Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 55
105
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
But do you really think those mountains/craters in the background look far away? They don't to me but of course this is not a 3D video so we can't get a sense of how far away they actually are.


Back in the 60s and early 70s they tried to explain this as an optical illusion on the moon, that objects appear closer than they are on the moon, both to astronauts and on camera.

edit on 3-2-2013 by Ove38 because: tex fix




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



Back in the 60s and early 70s they tried to explain this as an optical illusion on the moon, that objects appear closer than they are on the moon, both to astronauts and on camera.


And they still do, because it is a fact. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, so distant objects appear sharper than they do on Earth, where they tend to look hazy. Add to this the fact that the Moon is smaller, which means that the horizon is much closer, and it becomes extremely difficult to judge distances on the Moon.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Jarrah White a fraud?


He has been so thoroughly busted that every time you bring up his name, everyone else on this thread laughs out loud. If you refuse to read the entire thread out of laziness, at least read the six or seven posts starting here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Well, I had a read and what a supprise, I find that you are the one that thinks he busted him!
OK, so he used the results for an unshielded spacecraft, perhaps he read the paper in a hurry and he used that first table because he was in a hurry to post something in response to pressing questions? Who knows?
He makes mistakes, we all do, but you can't simply denounce all the information in his "MoonFaker" videos as nothing but lies, especially when much of what he says can be seen to be patently true.
Thomas Edison made lots of mistakes too, like stubbornly sticking to DC power when Tesla and Westinghouse had proved AC to be the better system for distributing it, but you can't simply denounce the rest of Edisons other work as completely fraudulent!
Its pays to keep an open mind, but yours is obviously closed.
As for radiation exposure in LEO, here is a quote from wikipedia:
"Subatomic charged particles, primarily protons from cosmic rays and solar wind, are normally absorbed by the earth's atmosphere, when they interact in sufficient quantity their effect becomes visible to the naked eye in a phenomenon called an Aurora. Without the protection of the Earth's atmosphere, which absorbs this radiation, crews are exposed to about 1 millisievert each day, which is about the same as someone would get in a year on Earth, from natural sources. This results in a higher risk of astronauts' developing cancer. Radiation can penetrate living tissue, damage DNA, and cause damage to the chromosomes of lymphocytes. These cells are central to the immune system and so any damage to them could contribute to the lowered immunity experienced by astronauts. Radiation has also been linked to a higher incidence of cataracts in astronauts. Protective shielding and protective drugs may lower the risks to an acceptable level.
The radiation levels experienced on ISS are about five times greater than those experienced by airline passengers and crew. The Earth's electromagnetic field provides almost the same level of protection against solar and other radiation in low Earth orbit as in the stratosphere. Airline passengers, however, experience this level of radiation for no more than 15 hours for the longest intercontinental flights. For example, on a 12 hour flight an airline passenger would experience 0.1 millisievert of radiation, or a rate of 0.2 millisieverts per day; only 1/5 the rate experienced by an astronaut in LEO."

So even in the shielded environment on the ISS, every single day the Astronauts absorb a dose the same as someone would get in a year on Earth from natural sources! So much for the complete safety of a spacecraft in LEO!
edit on 3/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Well, I had a read and what a supprise, I find that you are the one that thinks he busted him!


Correction: I am one of many who has busted him. Most of the contributors to this thread, jra, ngchunter, Phage et al. have busted him at some point or another. I chose this example because it not only shows that he was wrong, he knew he was wrong and tried to conceal the fact. He is a hoaxer.


OK, so he used the results for an unshielded spacecraft, perhaps he read the paper in a hurry and he used that first table because he was in a hurry to post something in response to pressing questions? Who knows?


Thee is no point trying to rationalize his deceit. It is part of a clear pattern. He had all the time in the world to read and understand his sources. If you read the entirety of the thread, you would see that there is good reason to believe that Jarrah does not even do his own research, but is fed disinformation by fellow travelers.


He makes mistakes, we all do, but you can't simply denounce all the information in his "MoonFaker" videos as nothing but lies, especially when much of what he says can be seen to be patently true.


I challenge you to find one single claim of Jarrah's that is "patently true." Seriously. What's more, I'm willing to bet that I won't even have to type an original debunking... I can just copy and paste a response from an earlier thread.


Thomas Edison made lots of mistakes too, like stubbornly sticking to DC power when Tesla and Westinghouse had proved AC to be the better system for distributing it, but you can't simply denounce the rest of Edisons other work as completely fraudulent!





Its pays to keep an open mind, but yours is obviously closed.


I'm not the one who refuses to acknowledge when they've been proven wrong.


So even in the shielded environment on the ISS, every single day the Astronauts absorb a dose the same as someone would get in a year on Earth, from natural sources! So much for the complete safety of a spacecraft in LEO!


