Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 47
105
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



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?


The problem is, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind, for anything, that you cannot dismiss with the words "I refuse to believe it." That is not skepticism, it is cynicism.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

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)


And here is Armstrong on the Hornet again, clearly showing guilt from having to hide a huge secret...The hoax:
www.youtube.com...

edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
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


Your link backs me up: "The lunar surface Hasselblad cameras were fitted with a device called a reseau plate. The reseau plate is a clear glass plate on which is etched small black crosshairs, called "fiducials" by some and "reticles" by others."

The "others" in this case is NASA!

edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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)


OK, here is the classic shot of Aldrin on "the Moon", found in almost every history book about Apollo on the planet:

www.flightglobal.com...

Its also one of the best bits of photographic evidence of a hoax!
I know why, but do you?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Its also one of the best bits of photographic evidence of a hoax!
I know why, but do you?


Because it's been cropped, rotated, and had black airbrushed in to improve the composition? If it was a hoax, why didn't they just set up the shot perfectly in the first place?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


If you're going to use an example of a Apollo photograph, why not use the original scanned picture?

AS11-40-5903

At 3900 x 3900 pixels.

Instead of one that has been changed for publication.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

OK, here is the classic shot of Aldrin on "the Moon", found in almost every history book about Apollo on the planet:

www.flightglobal.com...

Its also one of the best bits of photographic evidence of a hoax!
I know why, but do you?


Gave you a link to the originals and YOU ignored it
you went elsewhere and shot yourself in the foot YOU really don't have a clue do you


YOU are starting to look like and post like someone else who was on Moon hoax threads under a few different names.

So why don't you list the reasons why so we can get a good
at your photographic knowledge you claim to be a Pro so tell us in your own words.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 
I am afraid you are the one that doesn't understand the difference. A reticle is located in the eyepiece of a scope of some type of instrument whether it is a microscope or a telescope. A fiducial is located on a piece of glass (reseau plate) that is in contact with the film in the body of a camera. A fiducial is not located in the eyepiece. They are two completely different things used in different ways.

Reticles are found in the optics of equipment, fiducials are found in the body of the camera.

Reticles are for aiming, fiducials are for measuring.

Reticles are the cross hairs of a gun scope. Fiducials are very small, precisely accurate lines etched on a plate in a precise grid pattern in the body of the camera.

But I believe reseau plates are a 201 class in photography.
edit on 1/31/2013 by Gibborium because: grammar and dropped words



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
[
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!
..


Why do you insist on lying? There is no record anywhere of apollo 11 astronauts giving a lunar sample to the Dutch PM. You're either posting a blatant lie or you're just being too lazy to actually research the story behind the petrified wood. If you lie about this why should anyone take any of your other posts seriously. Like when you link back to proven liar Jarrah White. If your case is so solid, why do you present lies as proof?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Its also one of the best bits of photographic evidence of a hoax!
I know why, but do you?


Because it's been cropped, rotated, and had black airbrushed in to improve the composition? If it was a hoax, why didn't they just set up the shot perfectly in the first place?


Its had black airbrushed in???...What nonsense!

1) NASA states that the only light source available to the Astronauts was the Sun and we can clearly see that the "Sunlight" comes from above and behind him. Note the darkness of his shadow but unbelievably, none of him is in silhoette as we would expect...Fill lighting MUST have been used, proving it could not have been taken on the Moon.
2) Sunlight is not a focussed beam, it should give uniform right across the Lunar surface as far as the visible horizon, but he is obviously lit by some kind of focussed beam because the brightness of the "Sunlight" deminishes the further away from him it gets...Overhead studio lighting must have been used to try and replicate light from the Sun, proving it could not have been taken on the Moon.
3) One of the LM's landing pads is visible at the bottom right corner of frame. Despite the fact the LM's rocket plume, which have have continued firing until 5 seconds after touchdown, would have blasted a crater under the LM and sprayed both Lunar rock and dust ejectate all over the LM's undercarriage, and up to 150 metres (400 feet) in all directions around it, unbelievably it is completely pristine and there are no signs of disturbance to the Lunar soil at all as far as we can see, except for Astronaut footprints!...Proving that it was in fact shot in a Earthbound Studio and the LM had been carefully craned into position on a fake Lunar set, as it also consistent with the lighting mentioned in point 2.
4) The reflection in the visor had been doctored...Given Aldrin is standing, at the most, 3-4 feet below the elevation of Aldrin the position of the horizon reflected in the visor should be higher than is shown. Note how it has been placed dead in line with actual horizon in the background. With a little trigonomertry you can work out that from their relative positions and elevations Armstrongs camera would have had to be about 12 feet higher that Aldrin to account for the visor reflection and this is obviously not the case! So why would they doctor the reflection in the visor? Simple, to hide the fact that it was shot in a studio!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
[
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!
..


