long while in quarantine once back on Earth. Plus it's a press conference. I can think of more exciting things I'd rather be doing. I'm sure they could too.

If you spent a little time looking around, you'd find lots of photos of all 3 astronauts smiling and looking happy after returning from the Moon.

Here they are on the USS Hornet right after returning from the Moon:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

And there are many more like those. They all enjoyed talking about their experiences on the Moon. Even Armstrong, who didn't like the limelight, still gave interviews every once and a while.
edit on 30-1-2013 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


You misunderstood my post. I made the claim that hoax pushers have a tendency to lie. By making that statement I had to substantiate my claim, which I did by citing examples of known lies put forth by those peddling the hoax (for their own monetary gain, mind you). So I used what I personally think to be the two front runners for moon hoax side today and just one of the many lies they've been caught telling. I could also include the unfathomably long list of lies perpetuated by Fox news to show the "integrity" of the source, but it's common knowledge. If you've seen perhaps behind the scenes footage or maybe some outtakes that show what the gentleman from Hasselblad was shown, please share them. At present the only conclusion that can be drawn from that video is that he was shown a picture that he couldn't explain involving a subject in what appears to be a spotlight. A proper documentary would show the picture to the camera then show it to the person being questioned, since this documentary is heavily biased and pushing an agenda, they did not.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
By definition when something is proven to be false it is a lie. You're spouting off stuff that has been proven to be false more times than I can recollect.
So who is living a lie? Try again?


OK, can you prove Man went to the Moon? If so where is your irrefutable evidence?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by PheonixReborn
 



I think both sides of the debate can agree that attacking a typo is just poor form. We all know what they meant.

Oh, I give up. I'm going to make an issue of this. I'm just too tired of the ignorant to put up with them with civility anymore.

He claimed the cross hairs were called "Recticles."

Now, I'm only an amateur photographer but I know they're called reticules. Thats not a typo. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. One letter out of place and I could understand it but "recticles?" I don't think so!

What I think we're dealing with here is someone who has owned a camera for a few years and thinks that makes him a photographer. It doesn't. It makes him someone who has owned a camera.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Well you can start by proving the photographic evidence false. Then there's the LRO. Then there's the mirros. The soil samples.
If you can prove any of them fake then I'll be the first to call the press. People and internet loons have been trying to do that for decades. They have always failed miserably.
edit on 30/1/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



OK, can you prove Man went to the Moon? If so where is your irrefutable evidence?


Oh dear. Please define what you mean by "irrefutable evidence."



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PheonixReborn

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by PheonixReborn
 



I think both sides of the debate can agree that attacking a typo is just poor form. We all know what they meant.

Oh, I give up. I'm going to make an issue of this. I'm just too tired of the ignorant to put up with them with civility anymore.

He claimed the cross hairs were called "Recticles."


Thats because they are called Recticles!:
reticles.com...
dictionary.reference.com...

And that is exactly what NASA calls them...there are references in the NASA links below:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...



Now, I'm only an amateur photographer but I know they're called reticules.


As an amateur, its understandable you dont know the correct spelling.


Thats not a typo. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. One letter out of place and I could understand it but "recticles?" I don't think so!


Thats because you didn't think...

edit on 30/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



OK, can you prove Man went to the Moon? If so where is your irrefutable evidence?


Oh dear. Please define what you mean by "irrefutable evidence."


If you don't have the intelligence to work out what that means then I'm afraid you don't have much chance of proving your case!
Perhaps "evidence that cannot be debunked by any means" may be easier to understand?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Well you can start by proving the photographic evidence false.


Thats already been done..There are countless publications showing why they are fakes.


Then there's the LRO.


Thats been debunked already...See Jarah Whites LRO series of videos:

www.youtube.com...


Then there's the mirros.


You mean mirrors? Its already been debunked:

www.youtube.com...


