Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How many times does Neil Armstrong lie to us in this 1970 BBC interview.

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



Presented of course merely as an "artist's concept" but this really is how ALL of the alleged images from Mars are presented to the world now and in the future - conjured in the minds and imaginations of artists and dreamers on the staff of NASA:


Do you have any facts to back this rhetoric up?




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
Presented of course merely as an "artist's concept" but this really is how ALL of the alleged images from Mars are presented to the world now and in the future - conjured in the minds and imaginations of artists and dreamers on the staff of NASA:

edit on 7-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text


i see, so everything robotic created by man today is all fakery, CGI, photoshop work and nothing robotic truly exists in todays world?

UAV's, automatic doors, autostadt vw tower carpark, RC cars, car factory lines, honda's asimo etc. all of these and more are all fakery and just fancy CGI, photoshop and holograms?

if we are incompetent enough that we cant send an unmanned rover to mars, than the military and their years of UAV's are in big trouble and have been wasting all of the US's money.. you've single handedly cracked open the largest fraud in human history, and all those RC cars i used to play with as a child, was just a dream implanted into my head, and millions of others, since RC technology is too advanced for humans to create.

heck, im on a wi-fi modem/router.. that means this is a dream, how is it possible to send information wirelessly???



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 



Not speaking to the "Red Rover" nor to 'robotics' per se, but to the alleged mission to Mars with respect to NASA's propensity for fraud.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



Not speaking to the "Red Rover" nor to 'robotics' per se, but to the alleged mission to Mars with respect to NASA's propensity for fraud.


I repeat: do you have any facts to support your intentionally inflammatory statement?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


In addition to the two video clips, claimed by NASA to have been taken at different locations many kilometers apart, but show an identical hill: We have a similar situation here - -> Site link - that shows two photographs of an identical mountain background, (with slight differences in shading) yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. Therefore it would seem that the mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop. Photo link

Original Image


In Photoshop a comparison of the above image was made. The two images of the mountain scene were overlapped (with one as a transparency) to see if there was an identical alignment to the moonscape. The text at the bottom of the image was used for alignment purposes. This technique indicates that the two images are slightly different in size, but that they are of the same mountain scene taken by the same camera equipment at the same time and location - one with a Lunar Module and a relatively smooth foreground, and one without a Lunar Module, but with a mottled foreground.
Conclusion: photo tampering in Photoshop.

Left to Right overlay


Right to Left overlay

edit on 8-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by de_Genova
 

Presented of course merely as an "artist's concept" but this really is how ALL of the alleged images from Mars are presented to the world now and in the future - conjured in the minds and imaginations of artists and dreamers on the staff of NASA:

Do you have any facts to back this rhetoric up?


Insofar as 'rhetoric' is the study of the effective use of language, and as a consequence the writer demonstrates an astute and lucid ability to use language effectively, you are to be commended on your insight and we thank you for the compliment....as for 'proof' or the act of 'proving something' to an unenlightened listener or reader? - No comment is needed - facts and images speak for themselves. Its just the normal application of common sense that is at work here - that's all.
edit on 8-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


Look closely at the overlay. Not how there is a "ghost" outline of the hill at the upper left. The two horizons are not identical. There is a slight parallax, confirming that the photo was taken in a different spot and that the hills are very distant.



The photo was taken further left of the LM.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



Insofar as 'rhetoric' is the study of the effective use of language and as a consequence the writer demonstrates an astute and lucid ability to use language effectively we thank you for the compliment....as for 'proof' or the act of 'proving something' to an unenlightened listener or reader? - No comment is needed - facts and images speak for themselves. Its just the normal application of common sense that is at work here - that's all.


No, it is rhetoric in the sense of a verbal argument unsupported by either evidence or logic.

rhet·o·ric   [ret-er-ik] Show IPA
noun
1.
(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by de_Genova
 

Insofar as 'rhetoric' is the study of the effective use of language and as a consequence the writer demonstrates an astute and lucid ability to use language effectively we thank you for the compliment....as for 'proof' or the act of 'proving something' to an unenlightened listener or reader? - No comment is needed - facts and images speak for themselves. Its just the normal application of common sense that is at work here - that's all.


No, it is rhetoric in the sense of a verbal argument unsupported by either evidence or logic.

rhet·o·ric  - noun
1.(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

dictionary.reference.com...


Why are you resorting to deceptive practices? -

Next time you quote from a dictionary - quote the definition in its entirety as stated below from the page you used.
rhet·o·ric - noun
1.(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

2.the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5.the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
edit on 8-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
As long as we're on the topic of fraudulent NASA imagery via Photoshopping deception lets look at the enclosed image and try to determine if there is an anomaly here that could only be accounted for by means of photo trickery - of the sort that NASA is known for. The photo itself is self explanatory - is there anyone here that would try to explain it for us? I would like to know why the image was in need of manipulation and/or composite - ing by the technicians at NASA..



Close - up



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



Next time you quote from a dictionary - quote the definition in its entirety as stated below from the page you used.


Struck a nerve, I see. Why didn't you mention "bombast"in your post?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



I would like to know why the image was in need of manipulation and/or composite - ing by the technicians at NASA..


Because it was underexposed.

apollo.mem-tek.com...

