Hi,
it seems NASA continues to hoax the Moon landings.
I just saw, that NASA has put out new photos of the landing sites of the Apollo missions,
but at this poor resolution it could also have been a clever Photoshop job.
Looks not very realistic to me.
Could just have been added with a photoshop brush and some pixel editing.
Check it out yourself:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
http://asunews.asu.edu/20090717_LROCapollo
Well, why didn´t they make higher res pics from these landing sites ?
Is their camera so bad ???
Couldn´t they afford a better one ?
Here in this picture the guy who photoshoped this picture
used the wrong direction of the shadow !!!!
The shadow should go to the left and not to the right direction !
What a poor fake !
http://asunews.asu.edu/files/images/APOLLO14-4ASUWEBPAGE_stretch.jpg
Compare it versus the other shadows of the surounding hills !
Man, how can you fake this so poorly !
It seems the shadows are wrong on all pics at the page:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
They all should go to the left side and not to the right side, cause the sun is shining from
the right side onto the pictures, so the shadows of all the surrounding hills also go to the left side...
So it is easy to see, that all of these pics are faked !
Poor job done NASA !
Take a second critical look Stephan, all of the shadows are correct in the picture you posted above.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 26, 2009, 11:37:37 PM
Take a second critical look Stephan, all of the shadows are correct in the picture you posted above.
MileHigh
You can clearly see, that all shadows from the Apollo gears are wrong.
The sun is shining from the right side of the picture and the shadows of the Apollo
gear should go to the left side , equally as the shadows of the surrounding hills.
I wonder, what are hills and what are craters near the Apollo gear ?
Here is a negative of the above photo and you can clearly see, that also
in the negative the shadow is also wrong from the Apollo gear:
Sorry Stephan,
I agree with MileHigh.
QuoteThey all should go to the left side and not to the right side, cause the sun is shining from
the right side onto the pictures, so the shadows of all the surrounding hills also go to the left side...
It looks to me that the sun is shining from left to right. Instead of those things being hills it look like they are craters.
Pictures look good to me. Now whether there where real men down there not just robots, I don't know.
so why the low quality pictures? what's the explanation for that?
Quote from: FreeEnergy on August 27, 2009, 03:23:14 AM
so why the low quality pictures? what's the explanation for that?
From the first page Harti linked to - "...Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution..."
The pics look real to me.
The picture looks correct to me. See the attached picture of the crater in Arizona where the crater pit is much deeper than the lift area on the crater rim and the biggest shadow is in the pit.
Even more interesting items are revealed when you blow up the picture. Note the trail in the upper left from the craft to another small shiny object to the far top left. The trail goes around the small craters.
Regards, Larry
Here is the pictures where I have taged the things that are wrong
so now I hope you understand what I mean.
Those are not hills. They are craters.
Here's a better picture of the crater shadow and shine effect.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: mondrasek on August 27, 2009, 12:32:12 PM
Those are not hills. They are craters.
Hmm,
compare the triangular shadow from the lower hill of this pic:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7989.0;attach=37453
to the more round shadow from the real crater that user
LarryC posted.
So I would guess these are not craters but hills, otherwise the
triangular shadow of the lower hill makes no sense to me...
By virtue of the fact that the thousands of moon rocks brought back to Earth have a particular composition which could only exist on the Moon, it's not really worth doubting the validity of anything connected to the Apollo Missions. Faking photos 40 years later wouldn't serve any logical purpose imho.
According to the information I have heard, the problem is, that these rocks are not very different than earth rocks
and could have been collected here on earth....
The ones really researched in chemicals labs were mostly
from meteorites from the moon hitting the earth.
The shadows in the craters will vary in shape based on the condition of the crater edge (does it have a lip, partial lip, overlap of another crater, etc.) and how high the sun is in the sky. In LarryC's picture the sun appears to be much higher over head than in the lunar module shadow picture IMO. I believe the craters you have marked as hills are larger worn (older) craters that do not have as distinct a rim edge as the one in LarryC's picture, but I may be wrong. The lower resolution of the lunar module shadow picture makes that difficult to determine.
If you compare all the shadows of all the smaller craters in the picture you will see similar triangular shapes. Also, the moon is known to be pock marked with craters from the meteorites that strike quite frequently since there is no atmosphere to burn them up as on Earth.
Quote from: hartiberlin on August 27, 2009, 02:19:28 PM
According to the information I have heard, the problem is, that these rocks are not very different than earth rocks
and could have been collected here on earth....
The ones really researched in chemicals labs were mostly
from meteorites from the moon hitting the earth.
Well, you know that's always the thing. Lots of information to go around in the internet age, one has to decide what to accept I guess.
Okay, this picture should settle the issue.
Regards, Larry
Okay, maybe I am wrong with the false shadow
direction,
but I still find, that the shadows are a bit too big and too long
compared to the other shadows of the craters.
So let us wait for higher resolution pictures.
At least it seems that NASA will not go to the moon
so soon now as they seem to have money problems.
Source here:
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/2009/08/27/sparprogramm-bei-nasa/fluege-zu-asteroiden-statt-zum-mond.html
Seems they want to go now only to a very small asteroid, just 6 Meters long and
30 tons of weight....
Hmm, so when they are not able to go the next 20 years to the moon,
how did they achieve this in 1969 ? ;D
As far as I know they have used the Hubble telescope to look for signs of the moon landings without success.
Whilst I appreciate that the resolution of the telescope is insufficient to make out footprints left behind the question arises why the moon buggies have not been spotted.
According to NASA three of these vehicles were taken to the moon and left there.
Why can they not find them because to spot these vehicles the resolution of the telescope is good enough.
Where are they?
Quote from: hansvonlieven on August 27, 2009, 10:17:43 PM
As far as I know they have used the Hubble telescope to look for signs of the moon landings without success.
Whilst I appreciate that the resolution of the telescope is insufficient to make out footprints left behind the question arises why the moon buggies have not been spotted.
According to NASA three of these vehicles were taken to the moon and left there.
Why can they not find them because to spot these vehicles the resolution of the telescope is good enough.
Where are they?
Here is what NASA has to say about this issue. From:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm)
***********
"And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?
Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image."
**********
But we will see what they can do now.
I guess I was wrong about Hubble. I thought since the last lot of improvements they were capable of doing this. Thanks for pointing it out.
I really ask myself, if Hubble is really so bad in resolution.. ?
Why can it zoom so far into Galaxies, but not show the rovers on the moon ?
Well, is there any trick to photograph the moon with 2 synced digital DSR cameras
placed a few kilometers apart here from earth ?
Could one then use the trick that also radiotelescopes use to receive weak signals
as they are "stacked and interleaved" together ?
Could thus the distance of the 2 cameras help to increase the zoom factor ?
Maybe it could be done this way via hobby equipment to photograph the landing
sites from earth in clear weather conditions on a mountain where the air is already thin ?
Quote from: hartiberlin on August 26, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Here in this picture the guy who photoshoped this picture
used the wrong direction of the shadow !!!!
The shadow should go to the left and not to the right direction !
What a poor fake !
http://asunews.asu.edu/files/images/APOLLO14-4ASUWEBPAGE_stretch.jpg
Compare it versus the other shadows of the surounding hills !
Man, how can you fake this so poorly !
Hi Hart.
I think those are craters not hills, this creates an optical illusion that the shadow is on the wrong side because the lander is tall and upright.
only solution I have at this point.
Jerry
Quote from: hartiberlin on August 27, 2009, 11:17:36 PM
I really ask myself, if Hubble is really so bad in resolution.. ?
Why can it zoom so far into Galaxies, but not show the rovers on the moon ?
Well, is there any trick to photograph the moon with 2 synced digital DSR cameras
placed a few kilometers apart here from earth ?
Could one then use the trick that also radiotelescopes use to receive weak signals
as they are "stacked and interleaved" together ?
Could thus the distance of the 2 cameras help to increase the zoom factor ?
Maybe it could be done this way via hobby equipment to photograph the landing
sites from earth in clear weather conditions on a mountain where the air is already thin ?
The Hubble is not bad in resolution. It is very good, at least compared to anything else that we have.
The reason the Hubble can photograph a galaxy far away but not the relatively close moon buggy is because the faraway galaxy actually takes up more space in the sky than does the moon buggy.
I think too that time on the hubble is very scarce and sheduled out the wazoo for some time to come.Its a case of first in/first out.Who can use the hubble to look at the moon When there are greater unknowns out there?triffid
So would that trick work with 2 good digital cameras synced here on
earth a few miles apart and interleaving their output to get a better zoom factor
to be able to see the landing sites in detail ?
Also in one video is claimed that the ESA could look with their interleaved telescopes
onto the landing sites and could do this but they seem not to have any interest to do it,
cause we have not seen any pictures from them yet...
So who is going to try it with a hobby budget to interleave enough cameras to have a look
at the landing site here from earth ?
The rooster tails kicked up by the rovers are as good a proof as any that men went to the moon. Noboby maintains that they had a massive vacuum chambered studio by which to prevent dust diffusion and resultant cloudy atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxE
They went, but exactly how and when humans first began making visitations are certainly open to speculation.
You would see a lot of tire tracks and they would surely be lots of them nearest to the landing site where they would head out from.
