Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

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

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nedusa

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.



That you come to the conclusion that "mainstream science or scientists/ specialist engineers" have not reviewed the moon landings is indicative of a myopic belief system you posses.

Do you think that for the last 50 years academics/scientists/engineers/astronomers et al have simply been ignoring the Apollo program, it's data, it's findings?

That there are people out there with this view never ceases to amaze me. You have my sympathies.




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by Nedusa

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.



That you come to the conclusion that "mainstream science or scientists/ specialist engineers" have not reviewed the moon landings is indicative of a myopic belief system you posses.

Do you think that for the last 50 years academics/scientists/engineers/astronomers et al have simply been ignoring the Apollo program, it's data, it's findings?

That there are people out there with this view never ceases to amaze me. You have my sympathies.



And you my sadly deluded friend have mine....!!!!
edit on 4-2-2013 by Nedusa because: Spelling error



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Nedusa
 


I have examined both sides of the argument, it's very obvious that you haven't.

You sir dwell in the realm of ignorance.

Every moon hoax claim has been proven false. That you even think that the world's greatest minds are blind to a "hoax" shows the reality of your delusion, it's called your ego, look it up.

Try studying the source of the moon hoax farce, you'll find charlatans and liars at the root of all this nonsense.



edit on 4-2-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Nedusa
 



Thanks for the clip, yes just another one of the many thousands of pieces of REAL evidence


Completely debunked on page one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Nedusa
 


It's also sadly obvious that you've not read this entire thread.

Try reading all the pages. The OP's evidence was debunked many, many pages back.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by Nedusa

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.




That you come to the conclusion that "mainstream science or scientists/ specialist engineers" have not reviewed the moon landings is indicative of a myopic belief system you posses.


Do you think that for the last 50 years academics/scientists/engineers/astronomers et al have simply been ignoring the Apollo program, it's data, it's findings?

That there are people out there with this view never ceases to amaze me. You have my sympathies.


But why would mainstream science or scientists/ specialist engineers have even the slightest need to question the Apollo story as told by NASA when many of them worked on the Apollo project too?
They would have had absolutely no reason to think NASA was perpetrating a hoax, and even if they did, their qualifications, security levels and egos automatically ruled out them mentioning it to anyone...After all, It is far better to go along with something and not rock the boat than question something suspicious that might single you out for scientific ridicule, imprisonment or even death.
And many scientists across the world that have have found evidence that does not agree with the staus quo of mainstream science have found their careers instantly over for making the mistake of talking or writing about it to their peers and mainstream colleagues.
The greater the scientist, the more they have to lose.




edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

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.

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)


Here is the first picture you posted re Aldrin from the link YOU used.



That's the EDITED version you used with the extra sky added in above the Astronaut and part of the bottom cut compared to the original and obviously a few tweaks to contrast etc.

Here is the UNEDITED version I linked to available to anybody on line!!!

Along with all the other Apollo mission pictures!



Open them up compare them next to each other.

There are ways to see if a picture has been edited in this digital age!



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


But what you seem to be forgetting is: time.

Over 40 years have gone by, with newer generations of scientists and engineers who have absolutely nothing to do with NASA or any government of any kind that have analyzed data, samples and many other things.

Yet none of them have ever pointed to anything and said it was wrong, bad or faked. None of it. Film, videos, samples, telemetry, the list goes on and on.

The only people that do question or declare fakes in over 40 years are:

People out looking to make money or fame.
People who are conspiracy theorists.
People who would rather use fringe science only.
People who tend to be rather uneducated in sciences or engineering.
People who have an overwhelming need to believe that they've been lied to.

Anyone can sit there and say it was all fake. Anyone can sit there and make highly speculative statements about massive cover ups. Anyone can sit there and claim that they had the technology to fake the videos back then (they didn't) and did not have the tech to go to the moon (they did), Anyone can put on blinders, stick their fingers in their ears while shouting so that they don't see or hear the actual science and proof that it did happen, and refuse to believe they've been debunked in their conspiracy theories.

For some, it's because they can't admit when they are wrong or mistaken. For others, it's because they spent and enormous amount of time or their lives trying to prove something, and are not about to let anything tell them other wise because they simply have to believe that it was all fake and that their was a conspiracy.

The most dramatic irony that we are seeing is:

Yes you're being lied to. Governments do lie to their people. But instead of concentrating on what they are being lied to about now (GMOs, illegal detention, illegal wars, rights taken away, your money taken away, etc, etc, etc), they are instead trying to prove something was a lie 40 years ago.

