Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB


Hook line and sinker

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB


You really aught to use The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth to get images from. They're the best you can get on the net, their is no post processing done to them, as in no colour correction, levels adjustments or anything.

Originally posted by Gibborium
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

Then you obviously have no idea what jpeg artifacts look like!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB

 

Hook line and sinker

???

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB

 

Hook line and sinker

???

Well what I mean is it like fishing dangle the bait and of you go but you who claimed to be a pro-photographer have shown you are nothing of the sort.

You don't seem to undrestand exposure, you don't seem to undestand that the Astronauts could take reasonably good pictures not always perfect but good enough, you also made the mistake of opening a jpeg picture doing what ever you thought was going to show some editing and resaved it as a jpeg where did your learn your trade because it sure looks like you haven't learned much!

Also when other members post pics we tend to give either a direct link or the picture number to make it easier for other members to find I use your Moon flag picture as an example.

You have also avoided lots of questions on your post make claims YOU can't even back up and look like some youtube Moon hoax believer with your I have enhanced the picture claim, how exactly

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB

 

Hook line and sinker

???

Well what I mean is it like fishing dangle the bait and of you go but you who claimed to be a pro-photographer have shown you are nothing of the sort.

In what way have I shown otherwise? You can't teach your granny to suck eggs so you shouldn't think you know what a photographer should know when you don't even know yourself.

You don't seem to undrestand exposure, you don't seem to undestand that the Astronauts could take reasonably good pictures not always perfect but good enough, you also made the mistake of opening a jpeg picture doing what ever you thought was going to show some editing and resaved it as a jpeg.

But the blue blob above the flag that my enhancement revealed is NOT a jpeg artifact! If you were a photographer, you would instantly know that.

where did your learn your trade because it sure looks like you haven't learned much!

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...Your not a pro photographer, so how can you possibly make presumptions on what I should know?

Also when other members post pics we tend to give either a direct link or the picture number to make it easier for other members to find I use your Moon flag picture as an example.

Its not as if its hard to find, but fair enough, its is AS11-40-5905.

You have also avoided lots of questions on your post make claims YOU can't even back up and look like some youtube Moon hoax believer with your I have enhanced the picture claim, how exactly

Whats questions have I avoided? As far as I am aware I have answered every question given to me and where possible, I have backed up my answers with corroborating evidence.
OK, its true that I cannot prove 100% that the Apollo missions were faked, but then neither can you prove 100% that they weren't...
The fact there is even the slightest evidence that it may have been faked should be enough to throw some dought into your mind and make you question your belief.
If not, you have a firmly closed mind and therefore there is no further point in even having a debate with you on the matter.

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...Your not a pro photographer, so how can you possibly make presumptions on what I should know?

Hey, hey, hey, hey... I'm a pro photographer. And I conqur with mr. WMD. You have demonstrated that you lack even the most basic understanding of photography. True you could still be "professional" if you make your living out of it. Even if you use iphone and instagram to do the "work". But still you know nothing.

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB


Lets see what you deny or don't seem to know.

You don't believe amateur astronomers tracked Apollo given a link you claim NASA stooges.

Quote from Dr Van Allen saying astronauts could go through van allen belts you claim he was paid by NASA to say so.

You don't seem to understand fill in light from the Moon surface reflecting sunlight.

You didn't seem to understand no stars in pictures due to exposure times.

You linked to an edited for the media shot of Aldrin because you didn't no where to look for pictures.

Your shown pictures taken 40 yrs apart that match you claim they are edited.

You wont except the fact that small objects on the surface rocks and craters on the Hasselblad pictures can be seen on LRO pictures of the surface.

You open a jpeg alter it and save as a jpeg most people here if the do there own image would use png or tiff for obvious reasons a pro should know!!!

A scratch or a mark on a picture is not proof of a fake mission(s)

You are like most hoax believers even if you were taken there yourself you would claim it was fake!!!

