Apollo 17 Photography Stations Located To Within 50 cm On LROC Map

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by grubblesnert
...it's Google. this place will take you to many, many sites, blogs, forums, etc. showing a lot of photos, videos and explainations of the anomolies, defects and signs of manipulation found on some of the most well know NASA produced moon photos.
It is enough information, a lot of it well thoughtout and presented...


Yeah -- there are a LOT of websites, blogs, and forums dedicated to this subject, but they range greatly in levels of accuracy, knowledge, and critical thinking.

Could you please tell us which ones you think are "well thought out" so we can separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?

Oh brother (said in a subdued tone of dumbfounded bewilderment)
How did the ditherings and non-sense I posted on the forum manifest into somehing that anyone would seriously consider?

No I will not guide or provide pictures or links to anyone.
You need to personally go visit some sites, read some blogs, look at some pictures and make your own decision.
I'll say it as plainly as I can for those who seem so passionate about this subject.
"I feel it is possible that some of the photos pertaining to Astronauts on the moon may have been altered in one way or another."
That's it.
If someone disagrees well, that's OK with me

I saw every Apollo launch from my home town of Titusville. From ignition on the pad until they disappeared in the sky. I have met and been friends with many NASA engineers. I have talked with a few Astronauts before. I own a bunch of Apollo and related memorabilia including pieces of Delta and Atlas rocket boosters and Apolo and Mercury era refueling suits . (sorry rambling here:lol

And yes I believe we did land on the moon just like we've been told

BUT, I also feel some of those photos were embellished for the public and to impress the rest of the world especially the USSR.
Now I hope I have cleared a few things up. I'm still having fun here but it's starting to get old


and............ soylent green is people but collard greens are plants!




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


I visited many of the websites/blogs you speak of. There are too many to discuss all of them on this thread.

Don't you think it is better for you to specify the actual evidence that convinces you something may be fishy with the Apollo program, rather than us guessing which of the dozens (scores?) of Apollo hoax sites you actually think have merit as opposed to which ones we (you, me, and others here) can all agree are not worth our time?

There are many, many claims made by Moon hoax believers. Where do you want me to start? I mean, I could pull one of those sites up and debunk the specific claims they are trying to make, but you could just as easily say "No -- not that Moon hoax website, try another one", then I make reference to another, and you simply say again "That's not a good one either...try again"...

...and keep spinning our wheels like that. Instead of you and I going back and forth with my shot-in-the-dark guesses at what you think is good hoax evidence, why don't you just save us all time and simply tell us what you think is good evidence? I don't really want to guess.




I admit that I have seen sites that show where the sky in some Apollo images looks to have been masked, but none of those sites have positively showed me that the masking-like anomaly was due to intentional masking, or was an artifact from the print-making process (perhaps something to do with the chemical emulsions in the film paper). OR even perhaps it WAS intentional masking, but not for nefarious purposes, but simply because the person making that particular print thought it looked better.

I'm not sure if something like that is what you are talking about, but even then there are good and bad examples of sites that discuss this. I don't want to start discussing one of those, just to have you say "That's not what I'm talking about". That would just be too frustrating.

edit on 6/27/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 



"I feel it is possible that some of the photos pertaining to Astronauts on the moon may have been altered in one way or another."


Not possible, but well documented by NASA. Many of the photographs released to the press at the time were cropped, rotated, reticules airbrushed out, etc, for aesthetic reasons. These photos were then cropped, flopped, flipped and otherwise manipulated by the media for their own editorial reasons. Throw in the vaguaries of the photogravure techniques of the mid-twentieth century, and the Moon Hoax Theory was soon born. I suggest you do some more research into the history of NASA's Public Relations to understand fully.
edit on 27-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by grubblesnert
 



"I feel it is possible that some of the photos pertaining to Astronauts on the moon may have been altered in one way or another."


Not possible, but well documented by NASA. Many of the photographs released to the press at the time were cropped, rotated, reticules airbrushed out, etc, for aesthetic reasons. These photos were then cropped, flopped, flipped and otherwise manipulated by the media for their own editorial reasons. Throw in the vaguaries of the photogravure techniques of the mid-twentieth century, and the Moon Hoax Theory was soon born. I suggest you do some more research into the history of NASA's Public Relations to understand fully.
edit on 27-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
Thank you for understanding my premise!

