Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 57
105
<< 54  55  56    58 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


" 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!"


Conjecture based upon nothing really. Doesn't answer my question about the hundreds of thousands of academics around the world who have and still do examine the data from Apollo, they're all afraid? That's a bit naive if you ask me.




I'm 47, which is not so young.



I was generalizing.





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.



I don't believe NASA's version of the story, I look at the evidence. You're the believer here.





If that opinion differs from yours then so be it, we are all entitled to our own opinions.



Of course.




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


" 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!"


Conjecture based upon nothing really. Doesn't answer my question about the hundreds of thousands of academics around the world who have and still do examine the data from Apollo, they're all afraid? That's a bit naive if you ask me.



I already answered this on the previous page, quote:
"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."






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 evidence?
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.




I don't believe NASA's version of the story, I look at the evidence. You're the believer here.


???...Who told you that I believe in NASA's side of the story? It certainly wasn't me!

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



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


You misunderstand me.

I mean that I do not simply believe NASA's version of events, I follow the evidence, and the evidence overwhelmingly shows that NASA landed men on the moon, six times, belief has very little to do with it.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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.


These scratches:



[quote}



Wrong image...You forgot to add the -69 on the end.


Image 2 plenty of lens flare.


And plenty of manipulation artifacts!:





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


The source was the Apollo image gallery:

www.apolloarchive.com...


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


...And editing is image manipulation!



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!!!


I was not wrong about the Aldrin picture.
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 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
...And editing is image manipulation!



Try as I might I cant let this bs. go. Editing and manipulating are two completely different things. Being a professional photographer you should know that.


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Wrong image...You forgot to add the -69 on the end.

And plenty of manipulation artifacts!


*Facepalm*

AS11-40-5863-69 is not an original image (hence the -69 added to the end). It's a composite image, like it says in the caption right on the site you linked it from. It's not an original photograph.

I see dust and scratches on the other photo, but I fail to see how those are a sign of tampering.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
...And editing is image manipulation!



Try as I might I cant let this bs. go. Editing and manipulating are two completely different things. Being a professional photographer you should know that.


Its a simple matter of semantics..
a) If I take a picture and then do nothing else to it before I print it, I have not manipulated it in any way.
b) If I take a picture and then do nothing else to it before I print it, I have not edited it in any way.

Basically, they are one and same thing.
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Wrong image...You forgot to add the -69 on the end.

And plenty of manipulation artifacts!


*Facepalm*


AS11-40-5863-69 is not an original image (hence the -69 added to the end). It's a composite image, like it says in the caption right on the site you linked it from. It's not an original photograph.

I see dust and scratches on the other photo, but I fail to see how those are a sign of tampering.


Indeed, the scratches may not be proof of tampering, but it is proof that the negative was not handled with the due care and attention that it would demand given the global significance of its subject matter.
If it were genuinely taken on the Moon then why was it handled in such an incompetent manner? It infers that its subject matter wasn't of any real importantance, ie: That it was not really taken on the Moon.
edit on 4/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I will give you this link again as OBVIOUSLY your COMPREHENSION SKILLS are not what they should be for a 47 yr old educated I take it in the UK,I am slightly older and educated here in the UK.


This link (click on the highlighted words) Apollo Image Atlas are the Apollo missions pictures taken on the Moon and then scanned HAS THAT SUNK IN NOW!!!!

These images are NOT EDITED or added to unlike YOUR EFFORTS, be it under exposed /badly framed / damaged they are there.

I have posted links from these images others have posted links from here as well.

Do you know there are lots of youtube videos that claim the photography was to good, they end up posting the images like yours edited for the media like your Aldrin picture.

You claim your a photographer if you had a manual camera with a slightly wide angle lens would you be able on a sunny day to have a reasonable guess at exposure and be able to get an in focus shot using depth of field if you can't were did you learn


That's the basis for the Moon shots and cheap disposable and point & shoot cameras.

Have a good look through the image atlas you will see lots of mistakes with exposure to bright / to dark etc and as a professional photographer (if you actually are) you will know its easier to get an image from an underexposed shot than one with blown highlights.

So lets see some evidence you have some sort of clue about photography if your an example of a professional photographer in London I can see a new job on the horizon!!!!
edit on 4-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Indeed, the scratches may not be proof of tampering, but it is proof that the negative was not handled with the due care and attention that it would demand given the global significance of its subject matter.
If it were genuinely taken on the Moon then why was it handled in such an incompetent manner? It infers that its subject matter wasn't of any real importantance, ie: That it was not really taken on the Moon.