And today's governments are more than happy to let you continue on doing that instead of proving you wrong.

Why?

Because it means you're not paying attention to what IS going on right now. You and other Moon Hoaxers are helping them at every step and every turn.

You see, your average Joe on the street does believe we went to the moon. When they hear about people that don't believe it, and ask who these people are, they get a label told to them: Conspiracy Theorists.

And when they get shown evidence that debunks those Moon Hoaxers, who tend to be conspiracy theorists, they then lump them together with other people with another lable:

Fruit Cakes.

So now, when you have other conspiracy theorists, who, instead of working so hard to prove that the moon landings were fake, are instead trying to show how world governments are doing things that are not exactly in the best interests of the people of the world..........your average Joe hears that name again: Conspiracy Theorists, and to them that equals "fruit cake".

Just as Ufology will never be taken seriously. There are a lot of people out there that have seen things that are really there that have no explanation.
But they get lumped together with those who keep making hoaxes, lying about things, making up stories trying to get their 5 minutes of fame or make money off of the sheeple. They do more damage to the field of study than any government cover up every could.

Don't believe me? Try leaving this thread for a little bit and actually go out on the rest of ATS and talk to people. Talk to actual conspiracy theorists on here. Talk to the members on here that are serious Ufologists. Talk to them. Ask them if your helping or hindering.

My bet is you'll find that the majority will say the same thing: You and other Moon Hoaxers aren't helping. You're doing the opposite. You're hindering.

But hey, you can post what you want here on ATS (within the guidlines of the TCs). You want to make broad statements about secret massive government cover ups of the moon landings being faked, go right ahead. With no actual evidence on your side, go right ahead. Ignoring the things that show you're debunked, go right ahead. Keep parroting others out there that have been shown to be lying or proven to be scam artists, go right ahead.................

But keep in mind this:

You're giving the REAL Conspiracy Theorists a bad name.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
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.


You may not believe this but I actually have a life outside of this forum which it keeps me very busy so I simply don't have enough time to go through every single Apollo pic looking for anomalies...But of the few I have downloaded and analysed I have indeed found some evidence of manipulation or tampering.
As you know if you still have any old photographic negatives at home, you will almost certainly treat them with kid gloves, so as not to damage them as any scratches can show in the subsequent prints.
With a photographic negative archive of global scientific importantance as those from the Apollo project, you would think they would be treated with even higher respect...Yet some are covered in scratches!
Others have unexplainable blobs, lights or other artifacts in them.
These are not immediately visible and apparent in the images NASA has released to the public, but with the help of software like Photoshop, they can be made stand out like a sore thumb.
The ONLY Photoshop tool you need to make them visible is the shadow/highlight tool...Use the tool as many times as you need to increase the brightness of the shadows until they become clearly visible.
Take AS17-140-21391 for instance, which has obviously been made from a badly scratched negative and AS11-40-5863-69, which shows some very odd beige-brown artifacts.
I am NOT saying that every single Apollo photo shows such anomalies, but, quite a few do and given where they were supposed to taken they shouldn't be there and therefore can be seen as proof of image manipulation.
Now I have given you the tools to find them yourself, you have no excuse not to do your own research.
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Nedusa
 


A few things you may want to take note of.
1) This clip was debunked as being nothing but hot air years ago.
2) There is zero photographic, scientific or first hand evidence that shows any trace of a hoax, feel free to try and find some
3) You just pulled the part about the cooling system design not being available out of thin air, it's either unwillingness to do even a 10 second search or just a lie

You clearly have very strong faith in your moon hoax beliefs, would you mind posting some evidence to support anything you've said?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


How convinient that you cant provide anything specific. So there is no danger of anyone debunking this whole claim. And also I have a counter claim, I have never seen any evidence of tampering in apollo images. So we're even now.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


So you're side-stepping again, and trying to shift the workload and the burden of proof elsewhere.

Furthermore, your arguments boil down to two things:

Arguments from incredulity (i.e. you don't expect photos taken in the field under difficult & hostile circumstances to have smudges, scratches or artifacts, therefore the presence of such things is evidence of fakery). Has it occurred to you that your expectations may be wrong? They are laughably wrong.

Arguments from ignorance (you don't know what you're looking at, so therefor it must be fake). Guess what? Twiddling the sliders on Photoshop does not make you a photo analyst any more than owning oil paints makes you an artist. So you chimped-around with expensive software, saw something you didn't understand and immediately latched on to that as some sort of "proof" of fakery.