Why do you insist on lying? There is no record anywhere of apollo 11 astronauts giving a lunar sample to the Dutch PM. You're either posting a blatant lie or you're just being too lazy to actually research the story behind the petrified wood. If you lie about this why should anyone take any of your other posts seriously. Like when you link back to proven liar Jarrah White. If your case is so solid, why do you present lies as proof?


It's a classic move: Take something with a grain of truth in it, and use it to try and make people think of something else. Deflection and distraction.

For those interested, the real story about the Dutch moon rocks is that they are there and safe in their museum of natural history.

The "moon rock" that was not real, was assumed to be a moon rock given back in 1969, but was not properly vetted. The Dutch prime minister assumed it was, and his estate was given to the The Rijksmuseum, not the museum of natural history.

Here's a link to the full article about this:

Apollo Moon Rocks Lost


The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.


And here is a wikipedia link to the subject:

Source

Again, it's just classic moon hoax behavior: take something that you think supports your case, but then make sure to not show everything, especially when it proves what you are showing is wrong.

Notice how those of us that debunk the moon hoaxers do not do this. We just had that with this Apollo 11 picture. Moon hoaxer wants to use a picture that has indeed been manipulated for publication, instead of wanting to use the original photo itself.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


If you're going to use an example of a Apollo photograph, why not use the original scanned picture?

AS11-40-5903

At 3900 x 3900 pixels.

Instead of one that has been changed for publication.


Makes no difference as the evidence can be clearly seen even on smaller scale versions.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

OK, here is the classic shot of Aldrin on "the Moon", found in almost every history book about Apollo on the planet:

www.flightglobal.com...

Its also one of the best bits of photographic evidence of a hoax!
I know why, but do you?


Gave you a link to the originals and YOU ignored it
you went elsewhere and shot yourself in the foot YOU really don't have a clue do you


I have ignored nothing and I haven't shot myself anywhere. I simply gave you evidence and it completely up to you if you choose to bury your head in the sand in an effort to ignore it.


YOU are starting to look like and post like someone else who was on Moon hoax threads under a few different names.


If you have heard evidence like mine before, that is hardly supprising as facts are facts!...My evidence is a universal truth amongst all of us who believe its a hoax. Surely you weren't expecting some different evidence? Fairies and Demons more on your level?


So why don't you list the reasons why so we can get a good
at your photographic knowledge you claim to be a Pro so tell us in your own words.


Already have if you care to read...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Wow.

You just showed how ignorant you are about lighting and photography.

Here, you can do it right in your chair:

Take your hand, hold it out from you, make sure the back of it faces the sun, and the palm side does not.

Do you see the palm side?

Congrats! You've just seen with your very own eyes what bounce and scatter does!

Shadow depth is dependent upon many things, and how it is viewed also depending upon the image being captured:

Film speed.
Shutter speed.
F Stop
lighting from souce.
lighting from bounce and scatter.
reflectivity of material being illuminated.
topography of said material.

and many many more things.

I know. Not only do I work with astrophotography for capturing very low light objects, I also work in the CGI field and have a LOT of experience working with lighting to make things look real.

"fill lighting" as you called it would not work here......why? Why the landing pad, strut and sensor of the LEM is one big reason why, and a word called Specularity.

Too bad they used all the highly reflective, shiny, gold foil there...........it would show the origin of your "fill light" like a sign screaming "HI! I'M FAKE! SEE THE BRIGHT SHINNY SPOTS ON ME?!?!?!?!?".



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
[
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!
..


Why do you insist on lying? There is no record anywhere of apollo 11 astronauts giving a lunar sample to the Dutch PM. You're either posting a blatant lie or you're just being too lazy to actually research the story behind the petrified wood. If you lie about this why should anyone take any of your other posts seriously. Like when you link back to proven liar Jarrah White. If your case is so solid, why do you present lies as proof?


Oh dear, you really should do some research before you accuse people of lying!:
www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
[
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!
..


Why do you insist on lying? There is no record anywhere of apollo 11 astronauts giving a lunar sample to the Dutch PM. You're either posting a blatant lie or you're just being too lazy to actually research the story behind the petrified wood. If you lie about this why should anyone take any of your other posts seriously. Like when you link back to proven liar Jarrah White. If your case is so solid, why do you present lies as proof?


It's a classic move: Take something with a grain of truth in it, and use it to try and make people think of something else. Deflection and distraction.

For those interested, the real story about the Dutch moon rocks is that they are there and safe in their museum of natural history.

The "moon rock" that was not real, was assumed to be a moon rock given back in 1969, but was not properly vetted. The Dutch prime minister assumed it was, and his estate was given to the The Rijksmuseum, not the museum of natural history.

Here's a link to the full article about this:

Apollo Moon Rocks Lost


The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.


And here is a wikipedia link to the subject:

Source

Again, it's just classic moon hoax behavior: take something that you think supports your case, but then make sure to not show everything, especially when it proves what you are showing is wrong.