What do you think you see?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


i dont think its a crop at all..

looks more like a foreground support, in front of a background..

heres a different angle with highlights

and yours:

red is the front supports, the orange is also a support of sorts but also in front, the yellow area is a depression and is more in towards the centre of the LM.. does this make sense??

those two areas are not on the same plane.

heres a link to the pic i used from a different angle.
apollo.mem-tek.com...

maybe this will be clearer:

lets just say the oval is where you are looking from. the dotted line is the line of sight at that area. the red outlined triangle is the area that is obstructed from view because of the foreground object.
the pic on the right is roughly what you will see. which is why it looks cropped.
atleast to me.
edit on 8-9-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-9-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
As long as we're on the topic of fraudulent NASA imagery via Photoshopping deception lets look at the enclosed image and try to determine if there is an anomaly here that could only be accounted for by means of photo trickery - of the sort that NASA is known for. The photo itself is self explanatory - is there anyone here that would try to explain it for us? I would like to know why the image was in need of manipulation and/or composite - ing by the technicians at NASA..



Close - up



I can explain it for you.

Here is another photo showing Aldrin further down the ladder. The color resolution is better in this picture and you can clearly see that what you are touting as 'manipulation and/or composite-ing' is actually neither.

It is simply a fold in the module foil, over a corner of the lower part of the LM, exactly where it should be.





If you look very closely you can see the fold does not make a perfect straight line either, which, in my opinion, demonstrates that we are looking at an actual edge and not a composite of two images.





edit on 8-9-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

If you look very closely you can see the fold does not make a perfect straight line either, which, in my opinion, demonstrates that we are looking at an actual edge and not a composite of two images.


Please stop making stuff up in order to refute a legitimate post............this is what the "other side" does. Do you work for the other side?

Pictures speak louder that words - besides I refuse to waste my time on habitual (re:chronic) de-bunkers who fail to make a valid point.




edit on 8-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I really dont think they went to the moon - but a Flight Psychologist on the radio said something that was kind of interesting - he said, that astronaugts practice and practice and practice so it is like second nature. and since they went over ever step of the mission at least 100 times, all it took was them to be put into a trance (which could be done via television monitor) and then play back one of the training recordings.... when it was time - they woke them up and put them to sleep several times over a period of days. and thus explains why we have different accounts of the missions non practiced events like the sound the lunar lander made taking off from the moon... some say they heard the sound and others said no sound.... things like that were not practiced thus could not be recalled. so the astronaughts could be victims as well.... the van allen radation belts appear to fry anything alive going through them. its a prison planet ...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 1BornPatriot
 



I really dont think they went to the moon - but a Flight Psychologist on the radio said something that was kind of interesting - he said, that astronaugts practice and practice and practice so it is like second nature. and since they went over ever step of the mission at least 100 times, all it took was them to be put into a trance (which could be done via television monitor) and then play back one of the training recordings.... when it was time - they woke them up and put them to sleep several times over a period of days. and thus explains why we have different accounts of the missions non practiced events like the sound the lunar lander made taking off from the moon... some say they heard the sound and others said no sound.... things like that were not practiced thus could not be recalled. so the astronaughts could be victims as well.... the van allen radation belts appear to fry anything alive going through them. its a prison planet ...


Then where did the photos, film and videos come from? (Not to mention the rocks.)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



Pictures speak louder that words - besides I refuse to waste my time on habitual (re:chronic) de-bunkers who fail to make a valid point.


If it's been cropped, why doesn't the line continue all the way up the face of the LM?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

If you look very closely you can see the fold does not make a perfect straight line either, which, in my opinion, demonstrates that we are looking at an actual edge and not a composite of two images.


Please stop making stuff up in order to refute a legitimate post............this is what the "other side" does. Do you work for the other side?

Pictures speak louder that words - besides I refuse to waste my time on habitual (re:chronic) de-bunkers who fail to make a valid point.

edit on 8-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text


Waste your time? Try not to be so hasty it makes you look stupid.

Explain this discrepancy when you have a free moment:



That red line and that yellow line don't reflect an opinion, they demonstrate my point you muppet. As for the whole premise of your thread, that is an opinion....yours. You have demonstrated nothing in your OP, nothing, zip, nada.

edit on 8-9-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


The many different colored lines - at various and sundry angles - that you have drawn on the faked NASA image are confounding to an average viewer such as myself. But the red line in this OP's post was a straight line - was it not? The point that was made was clear and simple - was it not? The photo surely is a composite - or some such thing as that! The NASA image referred to was manipulated plain and simple. Why attempt a proof of something that isn't in need of it? Pictures speak better than verbal arguments - true?

BTW - It would be good for you to maintain a cool head and proceed with simple logic rather than to respond emotionally. This is what the "other side" does. Such responses prove your true allegiance - right? Name calling contributes not too much to the development of ideas. So - now let's repeat for the sake of clarity and further elucidation. "STOP making stuff up in order to refute a legitimate post............this is what the "other side" does. Do you work for the other side?"

To claim that the division that is quite evident in this image is due to 'wrinkled' metal, and not the result of photo tampering is well beyond the bounds of logical reasoning.



edit on 9-9-2012 by de_Genova because: text





new topics




 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join