The soil samples


They could have come from Earth...The Moon is chemically identical to the Earth, as it was originally part of the proto Earth that formed about 4.7 Billion years ago and it was blasted away from the Earth by an impact from a large planetoid which was probably incorporated into the early Earth. The Lunar soil can easily be replicated in a lab.
The rock samples could also have come from Earth too...Lots of Lunar and Martian meteorites have been found by the many US "scientific" expeditions to Antarctica.
In 1969 when the Apollo 11 Astronauts visited Holland they gave the Dutch Priminister a sample of "Moon Rock".
In 2009 it was analysed at the Dutch National Museum and to their shock it was found to be Petrified Wood!



If you can prove any of them fake then I'll be the first to call the press. People and internet loons have been trying to do that for decades. They have always failed miserably.
edit on 30/1/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)


The evidence is already available to the press...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 
Let's use the correct terminology for the "crosshairs" found on the photos taken by the astronauts. A reticle is found in the eye pieces and/or tubes of instruments such as microscopes, telescopes, gun scopes, etc. Whereas, a fiducial is found on the reseau plate inside of the camera which is actually just in front of the film. The fiducial markings in the Hasselblad cameras used by NASA were to aid in making precision measurements and for reference when stitching images together as was done in pans.

Your own links confirm this. The first link is for a company which makes reticles, the second is a poor definition for a reticles, and the third and fourth are images of the optical telescope, not the camera. And none of your links are for the "crosshairs" found on NASA photos.

Reticle (recticle) - WIKI Source

A reticle (or reticule) is a net of fine lines or fibers in the eyepiece of a sighting device, such as a telescope, a telescopic sight, a microscope, or the screen of an oscilloscope. The word reticle comes from the Latin "reticulum," meaning "net." Today, engraved lines or embedded fibers may be replaced by a computer-generated image superimposed on a screen or eyepiece. The term graticule is the synonymous term from French, coming from the Latin craticula for gridiron. Both may be used to describe any set of lines used for optical measurement, but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights and such, while graticule is more widely used for the covers of oscilloscopes and similar roles.

There are many variations of reticles; this article concerns itself mainly with a simple reticle: crosshairs. Crosshairs are most commonly represented as intersecting lines in the shape of a cross, "+", though many variations exist, including dots, posts, circles, scales, chevrons, or a combination of these. Most commonly associated with telescopic sights for aiming firearms, crosshairs are also common in optical instruments used for astronomy and surveying, and are also popular in graphical user interfaces as a precision pointer. The reticle is said to have been invented by Robert Hooke, and dates to the 17th century.

fiducial - WIKI Source

In imaging technology, a fiduciary marker or fiducial is an object used in the field of view of an imaging system which appears in the image produced, for use as a point of reference or a measure.

Reseau Plate - WIKI Source

A Reseau plate is a transparent plate with fiduciary markers placed at the focal plane of a camera just in front of the film to provide a means of correcting images to enable them to be used for precision measurement. The crosshairs visible in photos taken on the Moon are an example of this usage.

Here is a link to a good explanation of what and how a Reseau plate with fiducials work.
Clavius Photography - crosshairs



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
This is to anyone on here in the UK if you are thinking of using the services of a professional photographer in the London area avoid them you may well end up with ProfessorAlfB who has shown he knows nothing about his trade!

A little quote to counter a claim you made earlier that bleeding over didn't happen with film.


The photographers we consulted agreed that the fiducial washout was almost certainly the result of bright areas of the emulsion "bleeding" over the tiny fiducials. The fiducials are very thin, only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm). The emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much -- less than the thickness of a human hair -- in order to completely obscure the fiducial.


For a Pro you seem to know nothing about your job!!!!
edit on 31-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Why don't you pick one of the images and using your skill as a professional photographer to explain why the shot is fake.

Plenty to chose from here Apollo Mission Photographs now that link is good to use because it's the scans from the original pictures taken during the Apollo missions be they underexposed or framed wrong etc etc. So shows us YOUR knowledge on the subject of photography
edit on 31-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join