More Moon fakery

page: 17
16
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

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.


I never posted that image, so I feel under no obligation to explain how it was made... and I do know exactly how it was made. I do not know how ASU plans to remove the reseau marks. Just Photoshop, probably. Now please explain why the reseau marks are relevant, given that the originals will always be available?




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Which one of these is a screenshot from the Apollo 15 16mm DAC camera taken as it launched from the lunar surface back towards the CSM and which one is taken by the LRO decades later?




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

wmd_2008

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)


Tell me, the astronauts must have been excellent snowboarders ?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
edit on 22-2-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Confront a moon hoax believer with evidence or a valid question, and all you get from them is an irrelevant, or nonsensical, question back. Either they are cleverly weaseling their way out, or simply cannot comprehend a meaningful discussion.

Is there any evidence of enhancement or CGI in LRO images of the Apollo sites? I haven't seen any. The dark pixels that are labelled "flag" may be from the tattered and faded remains of the flag, still stretched on the flag pole and the horizontal bar which is hoding the flag up. The LRV is large enough to be visible on the LRO images, no enhancement needed.

Is SayonaraJupiter implying that because ASU are removing the cross-hairs from Apollo images, they are also enhancing the landing site images with CGI? Where's the evidence for that assumption?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
sorry if this has been mentioned already, i dont have time to read the whole thread atm however: Isnt there a lot of 'space junk' and other stuff held in orbit around earth they are not present on the moon, which would accelerate the deterioration of the flag much faster.

Further more the moon does have an electromagnetic metic, while being slower than the earths, could this not also help to reduce the flags radiation?

Lastly the obvious question, did they happen to put the flag anywhere near a maneuvering thruster?
The Americans managed to blow down one of their with launch, so they arnt all geniuses



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


This fellow seems to know his way around photography. I wonder what kind of excuses I'm in for now.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 

Human nature doesn't count with you? Who goes to the freaking moon and doesn't take a shot of his partners, not one? Not as historic is what you come up with? Stick with your numbers and gadgets, humanity has left you for want.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Stackpot
 


Better humanity than sanity I suppose.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


This fellow seems to know his way around photography. I wonder what kind of excuses I'm in for now.

www.youtube.com...


No excuses, facts.

The first picture he comes up with is AS15-91-12343. It features a whole Earth disc. This could not be done from Low Earth Orbit. There were no satellites in geostationary orbit taking colour photographs at the time. The fact that there are several photographs either side of this image that show different features proves that whatever took the photograph was not in geostationary orbit. The images at the start of the magazine are of the LM docking procedure, and at the end we have pictures of the moon, including parts not visible from Earth.

Here is a link to that Earth in the youtube video compared with the weather satellite image from the same day. That composite image was taken from LEO.

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Tweaking the levels in a digital image does nothing to the original printed copy from which it was scanned, and there are no stars in the images because the camera is pointed at a very bright Earth.

I could do all of the images in that crappy little video but the main point is that the guy who made it knows absolutely nothing about photography, and the images he uses were taken exactly where NASA always said they were.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Is it all possible that current technology has caught up with any possible manipulation that may have occurred long ago?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Is it all possible that current technology has caught up with any possible manipulation that may have occurred long ago?


What manipulation?

You can still get original hard copies of those photographs. Here's one on ebay that is obviously not a digital image - you can see the frayed edges and marks on the paper copy.

www.ebay.c... o.uk/itm/AL-WORDEN-APOLLO-15-SIGNED-EARTH-PHOTO-BM4118-/200621492637?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb5f9099d

The ESSA satellite records existed in paper copy long before the internet and digital photography existed. The ESSA satellite records were publicly available to weather organisations worldwide, they were published in journals and magazines all over the world. Anyone with an FM receiver could intercept the signals from them.

You don't get to just hand wave away evidence that you don't like. if you think they were manipulated then show us where, describe how.


(post by wmd_2008 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


This fellow seems to know his way around photography. I wonder what kind of excuses I'm in for now.

www.youtube.com...


That GUY showed within 30 seconds that he is as much a photography expert as YOU.

First if you expose for the Earth, stars WONT show it's that simple.



That is a picture I took here the exposure details 1/400th of a second f8 iso 400, Sony SLT A37 with a 300mm lens (heavy crop)

The IDIOT in your you tube video claimed the stars were edited out they wouldn't show in the first place DUE to exposure settings as shown above.

I have been an active photographer as a hobby for 30+ years YOU?
edit on 23-2-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by wmd_2008 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


I didn't "waive" illegitimate evidence, I provided a fairly well put together video raising some important questions as to manipulation. Where do you pompous windbags come up with your lines?

On the topic of feasibility of this fairy tail mission

To quote Dave McGowan:

Lynn Radcliffe, who managed the facility at White Sands that was specially constructed to test and develop the LEM’s rocket engines, describes the technology required to land the lunar modules: “This was an unbelievable maneuver when you stop and think about it. You’re sitting on a column of thrust, just hovering there, like a, a helicopter, and then as you let it go, the throttle, a little bit, you lower it just a few feet per second until you make contact. All of this is an amazing set of requirements to put on anyone trying to design a rocket.”

Radcliffe is absolutely right; I did stop to think about it and it is unbelievable. Oh, and to leave barely a mark in the silty moon dust too.

The combined computer power at mission control was roughly that of a 2005 laptop computer, all those monitors were run on a single main frame. The LEM had the computing power of a digital watch. It was an aluminum foil covered fantasy that went nowhere near the moon.

Horse manure.





top topics
 
16
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join