Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 96
52
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
NASA claimed. "This instrument also mapped in high resolution all the Apollo landing sites. "
www.nasa.gov...

Have we seen any "high resolution" pictures of "Apollo landing sites" in this thread? No, sorry. Nothing to see here.




posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
 


The Stealth LRV is the unexplainable black blob with the white arrow pointing to it that says "LRV final parking spot" in the Apollo 17 image from LRO (50km, as you pointed out).



The black is the disturbed ground around the LRV.




choos, you did not attempt to explain the Stealth LRV black blob . All you did do was show us another,
more detailed CGI model.


It is not CGI. If you think it is CGI you will of course be able to provide supporting evidence.



Keep these facts in mind:


Until you provide evidence, the following are not facts, they are your unsupported opinions



1. NASA/ASU are removing the cross-hairs (reseau pattern marks) from the original Apollo images.


First, evidence that this is happening. Second, so what? The original hard copy photographs exist in abundance.




2. Remember, all NASA/ASU images are now under copyright agreements i.e. meaning that any of the lunar images they publish are no longer in the public domain.


Seeing as every Apollo photograph is publicly available this hardly matters.



3. NASA/ASU added CGI details to the 21km LRO images that give the illusion of NASA's 1969-1972 human activity on the lunar surface.


Firstly, you have absolutely no proof of this, so you're making it up.Secondly, the raw images are available for anyone to examine, and the signal from the LRO can be intercepted by anyone with the appropriate equipment. Thirdly, they would also have to add CGI details of all the craters and rocks to the images because weirdly every single one that is large enough to be resolved by the LRO camera can be found in the Apollo photographs.




4. This applies to all Apollo moon landing sites.


What I wrote above applies to all the Apollo sites. What you wrote is made up.



Of course both LRO 50km and 21km landing site images were output by NASA/ASU under the special CIA contracts. That's hardly independent verification choos... in fact... it's not scientific at all... it's total propaganda.


Again, proof? Evidence?



In this scenario, you are the hoax believer because you accept any CGI that conforms to your Apollo beliefs.

Scientifically, it amounts to self-verification. Scientifically, it fails to convince. The Apollo site images from NASA/LRO/ASU do not amount to proof of a moon landings. The famous U2 images of Russians building missile sites in Cuba are no different.

NASA remains "safe" for now so long as they have the curiously-long lived LRO space weapons platform orbiting the moon operating in preserve and protect mode.


Nope. What you mean is that it doesn't convince you. The LRO images show not just Apollo hardware but Apollo hardware exactly where it is supposed to be, surrounded by all the rocks and craters that are visible in Apollo photographs. See my website under 'Landing Sights' - there's more than enough proof there.

You are making the claim that the evidence for Apollo hardware is CGI, and you are doing this because it it is the only way you can reconcile your belief that Apollo didn't happen with the facts that completely prove that it did. The only way you can explain it away is "well it must be CGI and the ebil gooberment". Just you saying it is not scientific and that some shadowy spooks faked the LRO data isn't actually enough - you need to back it up.

Oh, and the LRO is not a space weapons platform. In orbit around the moon would be a pretty stupid place to put one.

When you can support your assertions, you might get further.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

onebigmonkey
Oh, and the LRO is not a space weapons platform. In orbit around the moon would be a pretty stupid place to put one.


But but but LAZERS! And Mythbusters says you need a really really really powerful lazer to reach the moon, so it HAS to be a weapon! I mean Erhmagerd! LAZERS!



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by onebigmonkeyThe black is the disturbed ground around the LRV.


No need to discuss it any further. I'm sure you could count the missiles in any of the U2 pictures over Cuba.


It is not CGI. If you think it is CGI you will of course be able to provide supporting evidence.

If the digital image is enhanced in a computer, it is by definition CGI.


Until you provide evidence, the following are not facts, they are your unsupported opinions

As are each of your unsupported opinions.


First, evidence that this is happening. Second, so what? The original hard copy photographs exist in abundance.

Already been posted in this thread. Or see my thread about it NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images,
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Seeing as every Apollo photograph is publicly available this hardly matters.

You forgot that every Apollo photograph was "cleansed" by the CIA and NPIC. Don't forget those details.


See my website

Not really interested in your CIA/Arizona State CGI.