I could ask you to step back and think about just how silly that sounds, but I have a better idea for you and everyone else out there: Take the "professor's" suggestion and play with Photoshop but use your own photographs. Seriously - Load-up your holiday album or your Superbowl party pix and start chimp-twiddling. I guarantee that you will quickly find all sorts of sinister photographic anomalies in you own personal historical record that "prove" that your whole life is a lie...


...or perhaps you will find that your "anomalies" aren't so anomalous after all.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

But why would mainstream science or scientists/ specialist engineers have even the slightest need to question the Apollo story as told by NASA when many of them worked on the Apollo project too?
They would have had absolutely no reason to think NASA was perpetrating a hoax, and even if they did, their qualifications, security levels and egos automatically ruled out them mentioning it to anyone...After all, It is far better to go along with something and not rock the boat than question something suspicious that might single you out for scientific ridicule, imprisonment or even death.
And many scientists across the world that have have found evidence that does not agree with the staus quo of mainstream science have found their careers instantly over for making the mistake of talking or writing about it to their peers and mainstream colleagues.
The greater the scientist, the more they have to lose.



We're talking about the generations of academics during, and after Apollo.

The amount of cumulative data gathered is huge. To believe that out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the science, who have analyzed the information, worldwide, for the last 40 years, nobody has ever went "there is something wrong here", that is nobody other than a handful of quacks(Kaysing, Sibrel, White) is plainly illogical. Detractors and enemies of the United States and her allies abound, why haven't Russian, Iranian, or Chinese scientists ever raised questions concerning Apollo? Why are the only people shouting "hoax! hoax!" a demographic of typically young people, who's main(in most cases only) source of information is youtube. The picture of this whole subject begins to emerge, it's a joke, a sad joke.

Add to that the knowledge that hoax proponents are continuously distorting information (the video in the OP is just one example of many). These people are proven liars time and time again. Yet we see, time and time again the same old arguments being fielded, and defeated. Hoax believers consistently ignore when their particular argument is refuted and jump to another without looking back, this kind of thinking is everywhere in the conspiracy world, and reflects the real reason why this subject lives on - short attention spans, lack of attention to detail, pseudo science, and most importantly, belief systems that people do not like having challenged.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Why is believing men didn't walk on the Moon more interesting than knowing men did walk on the Moon?




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Why is believing men didn't walk on the Moon more interesting than knowing men did walk on the Moon?



Actually, I have a better question:

Why did they stop? and Why did they stop with just the moon?

Seriously.

It's been proven time and time again that no one had the video technology at the time to produce that amount of live, faked video back then.

Yet, the moon hoaxers will make the wild claim that the government DID have the tech to do it.

Okay, so why stop?

And why stop at the moon? Why not fake Mars landings? That would REALLY be even bigger.

As time goes on, this "super secret advanced video technology" that only the government had back then according to the hoaxers, would keep getting more and more advanced. By 1979, we should have been able to fake anything, any kind of mission....

If, of course, you believe that NASA had this super tech in video, which didn't exist back then (being able to video hours and hours of video or slow motion play back......when at the time only 90 seconds could be done that way......).

So again....why did they stop? Why not other missions? Where is your evidence?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


If you look you'll find people on here who believe everything is fake, you name it - they faked it.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

You may not believe this but I actually have a life outside of this forum which it keeps me very busy so I simply don't have enough time to go through every single Apollo pic looking for anomalies...But of the few I have downloaded and analysed I have indeed found some evidence of manipulation or tampering.
As you know if you still have any old photographic negatives at home, you will almost certainly treat them with kid gloves, so as not to damage them as any scratches can show in the subsequent prints.
With a photographic negative archive of global scientific importantance as those from the Apollo project, you would think they would be treated with even higher respect...Yet some are covered in scratches!
Others have unexplainable blobs, lights or other artifacts in them.
These are not immediately visible and apparent in the images NASA has released to the public, but with the help of software like Photoshop, they can be made stand out like a sore thumb.
The ONLY Photoshop tool you need to make them visible is the shadow/highlight tool...Use the tool as many times as you need to increase the brightness of the shadows until they become clearly visible.
Take AS17-140-21391 for instance, which has obviously been made from a badly scratched negative and AS11-40-5863-69, which shows some very odd beige-brown artifacts.
I am NOT saying that every single Apollo photo shows such anomalies, but, quite a few do and given where they were supposed to taken they shouldn't be there and therefore can be seen as proof of image manipulation.
Now I have given you the tools to find them yourself, you have no excuse not to do your own research.
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


Here are your images



Image 1 what scratches.



Image 2 plenty of lens flare.