Notice how those of us that debunk the moon hoaxers do not do this. We just had that with this Apollo 11 picture. Moon hoaxer wants to use a picture that has indeed been manipulated for publication, instead of wanting to use the original photo itself.



Duh!...The orginal contains the exact same evidence!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Despite the fact the LM's rocket plume, which have have continued firing until 5 seconds after touchdown


Again, may I ask, WHY DO YOU LIE. Please provide some kind of proof that the LM's rocket fired for 5 seconds after touchdown (they didn't). I know you truly believe what you're saying, but nobody will take you seriously when all you do is lie.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

2) Sunlight is not a focussed beam, it should give uniform right across the Lunar surface as far as the visible horizon, but he is obviously lit by some kind of focussed beam because the brightness of the "Sunlight" deminishes the further away from him it gets...Overhead studio lighting must have been used to try and replicate light from the Sun, proving it could not have been taken on the Moon.


Again: you've just shown you do not know anything about photography and lighting: sun light is considered a lighting source from a infinite distance. While it's not actually "infinite" it is over 90 million miles away.

You can't use studio spotlights and get away with mono-shadowing like are present in all the photos. Just try it and see. Won't work.


Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
3) One of the LM's landing pads is visible at the bottom right corner of frame. Despite the fact the LM's rocket plume, which have have continued firing until 5 seconds after touchdown, would have blasted a crater under the LM and sprayed both Lunar rock and dust ejectate all over the LM's undercarriage, and up to 150 metres (400 feet) in all directions around it, unbelievably it is completely pristine and there are no signs of disturbance to the Lunar soil at all as far as we can see, except for Astronaut footprints!...Proving that it was in fact shot in a Earthbound Studio and the LM had been carefully craned into position on a fake Lunar set, as it also consistent with the lighting mentioned in point 2.


And now you've just show that you do not know anything about rocketry, rocket engines, and thrust.
Here, you might want to do a little bit of reading on the subject:

Lunar Module Descent Stage

10,125 pounds of thrust is not going to "blast a crater" in rock. It will blow the dust away. How much dust will it blow away? Why that depends on the shape of the funnel for the engine that in turn shapes the plume of the rocket engine.
In fact, if you look at your photo, you can see where the legs and sensor sits has helped piled the lunar soil up there.


Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
4) The reflection in the visor had been doctored...Given Aldrin is standing, at the most, 3-4 feet below the elevation of Aldrin the position of the horizon reflected in the visor should be higher than is shown. Note how it has been placed dead in line with actual horizon in the background. With a little trigonomertry you can work out that from their relative positions and elevations Armstrongs camera would have had to be about 12 feet higher that Aldrin to account for the visor reflection and this is obviously not the case! So why would they doctor the reflection in the visor? Simple, to hide the fact that it was shot in a studio!


I think you need to work on your trig a little bit (or at least show you work for it). Also you might want to learn about some of the variables in the trig problem, such as the angle of Buzz's head being tilted down......the distance of the horizon on the moon (which is different than here on Earth......can you tell us what that distance is?).

When you've learned those things, and can show your work (to come up with the figure of 12 feet), please get back to us on that.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 
I am afraid you are the one that doesn't understand the difference. A reticle is located in the eyepiece of a scope of some type of instrument whether it is a microscope or a telescope. A fiducial is located on a piece of glass (reseau plate) that is in contact with the film in the body of a camera. A fiducial is not located in the eyepiece. They are two completely different things used in different ways.

Reticles are found in the optics of equipment, fiducials are found in the body of the camera.

Reticles are for aiming, fiducials are for measuring.

Reticles are the cross hairs of a gun scope. Fiducials are very small, precisely accurate lines etched on a plate in a precise grid pattern in the body of the camera.

But I believe reseau plates are a 201 class in photography.
edit on 1/31/2013 by Gibborium because: grammar and dropped words


Why don't people read before they start spouting pedantic rubbish?

As I have already shown, Fiducials and Recticles are one and the same!
NASA does not call them Fiducials, they called them Recticles, so try and keep up!
Quote from a link I posted earlier: " The lunar surface Hasselblad cameras were fitted with a device called a reseau plate. The reseau plate is a clear glass plate on which is etched small black crosshairs, called "fiducials" by some and "reticles" by others."...The "others" in this case is NASA!
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Duh!...The orginal contains the exact same evidence!


No, the actual moon rocks are in the possession of the Nederlands museum of natural history. Those rocks are real.

Go back and read the link to the news source, it even says that.

You need to start being careful around here on ATS.......being mistaken is fine. Lying is not.

Check your sources before you continue. I don't mind debating with you (as it's almost a given fact that all moon hoaxers are so strong in their beliefs that they'll never change their minds, even if they were to go to the moon right now and see the proof themselves, I and others still post and debate for the benefit of other readers and lurkers), but you need to stop lying about something please.





top topics
 
105
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join