Your description is what I was trying to convey. I wasnt putting some radical conspiracy notion out there (thank you for understanding that!)
I just put out the idea that photo manipulation was a possibility, one that I have seen examples of.
I hope some of my responders take the time to read (and consider with an open mind) your response.
Perhaps it will help clarify my position.
I agree with every word you wrote.

Thank you once again!
edit on 27-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: added a word



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


Yes -- As I said in my post above, perhaps there was some intentional masking (or, for example, the black sky), but it wasn't necessarily done for nefarious purposes. Rather it may have been done by the person who was making that photographic prints because he thought it looked nicer.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The classic example is the iconic image of Buzz Aldrin on the Sea of Tranquility, which is usually printed like this:



However, the original photo looks like this:



Neil Armstrong held the camera crooked, and since he was trying to get both Buzz and the landing pad in the frame, he almost cut-off the top of Buzz's helmet and ruined the picture.

Publishers who use the image almost always center Buzz in the frame and crop-out the pad. They usually add a bit of black "sky" above his head for artistic balance, and often correct the tilt. Sometimes they give the color a tweak, since Aldrin was catching some gold reflection from the mylar-covered LM.

These sorts of changes are typical of any picture in any book or magazine, anywhere and anywhen. Heck, with today's software I do it to my holiday snaps.

The thing is, you almost never see the original images from which most published pictures are derived; whereas NASA makes all of the Apollo images freely available in their unmodified (except for being digitized) form.

What others may do with the images is outside of their purview:

edit on 28-6-2012 by Saint Exupery because: Resized picture



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by qmantoo
 


Then post some


This ^^^^. If there are numerous sources that show the landings were fake, post them.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grubblesnert

No I will not guide or provide pictures or links to anyone.

Why not you made a claim about the pics so back it up - spread the love of your conviction-



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by grubblesnert

No I will not guide or provide pictures or links to anyone.

Why not you made a claim about the pics so back it up - spread the love of your conviction-

Here, this may help you understand the love of my conviction as you put it. This is a direct quote from one of my posts......... "I just put out the idea that photo manipulation was a possibility"
Not really what I would consider convicted would'nt you agree?


In reference to my responses throughout this forum you obviously are a "skimmer" or lack basic comprehension skills. Either way, your problem not mine
.
So the only thing I feel like like speading is the humor I find in responses such as yours.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


So you cant provide anything ohh well moving on Thought so..
Playing the humour game, you will lose sunshine.

I only asked a question of you, no need to get hostile.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grubblesnert
I'm going to take a big chance and divulge my source right here and now. Please keep in mind this source has taken me time (seconds)


Well, it shouldn't take you to long then to provide what you feel is doctored then



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grubblesnert


I'm going to take a big chance and divulge my source right here and now. Please keep in mind this source has taken me time (seconds)

Where is it then?




No I will not guide or provide pictures or links to anyone.


Huh what-- you just said you was looking anyway
Back up your concerns , you were asked, this is ATS back up your arguments.


You need to personally go visit some sites, read some blogs, look at some pictures and make your own decision.!


Your the one that was concerned not us, you provide it if it bothers you.


Obviously you have none and got caught out on the spot

So your quickest reply was "you go look for it" that old chestnut.

Back to the task at hand
edit on 30-6-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
Where have you been living??? under a stone or on some far-out planet?

No but i think you have with a comment like this below



Given that we can photograph a gnats whatsit from space these days the detail we are still getting from out space images is totally abysmal.

Ohh dear me,let me educate you come out from your rock and pay attention.


Telescopes are amazingly far-sighted; after all, that's what "tele + scope" means. If you have trouble driving with reading glasses, or reading with distance glasses, just imagine how much more trouble a telescope would have! In fact, we don't have to imagine. Above is what the Hubble Space Telescope sees when looking straight at the Apollo 17 lunar landing site. The Hubble is one of the most powerful telescopes ever made, floating above the interference of the Earth's atmosphere, but it can't resolve objects 9m across.