I will ask you one question here what would you consider as evidence that they did go

reply to post by onewithall


This video is still one of the best pieces of evidence of the Apollo hoax and another reason to put the US Media in the back pocket of the government.

Originally posted by nomickeyshere
reply to post by onewithall

 

This video is still one of the best pieces of evidence of the Apollo hoax and another reason to put the US Media in the back pocket of the government.

Ah, yet another Moon Hoaxer that did not bother to read the thread.

The video being evidence that the moon landings were hoaxed has been debunked......multiple times through out this thread.

Might I suggest that you actually go back and read past the OP?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Sorry professer (sic) of NASA, your points don't hold water....sure the no stars trips up many to begin with, but NASA and our military establishment are at it daily, "Stalinizing" our history...Before it was NASA just blurring objects on pictures of the moon, now they just remove the object and republish the picture as original...

Originally posted by nomickeyshere
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Sorry professer (sic) of NASA, your points don't hold water....sure the no stars trips up many to begin with, but NASA and our military establishment are at it daily, "Stalinizing" our history...Before it was NASA just blurring objects on pictures of the moon, now they just remove the object and republish the picture as original...

Prove it !!!
As they say put up or shut up your choice

reply to post by nomickeyshere

Why do you claim that a video that was proven to be hogwash years ago somehow constitutes as evidence? When you use proven lies as your evidence, your case tends to implode on itself.

what surprised me was the astronaut claiming no effects from van allens belt, that there was nothing noticeable going through them, and then when reminded by the interviewers that astronauts merely approaching the belts had seen shooting stars in their eyes, then claiming that oh yeah he did see them too. So suspicious, almost like someone caught lying.

Originally posted by Xenogears
what surprised me was the astronaut claiming no effects from van allens belt, that there was nothing noticeable going through them, and then when reminded by the interviewers that astronauts merely approaching the belts had seen shooting stars in their eyes, then claiming that oh yeah he did see them too. So suspicious, almost like someone caught lying.

Underlined above can you see the problem with your quote, also as many think that they could not travel through the belts without serious problems may be they thought they were being asked about that, so they would reply claiming no effects.

reply to post by Xenogears


The flashes they saw in there eyes were from cosmic rays. It has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts.

Actually the flashes were believed to be from cosmic ray events, and not related to the Van Allen belts. The flashes were noticed when the astronauts had their eyes closed for an extended time (minutes) - such as when they were trying to sleep. Every Apollo lunar mission went past the belts within a couple hours of Trans-lunar injection (outbound) and re-entry (inbound). In both cases, the astronauts were awake and busy at the time.

Edited to add: Dang! beat me by three minutes. What can I say? Arrow's fast (or would have been).

Why are there no stars in any of those pictures? They claim you can't see them from the moon surface, which I think is complete BS, but if the pictures on the trip over were real there would be at least some stars visible.

Oh, and Nasa just said they don't know how to shield astronauts from the Van Allen belts, so obviously we never went.

originally posted by: CB328
Why are there no stars in any of those pictures? They claim you can't see them from the moon surface, which I think is complete BS, but if the pictures on the trip over were real there would be at least some stars visible.

They used a short exposure. However, there are some photos taken with longer exposures that show stars and planets. picture

Oh, and Nasa just said they don't know how to shield astronauts from the Van Allen belts, so obviously we never went.

Is it really that obvious from that? Apollo astronauts weren't shielded from the Van Allen belts, but they went through them anyway, albeit through the weaker part of the belts, and very quickly. For the upcoming manned space missions, the spacecraft will fly through the stronger part of the belts, in order to save fuel.

originally posted by: CB328

Oh, and Nasa just said they don't know how to shield astronauts from the Van Allen belts, so obviously we never went.

I'm going to give you some rope and we'll see what you do with it. Source please . . . and before you provide it, I want to remind you that the Apollo missions were all short duration so anything talking about long term exposure likely won't apply to Apollo. Good luck