Who said that space travel of any sort was completely safe? Where did that straw man come from?
edit on 3-2-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

No, I said I am convinced there is another such chamber at Groom lake



Can you furnish any sort of evidence to show why you are convinced about there being a large vacuum chamber installed at Groom lake?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


ProfessorAlfB up until a couple of years ago the main thing that all hoax believers could fall back on was the simple fact an image of the Apollo LEM's on the surface of the Moon could not be shown.

I will use this image again first posted by jra.



Top part a single frame from the DAC film camera as Apollo 17 left the moon!!
Bottom LRO image of the Apollo 17 site
Compare the tracks !!!!! and object positions.

All the objects at Apollo landing sites had the positions and distances taken and recorded.
For example



Thanks to the LRO and having images at 50cm/pixel and some from lower orbits of 26cm/pixel very small objects photographed on the suface and seen in the Hasselblad pictures can be found and checked on the LRO images.
Not for one site but ALL the landing sites this was something that couldn't be done the images are taken 40 yrs apart and they MATCH!!!

Watch these then please STFU!!!





Oh before you claim the videos or pictures are a photshop job here is the video to debunk that!!!!


edit on 3-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


So even in the shielded environment on the ISS, every single day the Astronauts absorb a dose the same as someone would get in a year on Earth from natural sources! So much for the complete safety of a spacecraft in LEO!
edit on 3/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


Let's take a look at this lovely little straw man. How many people have died on missions outside of LEO vs. how many people have died on LEO missions? I'll save you the trouble, it's 0/18.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   




I think "Hunchback" is probably correct...They probably have been photoshopped...Lets face it, if you were NASA and you were releasing the LRO photo's to try and bebunk the moonhoax theory, you aren't exactly going to release such photos without pasting in some blurry LM like blobs first!
The only way to prove they are genuine is to retrieve an unaltered recording of the original LRO image data stream before it was edited, from a completely independent source that is not connected in any way with NASA, the CIA etc and that has no bias, one way or the other.
The Russians and Chinese probably wouldn't have had line of sight to the LRO data as it was being transmitted but even if they did they can't be trusted to unbiased as the Russians already work with NASA and the Chinese can't do without American wheat handouts. Neither can us Brits be trusted, as many Brit scientists working on space aeronautical projects are funded by NASA, and you don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Unfortunately, without being able to obtain that unsullied data, one can not, and should not, simply put blind faith in a few images and videos spoon fed to you and the general the public as factual.
edit on 3/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


So even in the shielded environment on the ISS, every single day the Astronauts absorb a dose the same as someone would get in a year on Earth from natural sources! So much for the complete safety of a spacecraft in LEO!
edit on 3/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


Let's take a look at this lovely little straw man. How many people have died on missions outside of LEO vs. how many people have died on LEO missions? I'll save you the trouble, it's 0/18.


Well, that should ring alarm bells...It can be taken as clear evidence that noone has been outside of LEO!



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Once again YOU miss the point if an image has been altered it can be checked!

What about the second video and the Hadley ridge any comments on that


jra

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
If they were on the moon, how come they're not allowed to tell us, how it was on the moon ?


What are you talking about? Many of the astronauts have done interviews, documentaries, written books about their experiences on the Moon. Where did you get the silly idea that they are not allowed to talk about it?


Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
But do you really think those mountains/craters in the background look far away? They don't to me but of course this is not a 3D video so we can't get a sense of how far away they actually are.


It's harder to gauge distance on the Moon. On Earth we rely on atmospheric perspective to help to give us an idea how far away distant objects are. But you can look at a map or satellite imagery of one of the landing sites and measure the distance from the LM to one of the mountains. You can also take two photos of the same mountain that were photographed at different locations. Line up the photos of the mountains one over the other and flip back and forth between them to see the shift in perspective. Which tells you they are not simple 2d backgrounds on a wall, but actually, physically there in the distance. I've done it many times myself.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB



Once again YOU miss the point if an image has been altered it can be checked!


Checked against what though? If we can't prove the Apollo pics weren't faked, then we have no trustworthy photographic evidence that we can use to compare the LRO pics to...


What about the second video and the Hadley ridge any comments on that


I watched it but not totally sure what the arguement is about as I haven't come across this story before.
edit on 3/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I thought you claimed to be a professional photographer I mean the IMAGE can be checked for manipulation or have you not heard or seen that before.

So if the Apollo craft have been edited in we could see evidence of that BUT the simple fact we can compare OBJECTS in 40 yr old pictures taken on the Moon with the images from the LRO, objects so small that the only way they could be seen 40 yrs ago was if someone was in the same location as them is the best possible evidence.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



I thought you claimed to be a professional photographer I mean the IMAGE can be checked for manipulation or have you not heard or seen that before.