Why don't you give your source for the above image numbers you quote the number but NO image or LINK to your version to back your claim


YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT LOTS OF PICTURES ARE EDITED FOR THE MEDIA I have given you links to the Apollo image atlas.

If you make a claim re a picture post the image and the link as we have seen before YOU were WRONG re the Aldrin picture!!!



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Why is believing men didn't walk on the Moon more interesting than knowing men did walk on the Moon?



Actually, I have a better question...


No, you don't. You are asking a hypothetical question.

My question is a simple and direct one, explicitly asking the Hoax Believers about the central tenant of their belief system.

Your question is valid, but your wall-of-text muddies the water.

I would like to see if any of them will answer.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

But why would mainstream science or scientists/ specialist engineers have even the slightest need to question the Apollo story as told by NASA when many of them worked on the Apollo project too?
They would have had absolutely no reason to think NASA was perpetrating a hoax, and even if they did, their qualifications, security levels and egos automatically ruled out them mentioning it to anyone...After all, It is far better to go along with something and not rock the boat than question something suspicious that might single you out for scientific ridicule, imprisonment or even death.
And many scientists across the world that have have found evidence that does not agree with the staus quo of mainstream science have found their careers instantly over for making the mistake of talking or writing about it to their peers and mainstream colleagues.
The greater the scientist, the more they have to lose.





We're talking about the generations of academics during, and after Apollo.

The amount of cumulative data gathered is huge. To believe that out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the science, who have analyzed the information, worldwide, for the last 40 years, nobody has ever went "there is something wrong here", that is nobody other than a handful of quacks(Kaysing, Sibrel, White) is plainly illogical. Detractors and enemies of the United States and her allies abound, why haven't Russian, Iranian, or Chinese scientists ever raised questions concerning Apollo?


I already answered that on the previous page, quote:
" 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 be 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!"


Why are the only people shouting "hoax! hoax!" a demographic of typically young people, who's main(in most cases only) source of information is youtube. The picture of this whole subject begins to emerge, it's a joke, a sad joke.


I'm 47, which is not so young.


Add to that the knowledge that hoax proponents are continuously distorting information (the video in the OP is just one example of many). These people are proven liars time and time again. Yet we see, time and time again the same old arguments being fielded, and defeated. Hoax believers consistently ignore when their particular argument is refuted and jump to another without looking back, this kind of thinking is everywhere in the conspiracy world, and reflects the real reason why this subject lives on - short attention spans, lack of attention to detail, pseudo science, and most importantly, belief systems that people do not like having challenged.


Strange how all those that believe in NASA's version of the story seem to have extremely short memories, are so blind that they cannot see proof when it is put in front them, and they stick their fingers in their ears so they can't hear any other opinions other than their own.
As I have said before, If you think you can prove that NASA put actually put man on the Moon where is your irrefutable evidince?
You make a big play about distorting information, but how exactly am I distorting it? Its not as if I am photoshopping anomalies into NASA photos, I am simply telling you how to find the anomalies that are already there...The imformation is freely available for all to see.
NASA photos are public domain, and everyone if free to make up their own opinions on what they see in them.

If that opinion differs from yours then so be it, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


So you're side-stepping again, and trying to shift the workload and the burden of proof elsewhere.

Furthermore, your arguments boil down to two things:

Arguments from incredulity (i.e. you don't expect photos taken in the field under difficult & hostile circumstances to have smudges, scratches or artifacts, therefore the presence of such things is evidence of fakery). Has it occurred to you that your expectations may be wrong? They are laughably wrong.

Arguments from ignorance (you don't know what you're looking at, so therefor it must be fake). Guess what? Twiddling the sliders on Photoshop does not make you a photo analyst any more than owning oil paints makes you an artist. So you chimped-around with expensive software, saw something you didn't understand and immediately latched on to that as some sort of "proof" of fakery.

I could ask you to step back and think about just how silly that sounds, but I have a better idea for you and everyone else out there: Take the "professor's" suggestion and play with Photoshop but use your own photographs. Seriously - Load-up your holiday album or your Superbowl party pix and start chimp-twiddling. I guarantee that you will quickly find all sorts of sinister photographic anomalies in you own personal historical record that "prove" that your whole life is a lie...


...or perhaps you will find that your "anomalies" aren't so anomalous after all.


We were discussing if the Apollo photos show evidence of image manipulation and I showed how to find evidence that they have been.
Have YOU even bothered to look? If not, then you are in no place to comment.
You say Photoshop is expensive, which suggests that you can't afford to purchase it...If so your on the subject are totally irrelevent.
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 53  54  55    57  58 >>

log in

join