Hubble's primary mirror is only 2.4 meters in diameter which means its smallest resolvable angle is 0.000 018 33 degrees or 0.066 arc seconds - about 30 to 40 times less than what is needed. Even the new Faint Object Camera with superb resolution of about 0.0072 arc-seconds can't see them either. (If we could put the Hubble Space Telescope a lot closer to the Moon we might be able to see them, but we can't do that.)
edit on 30-6-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



Speaking of the Russians, their lander, Lunar 16 returned soil samples virtually identical to the soil samples returned by Apollo 12...


You can even legally buy some of it:

www.maxuta.biz...



Your Link.
"The same container was sold out at Christies at about $420,000.........................".

Too rich for my blood.
edit on 30-6-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


I googled some. I found nothing that had anything that another site didn't debunk 100% So where are the pics. Provide some.
Deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


I googled some. I found nothing that had anything that another site didn't debunk 100% So where are the pics. Provide some.
Deny ignorance.
Good for you!


Now look harder. Dont give up. Half measures on your part will only lead to disappointment (and ultimately life long nagging regret).
Keep up the good work!
Dont stop until every nook and cranny in the "Worldwide Interweb" has been explored
I commend you on your hard work and relentless perserverance in this matter. (I wish I could say the same thing to the other person on this forum who has been in communication with me, what disappointment he's turn out to be, sheez!)
Rest assured it will pay off and you may ultimately be proven right and subsequently prove me wrong! (think of how cool that would be, huh!)
Go forth and do great things!!!

Dont report back until you have exhausted every avenue and run down every lead. now go!.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 
You have quoted excerpts from some of my responses but overlooked this one.......... "Oh brother (said in a subdued tone of dumbfounded bewilderment)
How did the ditherings and non-sense I posted on the forum manifest into something that anyone would seriously consider? " This was the statement right before the "No I will not provide............" piece you used in your response.

How could you overlook this integral piece? The very statement, other than perhaps my "I don't care if you dissagree or not" (which maybe word for word or may be paraphased due to my inability to hold a complete thought or cohesive memory with any assurity) that sums up my interest and emotional, lack of, investment in this whole photograph "arguement" as you and some others have put it.

I could see how a person of your painstaking deductive abilities could deduce that I have strong convictions in the matter of Moon photographs by gleaning from my responses such damning words as "maybe", "perhaps" "possibility" and the like while forming your premise. So perhaps there's a possibility that maybe you know me better than I know myself.

Anyways someone else has already beaten you to the punch and did there own googling. So, I think I'll have to like them more. Sorry for the let down ole' chum
(that's right, isnt it?)

P.S. On the bright side I think your Avatar looks like Carl Pilkington, a well know T.V. person You seem to have the persona to match too
edit on 30-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: left something out
edit on 30-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: added an s



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by grubblesnert

P.S. On the bright side I think your Avatar looks like Carl Pilkington, a well know T.V. person You seem to have the persona to match too
edit on 30-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: left something out


Thanx buddy i will be sure to buy you a rattle for christmas as you seem to have tossed your
toys out of your cot.Cheer up my boy photos are not everyones cup of tea when proving apollo
fraudulent etc.I would say you got school in the morning but lucky for you it's the weekend so you
get to stay up..

P.s Be a good little soldier and soldier on, and i might chuck in a dummy in your stocking for you
to open up come christmas day!.Maybe this will teach you to stop attacking people for thier views extra DIV



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 
That was good! I mean it. right into the personal attacks. No mention of the subject matter at hand.
Trying the "me as baby tact" Your response was so full of brit speak that when I read it I just naturally read it with a british accent. Not Roger Moore mind you, more in a generic "bloke at the pub" way.

Fun bantering with you. Have a pint or two get a head of steam and comeback if you like.

Sincerely, your little Soldier Sunshine

P.S. go back and read my 2 most favorite movie quotes response from one of your earlier threads. Both apply here


edit on 30-6-2012 by grubblesnert because: P.S.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grubblesnert
Fun bantering with you.

My pleasure - Anytime - Any place.
Now wheres your photos that you - "feel are doctored, that you say are out there" -





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join