The pixel like shape of the lander and the not so pixel like shape of everything ells is a bit hard to swallow.No tracks ,no vehicle,suspect image. Can we see the flag blowing in the wind next?lol
Why would Nahassa pull such crap at such a late date? I dont know maybe the director has his eyes on a another piece of realstate or they are concerned that with the state of economy they may lose some funding and have to go out and get real jobs. I will leave the type'ohs so the people at Nasa can read this clearly. rolf If they wanted to get a real pic they could send a drone with a high res camera and use the excuse of gathering intell on how the materials held up to space conditions over the years and people would except that excuse but secretly all want to see the actual proof to put that puppy to rest once and for all. Unless it was bogus.
The sheep say's "Nahahahaha oot today saw".
Roster tails of dust would be easy to create that would fall slower then normal dirt or dust. Just pick the right type of particulates which have very little weight and are not inert.
Although the Hubble Telescope has really good resolution, it is limited. The link below explains the math behind why we can not use Hubble to see the moon landing. The smallest thing it could see on the moon is 124 meters across.
http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/676.html
The same goes for a camera in orbit around the moon. They could put the camera in a closer orbit to achieve better resolution but, that would use up more fuel decreasing the mission lifetime.
Maybe a bunch of smaller telescopes linked up (interferometry) could accomplish this from earth?
By the way, what happened with the Japanese
KAGUYA (SELENE) spacecraft ?
Did it ever made a video of the NASA landing sites, while flying over it and
good was the resolution ?
Did it finally crash into the moon ?
I did not follow up on this and am curious,
if the Japanese agency released any good photos
of the Nasa landing sites.
Regards, Stefan.
Here is ABSOLUTE PROOF they did NOT go to the moon!!!!
=====================
Part 1. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOMHSgQuuiw
Part 2. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTd9XjvWxCw
Part 3. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QsgdXMUtdA
Part 4. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdXtRpCsjp0
Part 5. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqbdjybYeE
.
Quote from: Doug1 on November 29, 2009, 06:46:45 AM
Roster tails of dust would be easy to create that would fall slower then normal dirt or dust. Just pick the right type of particulates which have very little weight and are not inert.
You completely miss the point of the rooster tails of dust. The point is not that dust particles fall slowly, but that they fall quickly, and do not linger in the air, like they should, if there was an atmosphere. Absent a huge vacuum chamber, you cannot recreate this effect on earth.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 29, 2009, 03:29:34 PM
You completely miss the point of the rooster tails of dust. The point is not that dust particles fall slowly, but that they fall quickly, and do not linger in the air, like they should, if there was an atmosphere. Absent a huge vacuum chamber, you cannot recreate this effect on earth.
The video of Nasa was slowed down 0.5 speed ( x 1/2 )
If you watch the rover in normal speed again by speeding up the video
twice (x2) it looks totally normal, how a rover would behave on earth
in a normal dirt road with much sand being propelled up and falling down.
Have a look at these x2 speed youtube videos.
Here is the rover in normal (x2) speed, so you see, that this
behaves totally normal and the sand is flying normally down to Earth !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxE
But the question was, what about the Japanese Spacecraft ?
Did they have the right cameras to photograph some moon
landing sites in Highres ?
@ Stefan,
All of the points you mentioned are COVERED in the Videos I posted above.
Thanks.
Quote from: FatBird on November 29, 2009, 03:17:09 PM
Here is ABSOLUTE PROOF they did NOT go to the moon!!!!
Hi Fatbird.
Traveling through the Van Allen Belt only delivers and equivalent of radiation to 4 standard X-Rays per 'Day' if you remain in it!
the radiation lessons with the square of the distance and dramatically drops off after leaving the Van Allen Belt.
The Astronauts could of easily survive the trip both through and back through the Van Allen Belt.
this is what happens when you don't do the mathematical research, you begin to believe in lies.
there was another type of this thread where I did the math for the Van Allen Belt and radiation exposer.
stop listening to crackpots and pay more attention to the real numbers.
Human error has nothing to do with God, Human luckiness also has nothing to do with God, this Universe doesn't care what you believe, if you are in the wrong spot at the wrong time then that's it period.
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 29, 2009, 04:00:49 PM
Here is the rover in normal (x2) speed, so you see, that this
behaves totally normal and the sand is flying normally down to Earth !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxE
But the question was, what about the Japanese Spacecraft ?
Did they have the right cameras to photograph some moon
landing sites in Highres ?
If you have ever driven in the desert, you will know its not just large sand particles there. There is also much fine dust. Why does dust not hang in the air in this video?
Quote from: utilitarian on November 29, 2009, 05:45:08 PM
If you have ever driven in the desert, you will know its not just large sand particles there. There is also much fine dust. Why does dust not hang in the air in this video?
I think it depends on the sand they have used there in the studio.
When they have just put in the studio just normal grain beach sand, it is
sure that there is not much dust, just only flying beach sand.
Regards, Stefan.
Mythbusters has a lot on the Moon Hoax and lots of money to investigate it.
here are a few from Mythbusters.
Mythbusters Moon flag waving hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&NR=1
Mythbusters Moon Footprint Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5taIxlNA_Lw&feature=related
Mythbusters Moon Hoax Retroreflectors(nailing the coffin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&feature=related
Jerry 8)
But not enough to finance a trip back there :) We really wont know until someone else goes there and brings back some goodies to put up on ebay.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on November 30, 2009, 02:22:51 PM
Mythbusters has a lot on the Moon Hoax and lots of money to investigate it.
here are a few from Mythbusters.
Mythbusters Moon flag waving hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&NR=1
Mythbusters Moon Footprint Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5taIxlNA_Lw&feature=related
Mythbusters Moon Hoax Retroreflectors(nailing the coffin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&feature=related
Jerry 8)
After much attention.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/space-soil-satellites-help-farmers
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18030-found-first-skylight-on-the-moon.html
http://gizmodo.com/5366687/new-high+def-home-video-from-the-edge-of-space
Some images to maybe help you out. these where all hd photos some at around the same height as the ones posted by NASA that give way better shoots.
Hi,
look here
http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo (http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo)
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=228009 (http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=228009)
http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIb.html (http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIb.html)
http://de.sevenload.com/videos/qRCeZMH-Mondlandung-doch-gefakt (http://de.sevenload.com/videos/qRCeZMH-Mondlandung-doch-gefakt)
Regards
Kator01
Night Talk: Interview With Buzz Aldrin
Part-1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkoVYsyQ31U
Part-2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4scACefjvw&NR=1
Part-3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mEcVpzc-8A
Part-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYxSRnhINK4&feature=related
Part-5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5k8ZfoKPZ4&NR=1
Part-6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX5h1EcC7G0&feature=related
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on November 30, 2009, 02:22:51 PM
Mythbusters Moon Hoax Retroreflectors(nailing the coffin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&feature=related
Jerry 8)
Hmm,
this now seems to me a very good reason, that there really are these
special reflectors on the moon,
but the question is, how were they brought up there ?
Or is it maybe not at all a reflexion from the moon,
but only from the ionosphere of the earth ?
But this they would probably check due to the speed running length
of the beam...
Hmm, so the question now is, did some astronauts put these reflectors
there or have some unmanned moon probes put them there ?
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 04, 2009, 04:54:15 PM
Hmm,
this now seems to me a very good reason, that there really are these
special reflectors on the moon,
but the question is, how were they brought up there ?
Or is it maybe not at all a reflexion from the moon,
but only from the ionosphere of the earth ?
But this they would probably check due to the speed running length
of the beam...
Hmm, so the question now is, did some astronauts put these reflectors
there or have some unmanned moon probes put them there ?
Regards, Stefan.
But there wasn't any other unmanned mission to put the reflector on the moon.
Really, if we could take close up pictures of the moon buggy and the flag and maybe some footprints, all these same objections would be put up. ("How do we know there was not an unmanned mission to put the flag on the moon?")
I just don't see why it is so hard to believe that we put a man on the moon. We had the technology to do it, and we did it. If you believe that perpetual motion is possible, why is the moon landing so outlandish and out of man's reach? Mankind is pretty crafty.
QuoteMankind is pretty crafty.
On that we certainly do agree! There are those among mankind for whom it is a prime virtue.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS"Blessings in Yeshua
Quote from: utilitarian on December 05, 2009, 12:01:59 PM
I just don't see why it is so hard to believe that we put a man on the moon. We had the technology to do it, and we did it.
Well, the moon lander was so unstable with just one rocket motor ,
it would have at least crashed once during all
the moon missions.
Also I have read that there was not enough space in the moon lander,
so the astronauts could not dress well into their moon suits in the lander capsule´s
exit door decompression room.
And all the other problems that you can see, when you
type in "moon hoax" in youtube...
http://www.jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html
There is certainly enough intrigue surrounding the events to go around!
TS
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 05, 2009, 01:44:18 PM
Well, the moon lander was so unstable with just one rocket motor ,
it would have at least crashed once during all
the moon missions.
Also I have read that there was not enough space in the moon lander,
so the astronauts could not dress well into their moon suits in the lander capsule´s
exit door decompression room.
And all the other problems that you can see, when you
type in "moon hoax" in youtube...
Smarter minds than yours and mine designed the rocket engines for the descent and ascent modules, and they worked without crashing. Many manhours were devoted to making sure these things worked right, and they worked right. I don't know what else to say about that. If you look at missiles and rockets here on earth, they often also have a single engine and seem to be able to fly straight just fine.
Here is a webpage that describes how the flight control and guidance system of the lunar lander worked to keep the craft stable.
http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/gn.htm (http://www.apollosaturn.com/Lmnr/gn.htm)
Also, I found the attached diagram of the inside of the lander module, and there appears to be ample space for the astronauts to stand and move around a bit, so I am sure they can squeeze into a space suit there.