You're greatly exaggerating. You can only see the scratches when you do some extreme adjustments in photoshop. Plus it could just be a bad scan of the print and nothing to do with the negative. Where did you get your image from? Try using the same technique on this one: AS17-140-21391. Click on "large image" to get the full res one.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I will give you this link again as OBVIOUSLY your COMPREHENSION SKILLS are not what they should be for a 47 yr old educated I take it in the UK,I am slightly older and educated here in the UK.


This link (click on the highlighted words) Apollo Image Atlas are the Apollo missions pictures taken on the Moon and then scanned HAS THAT SUNK IN NOW!!!!

These images are NOT EDITED or added to unlike YOUR EFFORTS, be it under exposed /badly framed / damaged they are there.

I have posted links from these images others have posted links from here as well.


Thanks for the link. Now that I can be 100% sure that none of these genuine Apollo pics haven't been "edited or added to" we should have no more problems.
You have actually helped me out by providing a link to a larger version of a photo I have been looking for...I enhanced it to bring out the hidden detail that NASA have tried to hide.
Perhaps you can explain exactly what the strange blue "blob" above the flag is?...It isn't lens flare as the Sun is behind the lens. Also in the larger version you can see tell-tale vertical lines at regular intervals across the background...Where the black studio backdrop curtains overlap perhaps?






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



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Indeed, the scratches may not be proof of tampering, but it is proof that the negative was not handled with the due care and attention that it would demand given the global significance of its subject matter.
If it were genuinely taken on the Moon then why was it handled in such an incompetent manner? It infers that its subject matter wasn't of any real importantance, ie: That it was not really taken on the Moon.


That is three logical fallacies in one post: "If I ran the Zoo", followed by the "Slippery Slope" with an overall "Appeal to Incredulity".

Your expectation that Apollo images be undamaged is not valid.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Indeed, the scratches may not be proof of tampering, but it is proof that the negative was not handled with the due care and attention that it would demand given the global significance of its subject matter.
If it were genuinely taken on the Moon then why was it handled in such an incompetent manner? It infers that its subject matter wasn't of any real importantance, ie: That it was not really taken on the Moon.


That is three logical fallacies in one post: "If I ran the Zoo", followed by the "Slippery Slope" with an overall "Appeal to Incredulity".

Your expectation that Apollo images be undamaged is not valid.


Thats has become patently obvious...Almost as if they are not worth anything at all...But then they woudn't be if they they were fakes, would they...



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

Have you ever scanned film?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

Have you ever scanned film?


Funny thing, that - It's almost like when something gets used, it looks like it's been used.


jra

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
I enhanced it to bring out the hidden detail that NASA have tried to hide.


Any evidence that these are things NASA tried to hide?


Perhaps you can explain exactly what the strange blue "blob" above the flag is?


It looks like a type of film artifact, be it from processing or handling or what have you.


Also in the larger version you can see tell-tale vertical lines at regular intervals across the background...Where the black studio backdrop curtains overlap perhaps?


...It also appears in the shadows on the ground as well. So it's obviously not something limited to the background, but over the entire print itself. It's just more visible in the darker areas of the photo.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Well its the pro photographer that saves, get this folks a picture as a jpeg


YOU really don't have a clue do you!!!

Your pic



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Well its the pro photographer that saves, get this folks a picture as a jpeg


YOU really don't have a clue do you!!!

Your pic


Doesn't matter what I save it as...Its there is the original.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Doesn't matter what I save it as...Its there is the original.


Do you understand how different graphic formats compress the data?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

JPEG is a file compression format. In the process of compressing the file, such as a photo, there can be several types of compression loss: Posterizing, Ringing, Aliasing, Checkerboarding (a blocky pattern), and Conturing.

What you have shown in your analysis of This Post is typical compression artifacts which will be found in all mid to low quality JPEG files. That is why, in an earlier post, I asked that you find and use the TIFF format scans. The ALSJ saves it's files in JPEG.


TIFF (originally standing for Tagged Image File Format) is a file format for storing images, popular among graphic artists, the publishing industry,[1] and both amateur and professional photographers in general. Tagged Image File Format

I see no evidence of photo manipulation in your examples, only compression artifacts.
edit on 2/5/2013 by Gibborium because: added a line





new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 54  55  56    58 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum