It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
Thanks for the clip, yes just another one of the many thousands of pieces of REAL evidence
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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)
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...
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?
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.
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.