NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by zatara
 



I flagged this thread because this is part what ATS should be all about... To be on guard of what we see... I didn't read or see all the link but can someone please tell me again what the reason is for removing all these crosses in the Appolo photographs? Doing it with the original negatives is plane stupid and an act of changing history...is my opinion.


They are removing the black crosses from the scans to make the pictures prettier. They are not altering the original negatives.


The main thing is that many images have been air brush out and Donna Hare states that in her disclosure project speech, also Washington DC radio station interview:
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


edit on 16-10-2012 by thetiler because: grammar




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thetiler
 



The main thing is that many images have been air brush out and Donna Hare states that in her disclosure project speech, also Washington DC radio station interview:
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


Even if we give Donna Hare credit for telling the truth, all that she says is that someone told her that a particular room is where they airbrushed the UFOs out of pictures. It may have been intended as a joke at her expense. She has managed to turn that joke into a career.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Your reduction of Donna Hare relevance to that simple statement is a bit simplistic (so much that it becomes moronic seen by those better informed). I take the remark as hearsay it wouldn't be of much importance if not by the existence of other similar claims but by her declared acceptance and wish to provide a legally bound testimony (that could even open the avenue for knowing who made the remarks). In my view her most significative contributions were the comments done by Wernher von Braun.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
In my view her most significative contributions were the comments done by Wernher von Braun.


Please clarify which bit of already debunked nonsense you're alluding to here. The "Nasa was working with Nazi's how can we trust what they say" bit, that lovely quote about massive rockets where the hoax crowd tends to "forget" to include the date when quoting or are we going with his Antarctic expeditions to retrieve lunar meteorites?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



Your reduction of Donna Hare relevance to that simple statement is a bit simplistic (so much that it becomes moronic seen by those better informed). I take the remark as hearsay it wouldn't be of much importance if not by the existence of other similar claims but by her declared acceptance and wish to provide a legally bound testimony (that could even open the avenue for knowing who made the remarks). In my view her most significative contributions were the comments done by Wernher von Braun.



He explained everything. And then, with a smile on his face he said, look over there. And I looked. And in one of the photo panels I saw a round white dot. And at the time it was very crisp, very sharp lines on it. And I said to him what is that? Is that a dot on the emulsion? And then he’s grinning and he says dots on the emulsion don’t leave round shadows on the ground. And there was a round shadow at the correct angle with the sun shining on the trees. I looked at him and I was pretty startled because I had worked out there several years and had never seen anything like this, never heard of anything like this. And I said, is this a UFO? And he’s smiling at me and he says, I can’t tell you that. I can’t tell you that.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

People sure think treason is funny over at NASA.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 


What has been debunked that the US government has no morals or concept of international justice and responsibility ? Are you still one of those deluded persons that thinks that US actions overseas are simple police actions done in behalf of the good of all mankinds ?!?

The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan

I added this as a simple elucidation on how the US operates and has operated even long before WWII and the Nazis (you can probably read many other posts elucidating how the Nazis wouldn't have come to power so easely if not for the Anglo-American interests that permitted it. Heck WWII would have been avoided if a stronger action had been permitted during the Spanish civil war (France attempted to act for a while there). There is a long list of criminal activities, even if we disregard that with power comes responsibility as a nation the US is there on the top as one of the most self serving criminal nations, taking in consideration the time and scale I would even put it near the top for the misery creation and profiteering it has been involved in...

Now feel free to attempt to debunked any nonsense, that are well documented as historical facts even if rarely spoken of (well besides ATS). I do not need the "NASA was working with Nazi's how can we trust what they say" argument, since they were but that alone does not make NASA untrustworthy, at least morally flawed but in the context of event we can even understand it (but I prefer the way Stalin did the same, a bit of over the top but the Nazis did face a kind of justice there and the Soviets managed to have the lead).

The problem with NASA is that it is a geopolitical tool, not particularly interested in creating science or discovery and yes I'm one that does not believe the official story regarding the moon landing. In regards to the general moon issue I point you to the great job done by MoonFaker @ YouTube a very well done series of videos supporting the claim that NASA never sent astronauts to the Moon, giving NASA defenders an impossible time (even embarrassing at times) in their attempts of refutation. Work done by Jarrah White (moonfaker.com...)a student doing his BSc in Astrophysics.

Satisfied why I personally do not trust NASA and the US government ?
edit on 16-10-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-10-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by captainpudding
 
What has been debunked that the US government has no morals or concept of international justice and responsibility ? Are you still one of those deluded persons that thinks that US actions overseas are simple police actions done in behalf of the good of all mankinds ?!?


It's just an empty argument. Governments do evil things =/= they faked the moon landing. It's no more convincing than ... Governments do evil things =/= they faked World War II.

Honestly it's the same as ... NASA was used politically =/= NASA therefore faked space missions. Motive doesn't carve reality.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


So basically Governments lie, therefore the moon landing was faked. That's not a logical conclusion, that's paranoia, plane and simple.