You would be supprised how easy it is to manipulate photos...I do it all the time. It is why I don't simply except what a photo apparently shows me.
There used to be an old saying, "the camera never lies", but that is a lie!


So if the Apollo craft have been edited in we could see evidence of that


Actually, you probably wouldn't...Apparently the CIA insisted on editing all the Apollo photos before they were released to the public and its a given that a government department with their resources could manipluate photos standing on its head.



BUT the simple fact we can compare OBJECTS in 40 yr old pictures taken on the Moon with the images from the LRO, objects so small that the only way they could be seen 40 yrs ago was if someone was in the same location as them is the best possible evidence.


Only if the 40 year pictures AND the LRO images have not already been manipulated...And without knowing for sure if they have been or not, you cannot compare them.
edit on 3/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Apparently the CIA insisted on editing all the Apollo photos before they were released to the public



That the CIA would insist on "editing" supposedly already doctored and faked images would be a bit hard to envisage wouldn't it?

What are you trying to imply with this statement? That the people responsible for creating the hoax had to submit their work for editing by the CIA in case there was something amiss like....footage of the flag "blowing in the wind" or "there was no crater under the lander" or "the shadows were all wrong"? Well, if so then...the CIA didn't do a very good job did they? Or maybe that the CIA did additional editing like "Dude! When we said no stars we meant no stars!"(in which case they would have gotten it right)?

But wait, 40 years on, there would be people who had access to an internet website called youtube, and hey presto! Those goofy CIA clowns can now be seen to be the big silly billies they are......pffff.... flags blowing in the wind? C'mon spooks you missed that one!!


edit on 3-2-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

Please give proof of these photos that have been edited. Remember, in the 60's and 70's there wasn't any "photo shop". So you will have to show proof using technology of the time. Specific identification will be necessary. Conjecture and "it looks like" will not suffice.

Also, please use the original TFF publications. These are the closest generation to the actual photograph.
edit on 2/3/2013 by Gibborium because: added last sentence



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Please give proof of these photos that have been edited. Remember, in the 60's and 70's there wasn't any "photo shop". So you will have to show proof using technology of the time. Specific identification will be necessary. Conjecture and "it looks like" will not suffice.


Photo manipulation has been going on a lot longer than you think...Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"Before computers, photo manipulation was achieved by retouching with ink, paint, double-exposure, piecing photos or negatives together in the darkroom, or scratching Polaroids.
The first recorded case of photo manipulation was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady – the same portrait which was the basis for the original Lincoln Five-dollar bill."

Photoshop just makes it easier!


edit on 3/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 
Your answer is not what I asked for. You keep saying they have been manipulated, but so far you have not shown any proof, only conjecture. Parroting what someone else has said is not proof. Please show evidence of manipulation. An experienced eye can not only detect, but explain how the manipulation is done. It shouldn't be hard for you to find and explain these manipulations.

Please, take your best shot. Use any of the Apollo images that were manipulated using period technology and explain how they were changed. Pick the best Apollo image you can find showing any anomaly that was created by manipulation and prove your statement. If you are the photographer you claim to be, this should be a simple task. If you choose to side step the request again, it will show one of three things, you are using talking points from someone else, you don't know what you are talking about, or there are no manipulations. I think it is all three.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



"Before computers, photo manipulation was achieved by retouching with ink, paint, double-exposure, piecing photos or negatives together in the darkroom, or scratching Polaroids.


There you have it. All you have to do is find a photo that has been retouched with ink, double exposed, pieced together or scratched. All of these techniques are very easy to spot.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


Thanks for the clip, yes just another one of the many thousands of pieces of REAL evidence sat in plain sight for everyone to see and yet thousands of people simply refuse to believe in even the possibility that the Moon landings were faked. It's almost like its a personal attack on that persons psyche that they could be lied to so overwhelmingly or that their Govt could lie to them in such a monstrous way.

But the evidence photographic, scientific , witness is all there for all to see and yet society refuses to look under the stone. In fact the science alone would have made it nigh on impossible to get to the moon and back safely as the spacecraft and the suits could not be adequately cooled. You will never be able to prove the science behind the space suits ie heating / cooling as NASA will never disclose the actual specific design data even to this day.

Don't believe me... Then please try and go online or ask NASA for the design data... Don't hold your breath

If mainstream science or scientists/ specialist engineers reviewed the moon landings and all associated data it would take them very little time to SHOW conclusively that what we witnessed was NOT on the Moon. Alas I fear this will never happen and we will slowly drip drip to truth in another 20-30 years by which time all the major players would have died and the govt of the day can act just as shocked as the rest of us when the truth finally emerges...!!





new topics
 
105
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join