More Moon fakery

page: 16
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The main evidence for what happened to the cameras is the identification number engraved on the Reseau plate along with the fiducial crosses. Not all cameras intended for the surface have this number, and I think it's likely that they decided to use them to help work out who took a given photograph, given that one grey area of lunar surface can look much like another.

Using this number it's possible to determine that Gene Cernan, Dave Scott and Jim Irwin's cameras were used to take photographs on the way home from the moon. Al Shepard was also instructed to bring his camera back. Therefore two were known to be brought back from the surface, at least two were not.

The camera Ed Mitchell tried to sell wasn't a Hasselblad, but a DAC.

Some people seen unable to see wood for trees and are forgetting that the surface cameras produced images that could only have been taken on the lunar surface.

Apparently a camera that took photographs of the moon is evidence that it didn't take photographs of the moon.




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Back in the 70s ,1971 to be exact, their was a man, im sure by his name he was jewish he owned a shop in town[we used to go to] where we used to live, there was an Army base about 10 miles out ,and my mother told me that even way back then, he insisted , the whole moon landing was a hoax and a setup.At school there were kids whose fathers were in the Army, and two kids who sat behind me at school would always talk about UFOs and things like the Dark side of the moon ,and how there were bases there etc ,these were 7 years olds, and i used to wonder where the heck they came up with these things,evidently had heard their fathers talking about it .



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   

wombatta
Back in the 70s ,1971 to be exact, their was a man, im sure by his name he was jewish he owned a shop in town[we used to go to] where we used to live, there was an Army base about 10 miles out ,and my mother told me that even way back then, he insisted , the whole moon landing was a hoax and a setup.At school there were kids whose fathers were in the Army, and two kids who sat behind me at school would always talk about UFOs and things like the Dark side of the moon ,and how there were bases there etc ,these were 7 years olds, and i used to wonder where the heck they came up with these things,evidently had heard their fathers talking about it .


When will people on here learn there is NO dark side of the Moon. It also seems Jewish shop keepers are all scientists



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


okay



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Komodo, I just re-watched the OP video and re-read the thread. By page 8 we had a full-on ragin' of a moon hoax thread going on! Most excellent!
The thread took a few twists & turns and you have done good business for ATS by bringing it back on track several times.


I was glad to see the w i d e cross section of ATS users posting in a MOON THREAD.

.. not just the regulars.


But I was saddened, when I re-read the thread, to see that some of the posters whom I liked have since been banned.
(I have no clue what's going on with that... I can't name names, because that is against the rules. If you read the thread you can see the 2 users I am talking about.)

Overall, the Apollo Defenders seemed really grouchy over this touchy subject of the Shadow Flag. The extraordinary claims made by NASA/ASU when they claimed that the LRO took pictures (highly manipulated digital images) of the shadow of a flag placed at an Apollo landing site, it must require extraordinary evidence and proofs, because, NASA proving NASA is not a credible proof. The Defenders know this that's why they have been grouchy through the whole thread!

The overwhelming consensus of this thread is The LRO images of the "Apollo Shadow Flag" are a Red Flag.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
NASA proving NASA is not a credible proof.

What about ASU proving NASA? The LROC camera is an ASU instrument.
science.asu.edu...
lroc.sese.asu.edu...
edit on 21-2-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   

wildespace

SayonaraJupiter
NASA proving NASA is not a credible proof.

What about ASU proving NASA? The LROC camera is an ASU instrument.
science.asu.edu...
lroc.sese.asu.edu...


NASA seems to rely on ASU for an abundance of things. NASA has contractual agreements with ASU to digitally remove the cross-hairs from the Apollo images. Why would they do that if not because they had something to hide, with the Hasselblads or the negatives?? If one NASA mission proves another NASA mission, that ain't proof of anything.

Pretty much all the LRO images of Apollo landing sites were credited to ASU. Am I mistaken?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA has contractual agreements with ASU to digitally remove the cross-hairs from the Apollo images. Why would they do that if not because they had something to hide, with the Hasselblads or the negatives??


For the umpteenth time: for purely aesthetic reasons. To give the 'you are there' feel to the photos. Now, for the umpteenth time: how, exactly, would removing the reseau marks from one set of photos while leaving all the thousands of sets available in print or online hide anything? Be specific. Finish this sentence: "The reseau marks are the key to understanding the greatest, most extensive and expensive conspiracy in history because _____________."
edit on 21-2-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
NASA has contractual agreements with ASU to digitally remove the cross-hairs from the Apollo images. Why would they do that if not because they had something to hide, with the Hasselblads or the negatives?

To make them look prettier for publication? Images at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal have their crosshairs intact.


SayonaraJupiter
Pretty much all the LRO images of Apollo landing sites were credited to ASU.

Yes, because they were taken with LROC camera, which was made by, and is operated by, ASU: asunews.asu.edu... ASU is also the organisation that actually releases LROC images: asunews.asu.edu...



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

wildespace

SayonaraJupiter
NASA has contractual agreements with ASU to digitally remove the cross-hairs from the Apollo images. Why would they do that if not because they had something to hide, with the Hasselblads or the negatives?

To make them look prettier for publication? Images at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal have their crosshairs intact.


SayonaraJupiter
Pretty much all the LRO images of Apollo landing sites were credited to ASU.

Yes, because they were taken with LROC camera, which was made by, and is operated by, ASU: asunews.asu.edu... ASU is also the organisation that actually releases LROC images: asunews.asu.edu...


we know we know...Nasa went far to make things prettier, extremely far.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

webstra

wildespace

SayonaraJupiter
NASA has contractual agreements with ASU to digitally remove the cross-hairs from the Apollo images. Why would they do that if not because they had something to hide, with the Hasselblads or the negatives?

To make them look prettier for publication? Images at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal have their crosshairs intact.


SayonaraJupiter
Pretty much all the LRO images of Apollo landing sites were credited to ASU.

Yes, because they were taken with LROC camera, which was made by, and is operated by, ASU: asunews.asu.edu... ASU is also the organisation that actually releases LROC images: asunews.asu.edu...


we know we know...Nasa went far to make things prettier, extremely far.


The original (non-pretty) images still exist, and are still available to the public. Obviously, the ones used as artwork and in books will usually be the pretty ones.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



"The reseau marks are the key to understanding the greatest, most extensive and expensive conspiracy in history because _____________."


Because they used CGI to enhance the LRO images so they could show you what you desperately wanted to see (pareidolia). They tweaked the landing site images to show a Shadow Flag and the Black Blob LRV and "footpaths". Therefore, the trustworthiness of the NASA/ASU "confirmation" images is not as much valuable as you seem to think it is.

Here is the CGI for Apollo 17. Notice the pixels can be just about anything you want them to be. The footpaths could be robotic rover tracks. and the Shadow Flag again is just pixels.
edit on 2/21/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001
 



"The reseau marks are the key to understanding the greatest, most extensive and expensive conspiracy in history because _____________."


Because they used CGI to enhance the LRO images so they could show you what you desperately wanted to see (pareidolia). They tweaked the landing site images to show a Shadow Flag and the Black Blob LRV and "footpaths". Therefore, the trustworthiness of the NASA/ASU "confirmation" images is not as much valuable as you seem to think it is.

Here is the CGI for Apollo 17. Notice the pixels can be just about anything you want them to be. The footpaths could be robotic rover tracks. and the Shadow Flag again is just pixels.
edit on 2/21/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)


But as you well know, because I have told you repeatedly, it isn't just the landing sites that match exactly what the Apollo images and videos show, and it isn't just tracks and hardware, it's the small craters and rocks that also appear in both sets of images - details that were not available before the landings. Did they CGI an entire lunar surface just in case? Did the Japanese do that as well?

Your claim of CGI manipulation to show evidence of Apollo landings is baseless and false. If you have proof that they are not baseless and false, produce it.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001
 



"The reseau marks are the key to understanding the greatest, most extensive and expensive conspiracy in history because _____________."


Because they used CGI to enhance the LRO images so they could show you what you desperately wanted to see (pareidolia). They tweaked the landing site images to show a Shadow Flag and the Black Blob LRV and "footpaths". Therefore, the trustworthiness of the NASA/ASU "confirmation" images is not as much valuable as you seem to think it is.

Here is the CGI for Apollo 17. Notice the pixels can be just about anything you want them to be. The footpaths could be robotic rover tracks. and the Shadow Flag again is just pixels.
edit on 2/21/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)


I don't see the word "reseau" anywhere in your response. Try again.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   

DJW001
I don't see the word "reseau" anywhere in your response. Try again.


I don't see you defending the pixel flag. That's your Shadow Flag buddy! Try again.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001
I don't see the word "reseau" anywhere in your response. Try again.


I don't see you defending the pixel flag. That's your Shadow Flag buddy! Try again.


One more evasion and I'll have the Mods on you for trolling. Seriously, your behavior lately has led me to suspect that you've given your password to decisively. That would get you banned.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I think you have to be enormous desperate if you are nasa and trying to prove that apollo astronauts have been on the moon with a photo like the one above. Hilarious picture.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

webstra
I think you have to be enormous desperate if you are nasa and trying to prove that apollo astronauts have been on the moon with a photo like the one above. Hilarious picture.

Except NASA aren't trying to prove anything. Still, it's nice to see the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

webstra
I think you have to be enormous desperate if you are nasa and trying to prove that apollo astronauts have been on the moon with a photo like the one above. Hilarious picture.



Here you go two images side by side taken almost 40 years apart.



Top half from the DAC camera as the Apollo 17 Astronauts left the Moon the bottom the LRO image of the site credit to jra on here who posted it first I had the same idea when I saw the first LRO images.

There are craters and rocks that are so small they can only be see by to methods the images taken by the Astronauts on the surface and the LRO, THERE ARE THOUSANDS of them , distance and positions of equipment were documented and can now be see to match LRO images.

They went, but some people still seem to want to appear dumb regarding this event!!!
edit on 22-2-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

DJW001

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001
I don't see the word "reseau" anywhere in your response. Try again.


I don't see you defending the pixel flag. That's your Shadow Flag buddy! Try again.


One more evasion and I'll have the Mods on you for trolling. Seriously, your behavior lately has led me to suspect that you've given your password to decisively. That would get you banned.


NASA are the ones who published the images of Pixel Flags and the Black Blob LRV. Can you tell us what kind of CGI NASA used to "enhance" the LRO images of Apollo landing sites? Is it the same software that ASU uses to remove the "reseau" pattern marks from Apollo's 70mm images? BTW - Talking about banned users on ATS in not allowed anywhere, anytime.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join