I, like so many other reasonable persons, will be waiting for scientific, independent verifications. Anything less is red flagged.... from the missing modules to the missing telemetry tapes... Apollo defenders can be so gullible sometimes.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


what makes you believe it is CGI?? are you an expert in that field?? i highly doubt you are.. but prove they are CGI..

and the LRO "space weapon" seems to have failed.. it failed with japanese imaging the moon, it failed with the chinese imaging the moon.. it failed to stop india from imaging the moon..

its failing everywhere.. it has maybe one partial success.. but that came too late as the satellite had already imaged parts of the lunar surface.. you have been suggesting NASA was akin to GOD given that how powerful they are in controlling thousands of people and other nations, being able to flawlessly fake, with non-existent technology the fake moon landing.. yet when it comes to "fire ze lazer" they fail.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

I, like so many other reasonable persons, will be waiting for scientific, independent verifications. Anything less is red flagged.... from the missing modules to the missing telemetry tapes... Apollo defenders can be so gullible sometimes.


funny you say this.. so ah.. how are you going to verify how they faked it?? has any HB been able to fake the moon landings for independent verifications using 1960-70's technology?? feeling gullible yet??

heres some videos to show you how faking it wont work.





skip to 1m24s for the last one.

edit on 2-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

onebigmonkey
Oh, and the LRO is not a space weapons platform. In orbit around the moon would be a pretty stupid place to put one.


But but but LAZERS! And Mythbusters says you need a really really really powerful lazer to reach the moon, so it HAS to be a weapon! I mean Erhmagerd! LAZERS!


And all i wanted was sharks with fricken laser beams on there head how hard is that. Couldnt help it just so had a flash back reading your post.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Already been posted in this thread. Or see my thread about it NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images,


Granted, I was unaware of the thread or that process.

However a point I made still stands: every Apollo photograph I have seen on the Apollo Image Atlas and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal show the Reseau marks. There are also countless copies of the original photographs available on ebay and published in contemporary newspapers and magazines. It would be impossible to add anything to the digitally processed images without anyone noticing. There are people on this site arguing that tiny bits of belly fluff scanned by mistake on an Apollo image are UFOs, you really think something added or taken away would go unnoticed?

You also need to note the difference between digitally enhancing an image and faking an image. I digitally enhance every photograph I take, but this does not mean I didn't go on holiday to the places I've photographed.



You forgot that every Apollo photograph was "cleansed" by the CIA and NPIC. Don't forget those details.


See my point above.



Not really interested in your CIA/Arizona State CGI.


I guess you wouldn't be interested in anything that knocks your hoax house of cards down. I'll summarise it (again, I know I've mentioned it before): the LRO images do not just show Apollo hardware, they show all the rocks and small craters photographed by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface. These rocks and craters are not visible on photographs taken by lunar probes until the LRO came along. The same is true of features photographed while in lunar orbit, including craters on the far side. I have assembled photographs from every mission to demonstrate this. Prove them wrong.

As the LRO repeatedly orbits and photographs the moon, you would seem to be arguing that NASA has a team of graphic artists entirely dedicated to airbrushing in these tiny details on the images of every pass. This is clearly nonsense.



I, like so many other reasonable persons, will be waiting for scientific, independent verifications. Anything less is red flagged.... from the missing modules to the missing telemetry tapes... Apollo defenders can be so gullible sometimes.


I'm sure you are a very reasonable person, but your arguments are not. You presumably don;t accept the stereoscopic reconstructions of Apollo 15 and 17's landing sites by Kaguya (nothing to do with NASA) or the Chandrayaan images of the Apollo 15 landing area blast halo.

You have nothing but your own disbelief. I have thousands of photographs and documents, hours of video and audio, and decades of research stemming from the Apollo programme, and they all match up.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 



Granted, I was unaware of the thread or that process.

However a point I made still stands: every Apollo photograph I have seen on the Apollo Image Atlas and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal show the Reseau marks.


This is a disclosure thread and what have we seen from NASA in terms of images:

Firstly, Of course you must also realize that NASA could simply pull the plug on the Apollo Image Atlas server and the Apollo Lunar surface Journal servers... and then what happens to your defense of Apollo?

The second thing that NASA could do would be to open up a "new" ALSJ and a "new" Apollo Image Atlas with all of the "newly" formatted images.... edited by CIA/ASU.... with no cross-hairs on any images.... and you would be stuck with the "high resolution, copyrighted, CGI, with black reseau marks replaced by photoshopping".

OBMonkey, This is an extremely dangerous activity for NASA to be involved with, at any level. I cannot imagine any argument from your side that could convince me of the need/necessity to photoshop ALL APOLLO IMAGES TAKING OUT THE CROSS HAIRS. There simply is no acceptable line of reasoning that could support it, except for national security.

Does anyone here believe that the Apollo images rise to the level of national security?

If you support this, you may also support photoshopping other famous historical images. I'm not talking about simply color correction or cropping... I truly believe that removing and replacing digital image information from already scanned historical negatives is ethically wrong!

Up to now, Apollo images have been published in books and magazines, etc, with the cross hairs intact. The cross hairs are an historical fact (according to NASA). There are only a small handful of iconic images which are reproduced over and over again, while, thousands of lesser iconic images have never been printed in books or magazines.

Also, you must know that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras were "dumped on the lunar surface" because they weighed too much... but the real reason they were "dumped" is because each Hasselblad camera was equipped with the original glass plates with the original reseau pattern marks!

From what I recall, there was only 1 Hasselblad that was returned from the "moon". It was Jim Irwin's camera from Apollo 15. He complained that the camera wasn't working... according to the transcripts (as I recall) Irwin was having camera problems right around the time he and Dave Scott were at "Dune Crater." They brought it back. It was disassembled for analysis.... And there is not a single Apollo defender on ATS who can account for the present location of Irwin's Camera....

Irwin's camera was probably dumped off into the ocean years ago, along with the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes.

The facts are weighing in the favor of a cover up with the Apollo images, in my opinion, there must be a fatal flaw in the Apollo official narratives for NASA images which, on the basis of national security, allows CIA/NASA to physically control the negatives for so long. And now they are editing out those fatal flaws in the deal between CIA/NASA and CIA/ASU.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Yes Jim Irwin brought back a camera but he wasnt the only one Edgar Mitchell also had a camera he claimed NASA gave him ended up in a law suit as a matter of fact,Its now on display in the Smithsonian. There is also several cameras made one was sold recently it was a gift from NASA to the president of Hasselblad. So there is no importance to them leaving them on the moon since there are several still here on earth. So what was your point exactly oh thats right you dont know do you?



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 



Granted, I was unaware of the thread or that process.

However a point I made still stands: every Apollo photograph I have seen on the Apollo Image Atlas and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal show the Reseau marks.


This is a disclosure thread and what have we seen from NASA in terms of images:

Firstly, Of course you must also realize that NASA could simply pull the plug on the Apollo Image Atlas server and the Apollo Lunar surface Journal servers... and then what happens to your defense of Apollo?

The second thing that NASA could do would be to open up a "new" ALSJ and a "new" Apollo Image Atlas with all of the "newly" formatted images.... edited by CIA/ASU.... with no cross-hairs on any images.... and you would be stuck with the "high resolution, copyrighted, CGI, with black reseau marks replaced by photoshopping".

OBMonkey, This is an extremely dangerous activity for NASA to be involved with, at any level. I cannot imagine any argument from your side that could convince me of the need/necessity to photoshop ALL APOLLO IMAGES TAKING OUT THE CROSS HAIRS. There simply is no acceptable line of reasoning that could support it, except for national security.

Does anyone here believe that the Apollo images rise to the level of national security?

If you support this, you may also support photoshopping other famous historical images. I'm not talking about simply color correction or cropping... I truly believe that removing and replacing digital image information from already scanned historical negatives is ethically wrong!

Up to now, Apollo images have been published in books and magazines, etc, with the cross hairs intact. The cross hairs are an historical fact (according to NASA). There are only a small handful of iconic images which are reproduced over and over again, while, thousands of lesser iconic images have never been printed in books or magazines.

Also, you must know that the Apollo Hasselblad cameras were "dumped on the lunar surface" because they weighed too much... but the real reason they were "dumped" is because each Hasselblad camera was equipped with the original glass plates with the original reseau pattern marks!

From what I recall, there was only 1 Hasselblad that was returned from the "moon". It was Jim Irwin's camera from Apollo 15. He complained that the camera wasn't working... according to the transcripts (as I recall) Irwin was having camera problems right around the time he and Dave Scott were at "Dune Crater." They brought it back. It was disassembled for analysis.... And there is not a single Apollo defender on ATS who can account for the present location of Irwin's Camera....

Irwin's camera was probably dumped off into the ocean years ago, along with the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes.

The facts are weighing in the favor of a cover up with the Apollo images, in my opinion, there must be a fatal flaw in the Apollo official narratives for NASA images which, on the basis of national security, allows CIA/NASA to physically control the negatives for so long. And now they are editing out those fatal flaws in the deal between CIA/NASA and CIA/ASU.


If you look carefully at the screencap you posted (from this website: apollo.sese.asu.edu...) at the bottom it says this:



The original, unprocessed raw scans are also provided on this website in full-resolution 16-bit TIFF format


So your own post debunks your idea that somehow 'they' are trying to falsify the historical record. You also claim some copyright shenanigans on the part of NASA, when that same link says this:



Digital scans of Apollo flight film images (Metric, Panoramic, ALSCC, 70mm Hasselblad, 35mm Nikon and Stellar) in their raw (unprocessed) form are in the public domain and as such are covered by NASA usage policy for still image and computer files (see URL: www.nasa.gov...). Raw scans should be credited using the line "NASA/JSC/Arizona State University" or "NASA/JSC/ASU".


See the words 'Public Domain' there? So the photos in their original state are public domain, and their are lots of copies of them in the public domain.

The rest of your post is just 'what if what if what if'. There are no facts in it, just a lot of arm waving and false panic.

NASA can not alter the original images that exist in huge quantities. I have several original National Geographic magazines and Life Magazines with the photos in. You can get the original science reports with them in on ebay. Altering the images to add or remove objects on the lunar surface would not work.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


Yeah, but what happens when the simulator becomes the event? Like in the case of the moon landing.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthXPosedTV
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


Yeah, but what happens when the simulator becomes the event? Like in the case of the moon landing.


Care to elaborate since what you said makes no sense especially since the simulator was nothing that even looked real AND TOOK UP A HUGE WAREHOUSE BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE CGI! So there only solution was to make a model of the moon the size of a house and even then it took a lot of imagination. So care to explain your theory?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Yeah, that's a lot of tap dancing just to say you believe NASA/ASU are doing nothing ethically wrong.

Don't you think people are not ready for the truth?
Don't you think people wanna read it for themselves?
apollo.sese.asu.edu...


The bit about "may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified..." I guess you already read it and you were trying to downplay the significance of the vast turn over of public domain images...

Sure, we can get at the RAW 1.6 gigabit TIFF files, WITH CROSS HAIRS,
or we can get the small-large 1 Megabit, 10 MB, 250 MB and 500 MB files with NO CROSS HAIRS.

But as you can see,

Raw scans should be credited using the line "NASA/JSC/Arizona State University" or "NASA/JSC/ASU".


EVEN THE RAW scans are copyright protected now.


Arizona State University retains the rights to any derived products



The post-scanning processed digital images, and associated derived products, are provided with a non-exclusive, non-transferable license. These images, and associated derived products, may not be used in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties. These images, and their associated derived products, may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part. You also may not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign, lease, sub-license, market, or transfer the imagery or any part thereof or use it in any manner not expressly authorized.


And here is the final truth you don't want people to read. ASU is leaving in the photographic blemishes and flaws in the image while at the same time they are photoshopping the cross hairs OUT.


While the image processing steps undertaken as part of this effort may have removed some of these blemish features, users should be aware that blemish features exist in many of the images.


Why go to all the trouble to removing the cross hairs but then leave the blemishes intact ???
This is no less than a complete fraud of the Apollo images. It is only one effort, among MANY efforts, to cover up what NASA really did on the moon between 1968-1972. Now all your RAW Tiff's of Apollo images are copyrighted by ASU and you can do absolutely nothing about it.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
It says on the source page that the "background is removed from all of the scans". That would include the RAW.


Second, the background is removed from all of the scans, by assuming that the average DN values of the unexposed regions at the edge of each raw scanned image represent the background (i.e., film base and fog).


Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

The single sentence proves that the NASA/ASU effort on Apollo images is a total fraud and cover up.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The single sentence proves that the NASA/ASU effort on Apollo images is a total fraud and cover up.


No, it shows once again you have no clue at all what you are babbling about!



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 





The scans of the Apollo flight films are processed using a standard set of procedures. First, the unexposed portions of the film along the edges of a scanned frame are cropped, and the frame is straightened. Second, the background is removed from all of the scans, by assuming that the average DN values of the unexposed regions at the edge of each raw scanned image represent the background


English is not your first language is it? And no understanding of photography what so ever.What there trying to do is get rid of film color as film ages it starts turning brown distorting the colors. If they know how much the film aged by looking at unexposed area they know what the colors should look like! Do you ever get tired of being wrong?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



Do you ever get tired of being wrong?


I was not wrong about the fact that NASA is removing the reseau pattern marks from Apollo images, was I?
They are also removing the backgrounds.... just like a CIA cover up.... it says so on the source page.
Was I wrong about that?

Enjoy your fake Apollo pictures, Dragon, with the backgrounds removed


The simplest thing NASA could have done was to hire, on their own payroll, some real archivists, who could scan all the Apollo images and refrain from altering history. To submit those images on .gov servers with the proper NASA catalogue numbers and to release those images into the public domain.

NASA has not done that.

They have made legal arrangements with CIA/ASU to begin the alternate history of Apollo and the copyrights go -hand in glove- with the cover ups that go all the way back to Richard Nixon's presidency.

I have to say that I'm feeling really confident with the argument. It's a thread killer and a winner in any debate.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Firstly, Of course you must also realize that NASA could simply pull the plug on the Apollo Image Atlas server and the Apollo Lunar surface Journal servers... and then what happens to your defense of Apollo?


Right, and then the only copies that would exist are the millions of books with Apollo pictures in them, the millions of newspaper and magazine articles with them, and the millions of Apollo pictures stores on university websites, Apollo / NASA / space exploration history websites, personal websites, and backups such as the internet archive. Oh, and let's not forget the libraries around the world that contain millions of printed copies of these pictures in their archives.

But yeah, aside from those hundred million or so copies of pictures with crosshairs in various forms, there would literally be no place you could find them if NASA removed them from their website.

Well, and if they also removed them from the National Archives, and all other storage facilities that contained copies of them, and ignored all requests from individuals to get copies of them.

But, yes, aside from that, you're absolutely correct!


OBMonkey, This is an extremely dangerous activity for NASA to be involved with, at any level. I cannot imagine any argument from your side that could convince me of the need/necessity to photoshop ALL APOLLO IMAGES TAKING OUT THE CROSS HAIRS. There simply is no acceptable line of reasoning that could support it, except for national security.


Or, you know, making them look nice. Just throwing that one out there. Personally, I don't want the crosshairs in my desktop background, but maybe that's just because I'm a Lizard Person who works for the CIA.

It's not like these images are science images. No one does any scientific analysis from these pictures, because that's not what they are intended for. They're intended for nice-looking images to be used for illustrations and publicity.

This is, of course, ignoring the insanity that suggests that crosshairs existing would be any evidence of a conspiracy in the first place...



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
But yeah, aside from those hundred million or so copies of pictures with crosshairs in various forms, there would literally be no place you could find them if NASA removed them from their website.


You might have a hard drive with billions and billions of Apollo images. But the only Apollo images that matter are those released by NASA itself on .gov servers or printed in NASA books with government catalogue numbers. Everything else, all other Apollo images, are simulations of the authentic, original NASA negatives, which everyone admits are in the public domain.


Or, you know, making them look nice. Just throwing that one out there. Personally, I don't want the crosshairs in my desktop background, but maybe that's just because I'm a Lizard Person who works for the CIA.


Let me ask. The crosshairs are all black, they need to fill-in those black areas with whatever color information to put into those black areas. Those black areas are the 'fiducials'. NASA's famous pixel wizardry will insert new color information into those black areas. The new information encoded into those black areas may be some sort of covert/overt messaging system, or, at the very least, there is ample opportunity for a whistleblower to insert new information into these Apollo images, inside the fiducials ; information that could possibly lead to a NASA disclosure, of some kind, possibly E.T.


It's not like these images are science images. No one does any scientific analysis from these pictures, because that's not what they are intended for.


The cross hairs were intended for a scientific purpose. 'Fiducials' were used to measure any amount of physical distortion to the film negatives, on many of the various film formats that were used during the missions. They placed the 'fiducials' on the glass plate inside the Hasselblad in order to permanently record those 'fiducials' ontp the Apollo film negatives.

Now NASA is removing the 'fiducials' for purely arbitrary, NON-scientific reasons.





new topics
top topics
 
52
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join