Now, this next part literally made me laugh until i cried.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
. . .Work done by Jarrah White (moonfaker.com...)a student doing his BSc in Astrophysics.


Jarrah freaking White. Proven liar and hoaxer Jarrah White? The Jarrah white who doesn't even have a working knowledge of high school physics got into an astrophysics programme? What diploma mill is he attending if you don't mind my asking? I mean, how can someone who doesn't understand that the conditions in his living room aren't the same as the surface of the moon get into any kind of scientific program? I'm guessing it's just another of his lies, but could you point me to the video where he claims to have enrolled in an astrophysics programme? I'd like to see it.

I'll just leave this here www.abovetopsecret.com... This is the epic thread where every one of jarrah's lies is exposed and all of his "evidence" torn to shreds, it's quite a long read.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
oh the humanity !!!!!!!!!!

boy those nasa guys sure are dumb. they are going through all this time and effort 40 years later to fool all 7 people on the innerwebz that still cling to the hoax thoery

tricky nasa !!!



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Those are your inferences not mine. You made the point about trusts, trust is earned by deeds and gained by keeping a good record. Since the US Government (which NASA is part of) have not a drop of trust from my part, just the contrary, I see no reason why to put it beyond them such of type of actions or dismiss the claims of people that have clearly came forward with demonstrative good intentions and taking responsibility for their claims, should be discarded in the terms you proposed...



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 




So basically Governments lie, therefore the moon landing was faked. That's not a logical conclusion, that's paranoia, plane and simple.


Again that is your statement not mine. I agree with you that if a government lies constantly there is no reason for anyone to believe it when it tells us the truth. In general no government ever tells the truth, a government is not a person, moral considerations do not apply in the same way...

I value more those that are paranoid about governmental actions that those that blindly think that the government has any consideration for their personal well being or enlightenment. Especially today that most, not to say al,l governments seems to act more for self interest that for real national interests, examples abound...

It seems infantile to think that you should put any trust or give any credit about full information, transparency and expect any virtuosity for any government. One can and should demand it, but should not just expect it...

PS:I have taken a look on the thread you pointed and my understanding of the meaning of "debunking" must not be the same of yours or you are intentionally being deceitful. At best the discussion there could be declared inconclusive, and mostly irrelevant to what the videos present...

edit on 16-10-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11

The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan



Did you bother to read the whole page? If you did you would have seen this


It should be noted that EVERYONE GW quotes was comfortably ensconced in an air-conditioned office opining on what to do. Why no quotes from POWs, servicemen injured daily in accidents, subjugated Chinese, Korean slave laborers being beaten and starved, mothers or fathers of the deployed, Okinowans, etc?

I am sure they would have been happy to keep their lives in peril as they waited "weeks" or "months" for the air-conditioned to take their time working out a "face saving surrender" procedure for the aggressors who RARELY showed mercy - Nanking comes to mind.

This is simply revisionist historians at work.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Next fact. The lunar Hasselblad cameras all included a unique reseau pattern glass plate and a unique Biogon lens.


False. All of the Apollo Hasselblads, including those not flown, has identical reseaus.

----


So, my statement does not break logic.


True; it has nothing to do with logic. You have invented an issue with no basis in fact whatsoever, and then using it as "evidence" to support your revisionist agenda.



To clarify, this thread should be specifically focussed on the 12 unique, custom built, lunar Hasselblad 500EL Data Cameras that NASA ordered to be jettisoned on the surface of the "moon".

These cameras only weighed at 4lb. each.

Each of these 12 cameras were equipped with unique reseau pattern glass plates and unique Biogon lenses. The black crosses were put there for a reason. These black cross patterns, sometimes called fiducials, are now being digitally erased from history, through the unprecedented legal arrangements between NASA and Arizona State University, the resulting product will be presented as 1.9GB digital images files, this egregious act of historical revisionism is one small step for a man and a giant leap backward for mankind.

DJW, you have claimed many times that I am a historical revisionist. Well, I am not.

I wish you would stop calling me a revisionist. I am not the one who has the power to digitally revise all of Apollo history! NASA the entity itself is currently engaged in doing historical revisionism, by process of digital manipulation, by removing the reseau patterns from the Apollo images.

I am not the revisionist, NASA is.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Attention:

Please, to all, do not throw around terms like "historical revisionism", "hoax believer" or "liar".

You should all know this.. that the process of understanding human history is an ongoing, tumultuous affair between the seeker and the truth that he seeks.

We all should remain very aware to the possibility that Apollo images are propaganda images from the Nixon years 1969-1972. We all should question why NASA has decided, after 43 years, to remove the resuea patterns from all the Apollo Hasselblad images.

This is the very definition of "historical revisionism", is it not?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
This is the very definition of "historical revisionism", is it not?


The only possible history revised is the removal of marks. Is it historical revisionism when I average out the histogram of a cell sample to get a better look and document my work and findings? Is it historical revisionism to color correct an image? etc etc ... Many examples.


Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Pinke
 

Those are your inferences not mine. You made the point about trusts, trust is earned by deeds and gained by keeping a good record.


Possession of and inference or statement does not change its outcome.

You say you value paranoid hoax believers or whatever terms we want to use over governments ... fair enough. The point is that regardless of the government/entity/whatever it does not argue an outcome. X person has a criminal record, therefore they committed recent Y crime is a fallacy in the same way.

The government has done bad things, therefore the thing the government just did must be bad is not a proof. It is a cause for concern or investigation at most, but no more.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Yes I did, but again place less importance on the comments than on the content of the article that demonstrates a greater degree of effort in putting something cohesive up for the readers...

It was not my wish to derail this thread , if you think your find is worth you should start a thread on the subject...

Just to point out something that you may be missing in that argumentation, the Chinese issue (go look into the history record how that goes, include also the invasion of Manchuria, the Russians and how the Anglo-Americans contributed to the weakness of China, this would also explain you some other things that you probably may not not have the complete understanding, see about Hong Kong) as for Korea you should check you dates if you think that was even a consideration at the time, note also that most of the information was only fully known after the end of the war, as such it wouldn't be a factor regarding any considerations... (I'm responding to you here because I'm only registered here on ATS and you are defending the point raised)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

The government has done bad things, therefore the thing the government just did must be bad is not a proof. It is a cause for concern or investigation at most, but no more.


I hear what you are saying Pinke. I do respect your opinions and I do wish to fully understand your perspective.

Do you think that "empty camera housing" is an accurate description of a custom built Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera?

Do you think that 4lbs. of mass of Hasselblad camera is a "useless weight"?

Do you think that NASA should be vitally engaged in historical digital revisionism in cooperative agreement with Arizona State University by removing the reseau patterns from Apollo images?

I guess my main question is for you Pinke : when NASA presents an Apollo image to you, do you question the veracity at all? Does NASA's program of digital revisionism pose any internal threats or dilemmas to your professional or ethical boundaries?

In my view NASA is literally removing the reseau patterns from the 1.9GB super high resolution images so they are engaging in historical revisionism, literally.

Thanks for your thoughts.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 




Possession of and inference or statement does not change its outcome.


Of course it does the source (creator possession) is relevant to attribute relevance and value. A statement out of context or wrongly attributed is mostly worthless, it can even constitute a lie or just demonstrate intention to deceive ...



You say you value paranoid hoax believers or whatever terms we want to use over governments ... fair enough. The point is that regardless of the government/entity/whatever it does not argue an outcome. X person has a criminal record, therefore they committed recent Y crime is a fallacy in the same way.


I did not make the statement so broad and general. It wouldn't be at all fair to think that I take the word of any lunatic over a well sourced state official. I do not follow your logic on the crime scene, lets just turn it like this, the government is a known pedophile, if any kids goes missing the police will probably check if the government has them (the logic is the same, not a fallacy, the behavior should be presumed as experience shows that there is a greater risk of recurrence) .



The government has done bad things, therefore the thing the government just did must be bad is not a proof. It is a cause for concern or investigation at most, but no more.


Again not my words, in the second part you seem to be at least starting to express my view correctly. We are in agreement with the idea that we should be concerned and in general distrust any claim of governmental sources, we are living in a time that few are the politicians that have won any credits in public life, before going into politics, that would grant them any special treatment...



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I'm not Pinke, but I think I can answer for her.


Do you think that "empty camera housing" is an accurate description of a custom built Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera?


If it does not have the film cartridge in it, that is an exact description of a camera, whether it is a custom built Hasselbad or a disposable cardboard camera.


Do you think that 4lbs. of mass of Hasselblad camera is a "useless weight"?


If you are on a spacecraft with a limited amount of fuel and are not planning on taking any more photographs, of course it is. That's 4 pounds of unique and invaluable rock samples you can bring with instead.


Do you think that NASA should be vitally engaged in historical digital revisionism in cooperative agreement with Arizona State University by removing the reseau patterns from Apollo images?


You do not understand what the phrase "historical revisionism" means, do you?


In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.


en.wikipedia.org...

This is precisely what you are doing, not NASA.


I guess my main question is for you Pinke : when NASA presents an Apollo image to you, do you question the veracity at all? Does NASA's program of digital revisionism pose any internal threats or dilemmas to your professional or ethical boundaries?


Again, you fail to understand the concept of revisionism. When NASA alters an image, they (usually) explain what they are doing, and why. The original data or negatives are not destroyed, and remain part of the documented history.


In my view NASA is literally removing the reseau patterns from the 1.9GB super high resolution images so they are engaging in historical revisionism, literally.


How ironic that a revisionist does not understand what the word means.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   


In my view NASA is literally removing the reseau patterns from the 1.9GB super high resolution images so they are engaging in historical revisionism, literally.


Again, the originals are still available.
I guess that to be a true revisionist, you should destroy the originals and re-publish what has been revised.
Like a typical Orwellian nightmare. Right ?
Is that what NASA is doing ?
Nope.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join