And really, I have looked into most claims related to the moon landing hoax. I am talking about "no stars in photos", flag waving, Van Allen radiation, shadows, identical backgrounds, fake moon rocks, and other claims, and there seem to be good answers to these. I wonder which claims specifically you are referring to.
I also do wonder what evidence, available today on Earth, would be sufficient to prove we went to the moon. Is there is none, aside from magically going back in time and following the Apollo flights with some kind of camera?
Lets chip away at this.
Deploying the Lunar Rover.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-M5r2OKPNk&NR=1
here is a picture of the inside of the fully loaded lunar module.
Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhcs6qiHLI
Armstrong was nearly killed when the LLRV crashed. Both LLRV crashed, yet much harder on the Moon landing on the Moon w/o runways/view to sides/down and so on... it worked six times w/o a single problem!
Amazing, is not it? Certainly. Must be noted that the used engine on LLRV is NOT a rocket, but a normal turbofan engine. That engine can be easily throtled and controlled, while rocket engines are way much harder to throtle or control... not to mention that even a 500lbs engine can make a small crater into -solid CONCRETE!
(check 2nd try there:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mHuhtS3658o
or here:
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2005_09_10/allHovers.mpg
Amazing! And what a 9 982 lbs engine can do to a light regolit dust? That:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/AS11-40-5921.jpg
Not see a thing? Well, that engine was never meant to run, you know.
It was just put on the scene with crane...
there was a documentary about a decade ago where the interviewer ask Hollywood productions if they could of faked the moon landing with all the video they had, Hollywood say it would of been impossible in 1969 to build a studio with the type of graphics needed, Hollywood did not have computer graphics that sophisticated or even none at all. at best they said they could of made a good B movie but that was about it.
there is no way NASA had better equipment then Hollywood to make a movie of that magnitude and sophistication.
Jerry :)
Jerry, just ask Stanley Kubrick,
how he did it ! ;)
http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 06, 2009, 09:03:36 PM
Jerry, just ask Stanley Kubrick,
how he did it ! ;)
http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
How credible is the author of that article, who, what, when, where, why did he receive such information. even Richard C. Hoagland says we went to the moon and he doesn't even like NASA and he was a top advisor with NASA in 1969, I have known Richard C. Hoagland for about 20 years now, I have even talked to Michio Kaku and he says we went to the moon.
I would be glad to give you the screen names for Richard and Michio for verification, you would have to keep the screen names secret because they'll get hit with IM's and be forced to change screen names to avoid being bugged to much. I have been talking off and on with them for about 21 years now, somewhere close to that.
where are all the rogue NASA employee's of 1969 coming out and saying it was all a hoax? they should of been plaguing NASA a long time ago.
thanks for the link stefan.
how's the weather in the homelands? it's snowing here in Sierria county, California.
Jerry :)
There was a top rated science fiction movie called 'Marooned' made in 1969, as I compared the hollywood effects of this movie with actual space footage I can say without a doubt that the movie Marooned graphics really sucked.
they did their best to make it look real but even a novice could easily see that the technology used to make Marooned was by no means capable of faking a moon landing by NASA.
you can watch the movie Marooned from varies free movie sites, if you download it then it is around 697MB in size.
I think you will be rather disappointed in most of the graphics.
shoot, even the episodes of Star Trek in 1969, the graphics were horrible at best.
we have to stick with 1969 technology to analyze what they could actually do in Hollywood in those days.
good investigative team work is really needed in this area on the subject of 1969 movie Technology.
Jerry ;)
Hi Jerry,
what do you think is too difficult to put a LEM into a big hall
with beach sand at the floor and putting moon landscape picture slides
on the walls and using big lights to light it all up, so it looks
like the moon ?
If you additionally use hookup wires from the ceiling for the 1/6 gravity effect and with
1/2 slow motion, it makes so much sense...
At the age of 8 years in 1969 I already had the feeling, that there was something wrong...
I already "smelled" this hookupwire pull trick,
when the astronauts had fallen and wanted to stand up again
and as a kid I already wondered, how they could standup again
this easily as if a mystical force has helped them pull the astronauts up again ?
I remember watching the moon landings very closely during these
days on our familiy´s 1st black and white TV at this time as a kid
and I always wondered, who would pull them up ?
Now we know:
Have a look at this video and you see,
how they already could have faked it in 1969:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Regards, Stefan.
Also,
who is the other guy without moon suit,who picks up stuff
from the ground at 0:51 in this video ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfHwQGb40fk
Do you think, that is just faked ?
Equally I could say, they are faking the
laser pointer retroreflector evidence...
How do you know, that they really point the lasers
to the locations on the moon and that it is not a reflection
from the earth ionosphere or a normal moon reflection location,
where the moon maybe has higher reflective rock material like Pyrit and
might be simular reflecting the laser beams like the retroreflectors ?
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 07, 2009, 05:36:40 AM
Also,
who is the other guy without moon suit,who picks up stuff
from the ground at 0:51 in this video ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfHwQGb40fk
Do you think, that is just faked ?
Yes, this video is faked. Why does it only have 3000 hits on youtube, and no one seems to ever bring up this evidence anywhere? Even the very serious moon landing hoax websites never mention this.
With regard to the astronaut getting up with apparently the help of wires, look carefully. The other astronaut, who is already standing, assists the fallen astronaut with his right hand, which the fallen astronaut takes with his left hand. In 1/6 gravity, it is easy to help a fallen person get up, as shown in the video, and the effect you see is just that.
I know it seems odd that the fallen astronaut gets up without using his knees or really pushing against the ground in any way, but that is because he is pushing against the hand of his companion.
@utilitarian
I disagree with you, but okay, it is your right to have a different view.
There are other youtube videos, where you can see it better,
how the astronaut is pulled up via the hookup wires, but I don´t find it right now.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 09:05:41 AM
Yes, this video is faked. Why does it only have 3000 hits on youtube, and no one seems to ever bring up this evidence anywhere? Even the very serious moon landing hoax websites never mention this.
this is a logical fallacy. how many hits the video may or may not have has no bearing on whether or not it is fake...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 07, 2009, 11:36:25 AM
this is a logical fallacy. how many hits the video may or may not have has no bearing on whether or not it is fake...
One, do you think the moon landing was faked? I am just curious if you have an actual position, or if you are just here to accuse me of logical fallacies. I know, I know, irrelevant, right? You hold no positions, you just look for random logical fallacies.
Two, an unpopular video is a sign of the video not being interesting to people. If the video was genuine, it would be very interesting, but if most people regarded this as a fake, they would not bother linking to it, as it is not noteworthy in that sense. So there is the logical tie in.
But thank you for your vigilant eye for logical fallacies. Not on Wilby's watch!!!
we know that probes are sent up to space on a common basis, a manned ship has been sent to space for decades, once your in space it takes very little fuel to get to the moon and back, it is very dangerous up there especially if you're a quarter of a million miles a way from home, disaster lingers at the distance.(fact)
radiation was not a problem for the astronauts and there are numbers to prove it and I did illustrate the numbers of dosages from the Van Allen Belt, 4 standard X-Rays a day if you remain in the Van Allen Belt(unshielded), this is equivalent to less than one PET scan per 24 hour period.(fact).
It is easier to land on the moon and less dangerous than it is landing on the Earth. (fact).
I see no logical reason at all why we could not of traveled to the Moon. all the numbers are real and present, the rockets fuel to weight ratio's were all correct, the food, water, oxygen were all correct ratio's.
make a list of 'why' we could not of 'traveled' and landed on the moon and I will find the numbers and post them.
Jerry 8)
the rocket was tracked by countless universities, and a reflective panel was left on the moon that can still be used today by bouncing off a laser or strong light
it can be proved that a rocket left earth, went to the moon, landed, dropped something off, and came back
what cannot be proven is whether or not a human was actually there,
what also cannot be proven is the validity of the videos, people faking a fake moon landing and saying it is real, or slapping a piece of paper in front of the camera that happens to have the words "NASA top secret" in giant letters on it, but why would NASA save any evidence they faked it? it seems they would be smart enough to destroy it, let alone put a title card at the beginning of the video that tells everyone they did
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
One, do you think the moon landing was faked? I am just curious if you have an actual position, or if you are just here to accuse me of logical fallacies.
no i don't. what's with the paranoia? it's not an accusation. an argument is either logical or it is not. yours was not.
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
I know, I know, irrelevant, right?
correct.
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
You hold no positions, you just look for random logical fallacies.
incorrect. i do have personal opinions, they are however, irrelevant to whether or not the video is genuine or faked.
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
Two, an unpopular video is a sign of the video not being interesting to people. If the video was genuine, it would be very interesting, but if most people regarded this as a fake, they would not bother linking to it, as it is not noteworthy in that sense. So there is the logical tie in.
a video may be unpopular (assuming the definition of unpopular as having few 'hits', relatively speaking) for numerous reasons, yet still be interesting to people. what is 'interesting' from one indivdual to the next is completely subjective, there will be certain people who will be interested in it either way. what is 'noteworthy' from one individual to the next is completely subjective also... case in point this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlYCVpPo1WQ
13,527,520 views and it's not interesting, at least to not to me and i would bet it's not interesting to stefan either. it's a logical fallacy tie in.
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
But thank you for your vigilant eye for logical fallacies. Not on Wilby's watch!!!
you're welcome, you may find this of use.
"In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true. "
the above quote as well as a list of logical fallacies can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 07, 2009, 02:26:10 PM
13,527,520 views and it's not interesting, at least to not to me and i would bet it's not interesting to stefan either. it's a logical fallacy tie in.
I think you are committing a logical fallacy of your own by changing around the situation and assuming I am alleging the converse of my position. It is not my position that a popular video is necessarily good evidence of something. Furthermore, it is unfair to twist the definition of "interesting" beyond the context in which I presented it.
My position, which you could have easily gathered from context, even though I did not spell it out as I am about to do, is that a video that is unpopular, but which contains subject matter that is crucial to the resolution of a highly controversial topic, is more likely to be unpersuasive and not "interesting" to the discussion, for whatever reason (in this case, because it is likely not genuine). If this particual video is to be taken at its face value, i.e. it is a legitimate NASA video of the purported lunar landing that contains in frame a person without a spacesuit, then it is pretty much proof positive that NASA faked at least some of the Apollo missions. And this is a pretty devastating information.
So why does this video languish in obscurity, even among the most vocal proponents of the moon landing hoax theory? I am not saying that all unpopular videos are fake. I am saying that the fact that this video is unpopular, despite its apparent newsworthiness, tends to indicate that it is fake, because otherwise it would be very big news indeed.
Lastly, I think this is a good example of your needless nitpicking, which does little to further the discussion. Whether or not I committed a logical fallacy is a matter of debate. This is without question true, as we are currently debating it, and say whatever you want, I have a defensible position. Unfortunately, debating it does not further the discussion one iota. The topic at hand is whether the moon landings were faked or not. Perhaps more specifically, is the video Stefan linked genuine or fake. By your own admission, you do not believe in the moon landing hoax, and by extension, you must believe this video to be a fake, since if it were genuine, you would not hold the position you do regarding the moon landing. So seriously, why nitpick here? Are you some kind of logical fallacy police? Even my responding to you derails this topic, so I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future, but I wanted to say my piece before I start ignoring you.
what would you concider solid evidence that man went to the Moon in 1969?
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 07, 2009, 09:26:29 PM
what would you concider solid evidence that man went to the Moon in 1969?
I do not know if this is directed at me, but I think it's a totality of the circumstances type of situation. Not one particular piece. Some items:
1. There are movies taken of the astronauts driving for miles in the rover. If this was a closed set, this would mean that it would have to be the largest building ever made. If this was not a closed set, but in a desert, then there would be normal desert type fauna being observed, or at least some wind and dust from the tires hanging in the air, which we do not see in the footage.
2. The moon rocks and the dust carried off by the astronauts has been examined by top scientists all over the world and has been confirmed to not be of earth origin.
3. There have been recent photos of the lander module, albeit from too far away to see details, but you can make out foreign objects on the moon's surface.
4. Not a single soul has fessed up about this massive conspiracy. Can you imagine the publishing rights to such a story? Or if people are really that scared of the MiBs, at least a deathbed confession? And really, how well do you think the government can keep something like this under wraps? "Don't talk about the faked moon landing!" Please, is the war on drugs working?
5. Wouldn't the Russians have pulled the alarm on the fraud? Surely they were tracking the mission all the way to the moon.
6. Why fake it six times? Seriously. If you get away with it once, why push your luck? Just do it once and say we got there and then shut up about it before you screw up and make a mistake.
And finally, there is no real evidence that we did fake it. Everything that has ever been brought up has a refutation. So at this point, it is up to the conspiracy proponents to prove up their case. "What if it was faked this way or that way" does not cut it. Show evidence that it was actually faked. Get some testimony or hard evidence. There is none.
I remember Apollo 8, which was one of the world's great coming together moments and it was totally transfixing.
I watched the landing on TV, and had the Revel model of the Lunar Module.
I went to Cape Canaveral and saw the rockets.
The physics makes perfect sense.
I looked at moon rock samples in different museums.
I saw Buzz Aldrin speak once.
I saw the clip where Buzz punches the dude in the face.
I saw the splashdown on TV.
Utterly impossible to have that large a conspiracy.
Thousands of subcontractors.
Mercury and Gemini.
The clip of the dude off to the right is a poor fake.
Recent moon satellite pics of landing sites.
It's a slam-dunk! lol
Now the Face on Mars, that's another story!
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 10:02:06 PM
1. There are movies taken of the astronauts driving for miles in the rover. If this was a closed set, this would mean that it would have to be the largest building ever made. If this was not a closed set, but in a desert, then there would be normal desert type fauna being observed, or at least some wind and dust from the tires hanging in the air, which we do not see in the footage.
Can you please post a movie link to it ?
I want to see, if one can see any edits or cuts in it.
Many thanks.
P.S. There are still many issues with the moon landings, that the supporters
can not explain, e.g. the wrong lighting, the wrong shadows, the wrong
camera flash reflexions, astronauts being pulled up by hookup wires,
the rocket start back from the moon without any flames, or exhausts, etc..
and filming the liftoff with a remote controlled camera from earth so
that it would capture it so exactly but with a 2 second control delay included
(due to the distance earth moon)... ??
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 10:02:06 PM
2. The moon rocks and the dust carried off by the astronauts has been examined by top scientists all over the world and has been confirmed to not be of earth origin.
One sample of it from a museum in the Netherlands was recently discovered to be a fake.
If they faked this one, how many others did they fake too ?
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 08:54:49 PM
I think you are committing a logical fallacy of your own by changing around the situation and assuming I am alleging the converse of my position. It is not my position that a popular video is necessarily good evidence of something. Furthermore, it is unfair to twist the definition of "interesting" beyond the context in which I presented it.
you think wrong. why don't you show us all which fallacy i commited, i gave you a list. as i said previously, 'interesting' is completely subjective from one person to the next.
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 08:54:49 PM
My position, which you could have easily gathered from context, even though I did not spell it out as I am about to do, is that a video that is unpopular, but which contains subject matter that is crucial to the resolution of a highly controversial topic, is more likely to be unpersuasive and not "interesting" to the discussion, for whatever reason (in this case, because it is likely not genuine). If this particual video is to be taken at its face value, i.e. it is a legitimate NASA video of the purported lunar landing that contains in frame a person without a spacesuit, then it is pretty much proof positive that NASA faked at least some of the Apollo missions. And this is a pretty devastating information.
which is a logical fallacy, the 'popularity' a video has no bearing on it being genuine or fake... why can't you comprehend this?
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 08:54:49 PM
So why does this video languish in obscurity, even among the most vocal proponents of the moon landing hoax theory? I am not saying that all unpopular videos are fake. I am saying that the fact that this video is unpopular, despite its apparent newsworthiness, tends to indicate that it is fake, because otherwise it would be very big news indeed.
i don't know and i don't care. why?
because it is irrelevant. i didn't say you said all unpopular videos are fake. i am saying that is not a cogent argument.
Quote from: utilitarian on December 07, 2009, 08:54:49 PM
Lastly, I think this is a good example of your needless nitpicking, which does little to further the discussion. Whether or not I committed a logical fallacy is a matter of debate. This is without question true, as we are currently debating it, and say whatever you want, I have a defensible position. Unfortunately, debating it does not further the discussion one iota. The topic at hand is whether the moon landings were faked or not. Perhaps more specifically, is the video Stefan linked genuine or fake. By your own admission, you do not believe in the moon landing hoax, and by extension, you must believe this video to be a fake, since if it were genuine, you would not hold the position you do regarding the moon landing. So seriously, why nitpick here? Are you some kind of logical fallacy police? Even my responding to you derails this topic, so I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future, but I wanted to say my piece before I start ignoring you.
to be honest, your logical fallacies do little to clear up whether or not the video is genuine or fake. it's not a matter of debate. you commited one. you haven't yet, in your original fallacy or your last response, demonstrated a cogent argument... furthermore, my opinions and everyone else's for that matter have
no bearing on whether or not the videos/landings were faked. so seriously, read the definition of what an argument is in my last post and go brush up on what a cogent argument is instead of pandering your subjective opinions as factual or logical... your logical fallacies and refusal to see them for what they are is what is 'de-railing' the topic. yes, i am the logical fallacy police, i take the time to educate you because i care about the (ab)use of logic and reason. stefan has brought up some interesting points, if you have something other than opinion and subjective analysis to rebut with i'm sure we would all love to hear it.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 08, 2009, 05:28:16 AM
the 'popularity' a video has no bearing on it being genuine or fake
You still do not get it. I am not saying, as you are asserting, that the popularity of a video is indicative of it being genuine or fake. I am saying the unpopularity of a video, when it purports to be dispositive regarding a highly controversial subject, is indicative of it being a fake. Reason being, if it was genuine, it would be popular, as it would be often cited to resolve this controversial question. This seems to be a fine distinction that eludes your highly logical mind for some reason.
Do you disagree with the proposition that if this video was genuine it would be more popular? If so, on what grounds?
(Again, I am NOT asking: if this video was popular, would it be genuine? That is a wholly separate question.)
Well, the popularity of a youtube video does not count.
Maybe its title is not so excat, so not too many people find it ,
so its view numbers are low..
But there are still many open questions, that the moon
landing supporters can not answer and the recent official Netherland´s museum
fake of moon stone and the lost original moon tapes, etc...
make me go hmmmm...
I will wait, until they will present undoubtly high res pictures
or movies from
the Apollo landing areas, which will not be possible to be faked...
The question is, could they also fake these photos or videos in
the future and how could this be checked for the truth ?
Maybe we should all email Dr. West at ESO
to finally take the pictures we are all waiting for ?
I quote from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
"The Daily Telegraph (London) published a story in 2002 saying that European astronomers at the Very Large Telescope would use it to view the remains of the Apollo lunar landers. According to the article, Dr Richard West said that his team would take "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites". Marcus Allen, a Moon hoax proponent, pointed out in the story that no images of hardware on the Moon would convince him that manned landings had taken place.[49] As the VLT is capable of resolving equivalent to the distance between the headlights of a car as seen from the Moon,[50] it may be able to directly image some features of the Apollo landing site. Such photos, if and when they become available, would be the first non-NASA produced images of the site at that definition."
Well, the email address of Dr. West is:
rwest@eso.org
and his webpage is:
http://www.eso.org/~rwest/
Please send him a message to ask for the pictures...
I will do now too.
Many thanks.
If the moon landing was real historical event?
I doubt it. Real events do not create "hoax" for so many years.
Enjoy the following video clips if you have time.
The speaker said, NASA deleted 40 rolls of pictures during the Apollo mission period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbpGpMe3qY
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 06, 2009, 08:57:30 PM
there was a documentary about a decade ago where the interviewer ask Hollywood productions if they could of faked the moon landing with all the video they had, Hollywood say it would of been impossible in 1969 to build a studio with the type of graphics needed, Hollywood did not have computer graphics that sophisticated or even none at all. at best they said they could of made a good B movie but that was about it.
there is no way NASA had better equipment then Hollywood to make a movie of that magnitude and sophistication.
Jerry :)
This is a juicy one: ...seeing as how I constantly hear on the history channel interviewees claiming things like "We had things 50 years ahead of that in the warehouse"...
God knows what they have now.. things 200 years ahead of us? ..are they seing into the future? Bleh.
Authenticity: Hasn't anyone wondered why it is that these devices we send out aren't actively controlled? ..again, why is it that the thing's imaging has to be automated?
Sorry if already mentioned... If you suspect a photo has been modified, used "exif" and it will tell you.. Exif says all photos have been modified by Photoshop (understandable since arrows etc have been added) BUT. . Would be great if the original thumbnails where still there :-) ,but it is easy to remove them ,and obviously they have been removed/overwritten from these photos, as the Embedded thumbnail images are the same as the modified ones..photoshop does not overwrite the Embedded thumbnail image ,when you modify an image with it. This is how scambaiters catch out Nigerian Scammers when they send us Photos, we look at the Embedded thumbnail image to see what the photo looked like before it was changed. (the embedded thumbnail image is generated by the camera that took the photo originally along with a lot of the other data you see when you use exif such as f stops etc)
Below is part of the report from the exif plugin for firefox
Exif IFD0
* Picture Orientation = normal (1)
* X-Resolution = 72/1 ===> 72
* Y-Resolution = 72/1 ===> 72
* X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
* Software / Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
* Last Modified Date/Time = 2009:07:17 14:11:59
All good sceptics should have an exif viewer installed in their browser:-)
http://www.romancescambaiter.com/exifinfo.htm for links to exif viewers
I really don't see any physical limitations of why we couldn't go to the moon, none.
it is very costly though, some people might argue that it is money wasted and should be used for other purposes, these are the people that might kill the space program.
They have never released a real photo from space. I cracked their pictures (That's the right word for them) a year ago. Computer generated and filled with subliminals they have a main normal theme like lifeforms found on the rail road tracks with pieces of track stamped all over the background. Then you can pick out layers of sublimes afterwards. I just released another package of them and I'll bet they are taken off the net already. They don't host pictures here and I don't blame them. That takes a lot of band width. I put them on sites like rapidshare that is supposedly run by countries unfriendly to the U.S. and it's amazing how they get removed. You would think Iran would protect and distribute them wouldn't you. I literally gave the scientists hell for leaving scientific method and not even knowing what Mars looked like. I pointed out to these arm chair scientific religious fanatics that they didn't even know what the planet Mars looked like and the pictures of Mars were of a shemale stretching her rear checks wrapped around a sphere.
Oh yes, the NASA guys really go for the shemales. The meteor crashing into Mars picture, more of the same. Just like the electrical storms and dust devils. All of this scientific information is a computer generated fabrication. What are they hiding up there? A lot! They have been subverting science since Clementine at the least. With these chemtrails they spray you can't even take a good picture of the moon. You get a white round splotch if you do. The chemtrails defuse the light. A telescope is a light gathering device. Put those two facts together and it explains why you only get a featureless splotch. I'll look up some examples for you and post them later. All the old stuff is off the computer and new stuff is done like pictures from the hubble calenders and things. I just finished going over the new released pictures of the volcano in Iceland. They could have used real pictures, what Iceland is a matter of national security or is it whatever agenda to pass the masses more sublime smut that caused them to release what they did? See they though no one would come up with a way to show what they did even if someone caught on to it. I found an old picture called giant plants that was controversial about Mars life a while back. It has about 10 layers of crap on it, it will take me a bit to get back with it.
Here, never saw these before, hot off the press. Hope I didn't highlight to many of the images and make it confusing. Supposed to be the footpad of Apollo. Enjoy! Download them and zoom right in and look at them, billions or is it trillions for computer generated crap pictures.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on January 15, 2010, 09:49:10 AM
I really don't see any physical limitations of why we couldn't go to the moon, none.
No human has EVER left the safety of low Earth Orbit (see Van Alan Belt).
Why Haven't We Gone Back (c) Jarrah White
A critical analysis of the past and current Moon Programs of the United States and Russia, and why neither country has tried to go back to the Moon in Forty Years!
MoonFaker: Why Not Go Back? PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Ka14URW5w
MoonFaker: Why Not Go Back? PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Joz6vnpsg
MoonFaker: Why Not Go Back? PART 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_X6W5WH_Dk&annotation_id=annotation_882104&feature=iv
--------------------------------------------------------
Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
--------------------------------------------------------
MoonFaker: Silent Space PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpe5Hkjxdjk
MoonFaker: Silent Space PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eQmcya4e_c&feature=related
Regardless of whether you believe we went to the moon or not, the fact remains that three men died in what was to be the first manned Apollo mission. As part of the recent 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, we explore the the dark and disturbing truth regarding the Apollo 1 mission. Be prepared to dig deep into the conflicting statements, known safety violations, and backpedaling that went into the preparations and aftermath of Apollo 1.
It is clear that NASA and North American Aviation planned the Apollo 1 fire and let Grissom and his crew die, and have effectively covered up the truth of what happened that day. If it wasn't murder, it was severe negligence in the extreme.
IN LONG LOVING MEMORY OF Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
Edward Higgens White, Jr.
Roger Bruce Chaffee
MoonFaker: Apollo 1: PART 1 of 11 http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJarrahWhite#p/search/3/7D3o1htlz9c
Schpankme
Science and technology development today actually. people have gradually discovered the universe to learn the rules of life. Space exploration as the more mysterious, exciting. Previously kept wondering if the earth was square, life is born from God. It's a matter of belief, but scientists do not believe so, gradually discovering new rules. Soon, there will be people to another planet to live.
No,No listen they have been far into space. We have been left out in the cold. UFOs are seen around the world, way to many to come from anywhere but Earth. I'd say millions of sighting are proof enough. Then we go to the other topic, a few fake pictures and a few shaky accounts of aliens. There is no proof of Aliens. So you come to the only conclusion you can, we did it all. The tax payer paid for the research and got lied to. Want some reasons for this? They can go mining and have no oversight. They can start a little side kingdom. They can lord it over on the rest of the world that there science is better and look upon us as subhuman. Check those sublimes in the picture above. They think they are smarter than you because they know what's on it and they stick it in your face and you don't see it. It's a real mental trip for them. Face it, what makes sense, there are advanced races visiting our planet or the unidentified craft come from here. Three people in the U.S. have the rights to over 90% of the rights to the resources of the solar system. No one contests this because no one thinks we can get up there and get those resources. They are free to then plunder and destroy strip mining and leave the human race a mess to clean up when we wish to terraform. Check out the CIA and FBI on the number of missing persons per year and see where they could get a work force for this.
1947, we had Operation Paper Clip well under way. We had some of the Brotherhood of the Bell here. 1947 we had the Roswell incident. We had Operation Highjump. 2 saucers crashed in New Mexico. Since 1947 several countries have been camped out in a circle in Antarctica. No matter what if you are found on the continent you are unceremoniously thrown off. It's been that way for decades. The most likely thing they are camped around is a spaceport. All the other stuff they have been telling you is just one lie heaped on top of another. That's why they say the lie is different on every level. Not one picture of a ice burg or Antarctica is real either, just more subliminal crap. They have messed with maps so much you don't remember what the Earth looks like, how big do you think Greenland is? Well I'm after them to get them to release this physics and technology they are hiding.
It will be a while before I can come back and read the post again. They are having spring cleanup in Erie, you can check this out on Erie net. The best off homes through out nice stuff many homes don't have. I got a small 4 cyl nothing truck and help redistribute some of the stuff. When Oboma said Pennsylvania is an economically suppressed area the little thing he let out was he was aware of the fact because it is so by design.
Quote from: raburgeson on April 08, 2010, 10:44:01 PM
No,No listen they have been far into space. We have been left out in the cold. UFOs are seen around the world, way to many to come from anywhere but Earth. I'd say millions of sighting are proof enough. Then we go to the other topic, a few fake pictures and a few shaky accounts of aliens. There is no proof of Aliens. a is an economically suppressed area the little thing he let out was he was aware of the fact because it is so by design.
raburgeson,
All your previous posts read exactly the same: the government is out to get you/us; they really 'did it' we got proof, their just hiding the proof from you; your tax dollars pay for technology they won't show you, and have you seen any UFO's lately.
You sound like a government dis-informer.
Schpankme
"No human has ever left the safety of low earth orbit."
I haven't seen anything except a chemtrail fog around here. You can't even see planes that land at the airport. Tell me what's up with that?
I don't want to see the taxpayer saddled with payments to a place that produces lies. A 1970 U2 carried a 4 gigabyte camera. Tell me they sent less on any of these probes they have sent into space. What do we get? Mars pictures that have 30 or 40 shots sewed together that are 2 megs? Oh Hubble can't take a picture of the moon or mars, they are too close. What a lie. And equal lie is the Hubble Earth pictures on the net and that's closer to Hubble. I'm not disinforming I'm exposing and they will not lie out of it. They have been lying over 5 decades and I'm calling a halt to it.
Go to google and search Hubble Earth images, go get them quick before they disappear now that I mention they exist. How do they land a probe in an atmosphere. They use parachutes right, specially in the old days. I'll tell you what they told us about Venus. They told us Venus has a molten surface and extreme atmospheric temperatures. So extreme that a parachute would not survive and they would never have probed Venus at all. Then go look up the reflectivity of the atmosphere of Venus. It wouldn't be hot there. Then look at the chemtrails again. They have many uses, they form a capacitive affect in the atmosphere. Do you have any education about wave guides? Right now they are shaking over what I had to say about their chemtrails. Here's what I am going to tell you about them today, the people involved with the atmospheric spraying are involved with treason. When I reported the sky was a bright white frost that was as white as the snow for three weeks we got our first 3 days of sunshine this year. The period from the 27 of December till the time of my posting on chemtrail central we spent weeks not even being able to tell where the sun was. They are getting right back to the same crap right now. The only machines you can see around here are the 2 ambulance choppers that fly below the blanket of chemicals we are covered with. In the mean time we have a bunch of scientists that never work with their own data. Not one of them is working with a picture of the moon they took. That's not a theory that's a fact. And here is another fact, a group of scientists were set down to a picture that had pieces of petrified wood in them and not one of these could identify the wood even after they were asked about wood. To get the research and grant money these guys are willing to play any game the government wants to play. I've had it with those type of people and it's time we back them into the corner and get the truth out of them.
Me scared of them? No way, cockroaches crawl for a dark crack to hide in soon as you turn on the light.
Just listen to them, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Mars has a CO2 rich atmosphere. Mars is cold and has only got ice and no running water. We are given some mixed signals here, why doesn't information released from the government ever add up?
Check this out
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/92683-Moon-rock-in-Dutch-museum-is-just-petrified-wood
This comes a few years after what I was talking about above.
They were caught lying about global warming. A world wide lie was exposed. That's not a theory. That is a prime example of falsified scientific data and total abandonment of scientific method.
Alright, I have been here a long time, let's do a lucrative small project. I assure you this time will be very productive. First pick up this image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_%28region_of_Mars%29
Copy and paste this into your address bar. Go get it quick before it's replaced or deleted. It's the original face on Mars picture. You know the one I'm talking about. The picture that has caused worthless controversy for four decades and held back science. It is a gray scale gif file. That is not suitable for analysis. I will give you a copy here in case anything happens to the original. Oh, they already changed it. Alright let's do this one together but, let me show you the original and this copy has to be easy to find at other places. Let me bore you with the old one for a few minutes. I changed it this way. I opened the gif with paintshop pro and increased the color depth to 16 million colors, then saved it as a JPEG. The I increased image size to 600 in photoshop. So I went from this to this.
I will make a new post to continue for the increased size and it's analysis. You can right click these and recreate my work as we go along.
OK, upsized we get this, Photoshop reproduces images faithfully. Changed from a gray scale we can spray light films of color on it. Just highlight it so you can see the original lines beneath. It comes out like this. Download these and zoom in so you can see the details.
A quicky on their abstract art. There are small figures that fit together to make larger figures. Look these over. They clearly show there is no room left for a pixel from space. There are layers of art on one layer of sublimes. I'll make a new post for further analysis of the (face).
Here are some more images associated with the face. You don't believe they would do this to you? When I first found this stuff I didn't either. That's what made it better hidden. Let's find out who said the thing about hid in plain site, who said that. You will notice the small red highlighted figure in the one picture and the yellow figure in the dark area. If you ferret out the image just one size larger you will notice it becomes and arm that's cl;uching the neck, the head for this is just above the yellow figure. You should be able to work that out just looking at it right here at the post.
Once you get familiar with their art you can do this all day long to images from NASA, JPL, ESA, Japan and anywhere else space pictures come from. It get's boring fast. I didn't bother to do it but, if anyone would like to change the gray area to all the same gray and play connect the black dots that may produce something interesting too.
Quote from: raburgeson on April 10, 2010, 11:47:44 AM
Here are some more images associated with the face. You don't believe they would do this to you? When I first found this stuff I didn't either. That's what made it better hidden. Let's find out who said the thing about hid in plain site, who said that. You will notice the small red highlighted figure in the one picture and the yellow figure in the dark area. If you ferret out the image just one size larger you will notice it becomes and arm that's cl;uching the neck, the head for this is just above the yellow figure. You should be able to work that out just looking at it right here at the post.
Once you get familiar with their art you can do this all day long to images from NASA, JPL, ESA, Japan and anywhere else space pictures come from. It get's boring fast. I didn't bother to do it but, if anyone would like to change the gray area to all the same gray and play connect the black dots that may produce something interesting too.
Didn't NASA also tell you that they had PARACHUTED MARS ROVER(s) onto the surface of MARS?
Please describe, based on NASA information, how they accomplished parachuting anything to the surface of MARS!
Schpankme
Exactly the same way they do it here. Skip in the atmosphere to slow it down... They however do not claim to be parachuting into an atmosphere almost hot enough to melt steel in the Mars entry. Use your brain and add the heat of entry to a 1400 degree atmosphere. Even without the heat of entry a parachute would not work. They lied to us and the question is what are they hiding.
I didn't previously tell you the main reason they are definitely in space. The very first thing they did up there, their number one priority is to weaponize space. They do not care about international treaties or law. They spent 3 trillion dollar on star wars to upgrade every weapon up there and if you think I'm wrong you are fooling yourself.
These sublimes could be used for something positive, they could teach you a college course while you are watching a movie. True it would be stuck in you subconscious mind but, taking the course after wards would give you higher scores and make you retain the knowledge a lot longer. Instead they are promoting shemales and group humping which is destroying family values and the moral fiber of the country and you have to wonder what the agenda is there.
What represents creating false data, and promotes abnormal acts is a so called photo of a meteor striking mars. Let's go find that picture and do it as a group project. It's a real simple one there are only 4 or five figures to do on the meteor part itself and we will ignore the rest of the so called photo. That's as good and idea as any because I went and done the last one. How many of you have zoomed in on that picture as I presented it and how many of you have tried putting several of the small images together to make larger figures. That's as simple as having the picture in the center of the screen from right here on the site and stepping back a few feet and looking. It doesn't take much to prove what I'm saying, very little effort at all. I'm literally handing you this on a silver platter.
Energy travels quite freely in space. Mars probably gets almost the same amount of energy the Earth does. Before the lying started The 3 planets, Venus, Earth, and Mars were all three considered inside the circle of life for our sun, Sol. After they got there the whole story changed dramatically. Do you know the atmosphere around Venus is highly reflective. They figured the planet was going to be colder than ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
And Mars viewed through a telescope in a country that's not covered by chemtrails clearly shows it has both a North Pole and a South Pole. That indicates there is something temperate in between. But oh no, It has nothing but ice? Yet the planet has a high content of green house gas. Not only that but it also has a history of Methane that suggests there is life there. After seeing all the lying on the photographs I want the truth. There are good men out there that know something is not right with the data. Hoagland, Skippy and a host of others are fighting to understand what is wrong. They will swear the government would not give out false data and impede science. That's why they are not making any progress. It's not the first time, they were caught lying about global warming and falsifying data there. They were caught lying about the Lusitania. If the lie kills people they don't care. How about only Gays get AIDS?
This isn't the only battleground for the truth look at the 911 mess. Things don't add up there either and you have experts in every field yelling fowl.
I just checked google for that picture 34 pages into the search I realized they jerked it off the net. You say impossible, with the right amount of carrots and threats and the programmers to send web-bot programs after it they can destroy any information that's embarrassing to them. They live off the fact that computers loose more information than they produce. I have the pictures I will dig it up for you and it will not surprise me if they claim they never released it. If you find a avid amateur astronomer that keeps track of the news he will remember this release. Speaking of release the courts ordered the release of these pictures. Specially for Hubble they are in violation of the court order. I'm off to hunt through disks to find you that picture, they don't want you to have it so I will be sure to get back here and give it to you.
First one they don't want you to see. Turned up the brightness a bit so you can see better, other than that this is the original release.
I cracked this picture completely and they don't want to discuss it. Admin is going to get a lot of heat off of these. If you do admin report it immediately.
The main theme is lions and the thing is otherwise covered with subliminal smut of every kind, no topic is taboo.
Hay, I found it, it was my fault I didn't. I admit when I make a mistake. It was a comet not a meteor, here's the picture file name intact. Thousands of pictures and the years tick by, what can I say. 800 X 600 first one from google search tonight! I did this one and it's been copied and passed around the state big time. Won't do them any good to raid my picture stash, there are copies in other places. LOL Let's get together and do this so you can see what a piece of work NASA is.
second post for this pic, because, it's the exact same file name. This is the exact untouched release. No changes what so ever. Very relevant I still have thousands of pics to look through. Wait till I get them to court if they are that stupid. You know about the new laws? They can raid your house, take data, kill you. I can't wait to get NSA declared unconstitutional and the civil suits will be very lucrative too. Not to mention I'll be richer than god and force them to tell the truth.
Nice to be able to see the words in the light bars too? That giant tree is not only a lions head it is also the head of a viking type and guess where he has his arm stuffed past the elbow. I think we'll quickly quell the disinformer idea. Which one would you guys like to do first?
The topic is the moon guys but, we have to deal with the credibility of all the space programs first. We can deal with that quickly here with these two off topic pictures and swing right back to the topic. Do these training tools and you will be able to do the moon pictures on your own. Then we can discuss whether there might be rovers on Mars and why we never got a real picture from there if there are rovers there. I need you to tell me which one first. Then we do the truth about the moon. These 2 pics are second generation crap, they will make the first generation crap easy. I need you to pick. The quick one is the comet one. The other has so much hid on it it will take some time.
Look this is not a subject that can be discussed politely, what they are doing is not polite. We are going to be discussing the pedophiles that run boys town. Any government in the world will tell you the producers of the best P-O-R-N is the CIA. You want to know the truth and I'd like to teach you how to see the truth for yourselves. I will spend time on you if you will put forth the effort to learn. I will not waste time on you if you will not. Half of my state understands what I'm talking about and they are up in arms over it. The truth is ugly, sublimes are used for mind control. This is only a small part of the truth but knowing some of the story is better than not knowing any of it.
I will give you another one, I will not give you every thing. Why don't you look up on google search: government scandal boys town and figure out what type of people we are discussing. Here is the proof that they falsify scientific data. Right click it, save file as on desktop, zoom in on it and look at it. This is the truth.
For you guys that don't think I'm a disinformer I have something for you to think about. I apologize for the storage size. They are hiding what's on a whole planet not just a face. There has to be something completely marvelous up there, we have to go. We have to leave them out of the loop. The liars have no intention of quitting, they have the policy of lie to the masses from the cradle to the grave. We have to go get the truth ourselves.
I have a lot more to show you to prove every inch of every picture they have released is a lie. Remember NASA is a 4 letter alphabet government program. The green face in AN4 is also a lions face. This is all a bit abstract. The computer that produces these sublimes simply collapses the layer it makes. All saturation is removed from the layer. It appears you see an arm for instance go right through the figure beside the one you are working on. As you highlight these you can decide whether you wish to show the arm in front of or behind the next figure. The green face in AN4, look for the arm. I made the one that I would put behind the body for the red face, well I highlighted the hand in green. If I had not highlighted the red face you can see all of both arms. You can check this on the brightened image, the first of this picture I posted. Now I want you to understand without depth they can stamp layer on top of layer and confuse the the person viewing. They have many layers on this one. There are four faces where the red face is. See if you can spot another one. 2 eyes can produce a face 4 eyes can produce 7 faces. There are a lot of eyes in that small space. Counting side views you can add four more. They can also double as parts of the human breasts. Now be mature about this damn it. This explain how you can keep extracting more images out of the same area.
do you have high res images of this?
This is the only release size I have ever seen, I made the complaint earlier about the size of a U2 camera and what they give us to look at. That's just one more indication of what I'm telling you. There are images that have been downsized by people and I imagine someones upsized this somewhere. But it wouldn't be straight from NASA. You can enlarge it yourself. It's just a picture, it can't hurt you. It won't increase the res but, it make make it easier to work on. I include every affiliate of NASA, JPL and all the others as just NASA to me. I wish I had a hi res but that would mean there would just be more space for them to fill it up with more layers.
I hope we soon get back to the moon topic with you guys armed with a little 2nd gen information in your heads. You guys see what you can download and scarf up the highest res you can find. We can only work with what there is.
I tried to place those small blue highlights strategically so you will see other images on the left on your own. I hope it works, two are arms with the face just center and above a little bit. I hope to get you to the point you can do any picture you can find. You can pick up two pictures of the same thing released within a couple days of each other and they will have totally different sublime layers stamped on them. That adds to the confusion and keeps the science world hopping. They can actually produce these layers on the fly, they are doing it with a computer program. There are air brush artist involved also. They are spraying backgrounds and so on. The whole things a mess, we need to get this operation shut down and pry the truth from them. I don't think they know how to tell the truth and they will present us with another lie.
Don't work real hard at this now, just sit back and look at it and let it happen. These sublimes are instantly assembled by the subconscious mind in seconds you absorb all the information. Just relax and take it in. When I first learned this I used to put the images on desktop so I would see them more often.
OK, I said way earlier the main theme is lions. I took the one with the single lions head and I added a couple more lion heads, also I told you were a fourth one is. I also added a example of gun violence. The 2 near the center looks like a hold up. The 2 assassins on the left, you get that now and then. I have done thousands of pictures and have never had a picture shoot me yet. Untrained to fight the subconscious is like a five year old child and does not deal well with threats. Like a 5 year old child, hypnotist exploit this fact, the subconscious is easy to suggest to. You are doing nothing wrong studying these pictures, they were presented to you as data. You are only studying the data, that's a good thing, that's scientific method. You will strengthen you mind studying these. The threat is only psychological, the picture cannot harm you. There are quite a few messages to keep you from studying these. Like the white handed glove of a cop in another picture if you start to see the images, that's in another picture.
About an hour ago it came to me that I may have been called a disinformer because the man really believed in the face. My reaction to fight him was subconscious. Immediately I saw him as a government man out to stop me from doing this. I apologize. I have been stung by the government to many times and I don't back down.
Let's not get to graphic about what else you will find on these pictures, children come onto this site. Please guys let's keep it clean as possible. I'm sure many of you have already found some of this. Of course a child can put these together fast as you can. NASA thinks they are fit for your children to look at. From that view point, I don't know what to say.
Zoom in on them so you can see them.
OK, everyone should have found a dozen images by now, any of them. I didn't have you looking for specific images. Just seeing them and know that things get complicated. Now you should be ready to tackle the moon. Because you get a high res picture doesn't mean you get high res sublimes. When we get to Hubble pictures and 3rd generation crap you will see what I mean.
I will be frank and honest all the way through. You are going to run into what I can only call strange resolutions. I did find one very high resolution Hubble picture. It was the one that got away. I use photo shop and I was using replace color. Now this is something you do with 3rd gen stuff. You may pull up an image that looks mostly black and white. If you check the color count you find out there are thousands of colors in the picture. As you select colors around the picture and check them you will find that they are all extremely dark colors from different parts of the spectrum. They started hiding pictures in what looks to be a blank field. As you can maybe guess I have done a lot of hard work on this. Well the one that got away.
I was set to sample 3 pixels. I was clicking around a picture that mostly looked black. Photoshop reported an error. I clicked OK instead of cancel. I sprayed around the picture. 4 images popped up, they were beautiful, I have to describe what I saw but, I shouldn't discuss what the actual images looked like. Just the way they were displayed. They were red, green, and yellow metallic small squiggles That made up 4 sided polygons that made very awesome images. I was missing pieces of the images so like a dummy I closed it and didn't save it. I couldn't get Photoshop to do it again. I still wonder if I format and reload if I can do it again. I know which picture it is and I will point it out to you later. Maybe it was done with another art program, or, maybe Photoshop is the only one that will bring it up only incorrectly. I keep Paintshop on my computer too. I tried it with it and didn't get any results. Anyway, doing the top layer of Hubble pictures will yield higher resolution sublimes. But, I'm not trying to steer you to a prettier set of sublimes. My purpose with this is to get you to the realization that you have been left out in the cold and they are hiding something fantastic on you that you should know about. Like I said, they aren't just hiding a face on you, they are hiding a whole planet. If enough of you know and this grows the outcry for the real pictures ordered to be released under the freedom of information act. Be ready to receive another lie. I said we need to get up there. We need to at least put our own telescope in orbit around Mars and take our own pictures and work with our own data. To do that we are taking the first step now.
All of you that are ready get some moon pictures and specially Apollo helmet reflections and space suits are productive. If you found a dozen I think you will have no problems. Post what you find an trade them around. It's show and tell time. Post the original with it. Learn to set your brush so you can see through it so you are only highlighting if you can.
A couple large images I will point out to you of the moon. There is the moon map 2500 X 1250 in size and I will recommend you do something you will feel is strange with it. Look at it as a thumb nail first. There are three large images that take up most of the entire picture, the center one is on all fours facing off to the right. They are almost impossible to see at the full sized view.
Also there is a picture called (filename) moon_ice.jpeg, add south pole to the search. It's size is 2372 X 2207, I got mine from a Navy site, there are probably many copies of it on the net. Downsize the map to post the large sublimes on the moon map and post crops of the moon ice picture or other ones like it. We can quickly load this site up with too much, we don't want to just fill the site's hard drive.
For those of you that would rather run than walk ESA release of Cydonia. 800 X 600 on up to really huge the original release was gigantic. The main theme is a woman petting a pit bull carrying a puppy, (ah, how sweet). It has eyecandy colors and it's hard to get the wrong one.
I do have something to give you guys after you get at this, I said I have done 1000s of pictures well, I didn't throw them away. I'm trying to figure how I'm going to do it. I tried sharing sites. They disappear, Iran and Russia are reported to be the enemy and you would think rapid share and others would be pleased to host them. Well we can try that again. My upload speed is slow and work is piling up around me. I'll try uploading some tomorrow.
Come on guys talk to me, I would never make a man learn just to get him to jump through hoops. The government pays people to hang out in sites that may make progress. I had very humble beginnings at this. When I first started J P Skipper had 5 pictures and was asking if anyone could identify objects on them. I didn't know about the adult content on them and it impeded progress horribly. Then I had a second stumbling block, how do you show what you have found. I attempted to make little red dots around the objects and sent them in to him. it failed miserably. He could not see what I was trying to show him and he has new mystery pictures on his site now. I had to develop a way, next I tried repainting them, That was no good. with one color and no shading it looked terrible and covered their art. It did not show it. The shading is already present in their art. A brush that is small an passed more than one time to fill an object leaves a striped undesirable mess, it does work but is not the answer. The answer turned out to be to pick a brush slightly larger than the object and set it to soft. Use a low pressure setting and ignore the over spray because it is so light it's not seen. You learn to control the paint at the center of the spray. If your paint turns out to thick at a low pressure setting turn your step down. That way a small burst of spray is generated. Less paint the better. Yes you have to change the size for legs and arms. The body and head are done at one setting and the brush is made smaller the size of the upper leg for the extremities. I want to see people go out and spread the truth. I don't want the people that do it go through what I have.
These guys that lurk in sites are paid by the government with taxpayer money. They have a flow chart they use to attack you. They will discredit you anyway they can. They will try to make you look crazy, or make you out a liar, or push reasons that don't exist that you are wrong, or threaten you, and on and on. If you can do this in a way it can't be denied they have to leave the post. They have been caught in many forums. Remember my response to being called a disinformer. I have something for you to look at today.
This is easy to follow because it is big and there is only 1 figure. This is before I learned how to really show their stuff with a brush. If this showed a figure somewhat behind this figure I would lose the person I was trying to show this to. It's not transparent enough, it makes it harder for the person you are showing to see the original lines and to find the image on the original picture. I am trying to teach you to do your own highlighting for a reason. It's to protect you.
We have failed in this forum to find free energy so far because of being excluded. Physics is not the same for the government think tanks. Take for example the rare earth materials that came to light when the Chinese mine started having problems. What have you been taught about the properties of these materials. What are the chemical reactions and characteristics of these elements or any compounds in use. When the apple hit Newton in his pointy head and he developed the three laws what were the radical changes they had to make during the beginning of the space program as it is presented to us? Even if you knew you would still be left out of the loop. They are hiding way more than that and that's old stuff, decades ago. If you are getting close to a breakthrough there is suddenly an advance to draw your attention in a different direction and attention away from you. They are worried, science is staggering but it is still advancing. They can cloak their vehicles. The civilian world is on the doorstep of invisibility now. It makes the stupid claim that the UFOs are alien much less plausible. Look at them, really look at them. The Russians beat us to correcting Newtonian physics, I remember them teasing the US government about they could land a capsule within feet of where they wanted and the US couldn't. Most of you are old enough to remember this but it is easily found on the net.
raburgeson,
You should read about pareidolia. Seriously, just read about it. I think understanding this phenomenon and how it applies to you could change your life for the better. Here is a start. I suspect my plea will fall on deaf ears, but I have to give it a shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia)
http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html (http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html)
I truly thank you for your concern, however it could not be done on a thousand pictures by the best of people seeing things. What the gov't has to worry about is if I release all the Beastiality that is on this one picture and I will show you so very much more. No one can do layer after layer of this type of thing without deviating from one certain style unless it is there. You just had to know they hired an army of airbrushers for something didn't you.
Take a tip from NASA, have someone else lick off your sticky fingers.Bottom picture, lower right
Check out what they are drinking on the top one. Zoom in It won't take you long to figure it out.
Ive read that before, they tried to convince me I was seeing things and Pennsylvanians said, No I'm not seeing things. That's not an American injustice decision that came from the people. I think the gov't is full of Luciferians, they sure aren't Christians. Maybe a member in here can sneak into Bohemian Grove on a night when they are dancing naked and ask them.
Where's the fear they are hiding a whole planet on you, look over the pictures. You should be feeling really up over this, what an adventure to look forward to.
Talking about the art form. Being computer generated there are a limited number of things that come up over and over again. There is a limited number of terminations for the extremities. You will see the same hands and feet, like I said over and over again. You will see the same poses over and over again. There are many other set laws this art form obeys.
They can enhance this over a period of time. They already have billions wrapped up in it and it will still have limitations. You will just find a larger set, over and over again. Also it will mess up all the developed crap their psychological think tanks have developed for this program. Right now they are watching me flush years of development down the toilet on them.
This art form predates Christianity. I have not found a source. It probably started with 2 cave buddies scratching on the wall with rocks waiting for the rain to quit so they could go hunt. Camel cigarettes has this on their cigarette packs. They are proud of the fact. None of that is highly developed like this though. To fit together flawlessly and many figures make larger figures, it took computer programing to do that. If the figure doesn't look abstract enough the airbrusher moves in. That's when you get the occasional exception with the hands or the feet and position of the figure. They will lose in a court room, they will not go there. So, don't worry about me I will be fine.
Don't feel stupid if you have been conned, it's a very good con job. There are only a few scientist complaining. I hold them in high esteem. I got conned for years right with you. I don't think our fathers heard the truth once in their lives. So, don't feel dumb help set this right. We can beat an army of airbrushers and the computer programs with a larger army of airbrushers. This art form didn't just stay in the space programs. They let the genie out of the bottle. They got Hollywood producers to help make videos and disinforming people that make documentaries use it. Once they let the genie loose they gained a lot of looser lips that the source of the psychology might be pried from. We may have a trail to follow.
At the end of the Second World War they used this against Germany. Go get a copy of Hitchcock's holocaust documentary and take screen shots. You will notice all the screen shots you take are foggy. They simply turned the contrast down, simply turn it back up and it will clear the picture and it is now ready to work on. This stuff is older than you think. The footage is reported to come from the British archives, I'm sure it did. It was used to sway the opinion of the entire world. It was much more simple than what we are dealing with today.
Now you are looking at this before the space programs started.
Quote from: raburgeson link=topic=7989.msg237726#msg237726 =1271367559
I truly for your concern, however it could not be done on a thousand pictures by the best of people seeing things.
Yes it can. Billions of people see things in clouds every day. They just recognize it for what it is, an illusion. We are wired to try to recognize familiar shapes, it does not mean there is anything there.
Here is a challenge. Go outside and take some pictures of your grass or some tree bark or something similar, and see if you can find patterns in it.
Or heck, just do a Google Image search for "tree bark", and analyze some of those photos. I bet you see naked people.
I look at thousands of pictures from other people and have no problem with their pictures, I belong to chemtrail.com and they have about 20000 pictures, no problem. I not only go out and take pictures everywhere of everything and tile crops of them, bark, grass, water, snow, you name it and still no problem. I look at a government picture involving something important like 911 or maps and I have one. I can explain the maps, Do you know they hid the Suez canal during the second world war? Screwing up the globe is a way of trying to protect major cities. All these small countries arming themselves is a threat now because they have lived under the nuclear threat so long.
That last picture that came from Hictchcock's Holocaust is unique of the frames in the documentary. It was put in there later. The rest of the thing is filled with other things. They were specially fond of showing brass Knuckles, black jacks, and a curious looking short thin whip. Also they showed things that would not be like a woman wearing a filthy SS uniform with 4 or 5 SS insignias on her hat instead of two and I don't think they wore them on their hats, I think they went on the collars. Maybe someone in here can tell me. I do know for sure that the SS was very fastidious about their uniforms. Some of this wasn't even subliminal, it was blatant, just increase the contrast and there it was. When the picture is sitting still and you have time to look at it, it makes a big difference. The SS may have been thugs but, I'm sure they didn't run around looking like the pigs they were made out to be on that film.
Now back to the government. There are only a dozen hands and 2 dozen different feet in these pictures subliminals. They are there. I'm not sure what you are really concerned about but I already told you I can take care of myself. They aren't coming to take me away, Ha,ha and hee, hee. I'm not worried about what they have done, I want to see the real pictures they were supposed to release, for starters. I want to see all the science they are hiding. They are still trying to hide the science behind the atomic bomb. Again that was decades ago, it's science, but that's not useful. They are hiding tons of stuff that is useful, and what do they tell you, that's top secret, or above. Hidden patents you name it, they have just about all the research money. They put things together from different think tanks and come up with stuff the researchers haven't even got a clue about. The researchers will tell you we aren't that advanced, they don't know.
I want to see all this stuff then we can get on with it. Antigravity, doesn't exist, impossible, your looney, you touch it your out of the scientific business. It's equally obvious that if you go on the net and study their gravity maps they know exactly what gravity is and they photograph it, although we don't see the pictures until after they have modified it past the truth. It's obvious they have it, listen to all the reports of sightings all over the world by people of all walks of life. I'm sorry but, I don't believe in little green men. I already warned them not to bring out a human/frog hybrid and tell me it's an alien. When do I think they were capable of making a hybrid, 1962. We are finally making them now. It's a stupid thing to do but, it proves the Earth isn't overpopulated. How do you feel that they tell you the Earth is overpopulated and they make hybrids? Well when the day comes that the Earth is really over populated we should have another planet ready to move some people to. We have to get up there.
I already told you chemtrails defuse light. The telescope gathers light. With the dark areas lit the contrast is gone so the resolution is crap. As a first step the people have to get together and put their own Hubble type scope in space specifically to study the solar system, all of it. They have no intention of telling you the truth, it's top secret or above.
These pictures are lies. They are part of a campaign. They go along with all the suggestive crap that comes with them. Like we aren't fit to be in space because of what we are, human beings. I said in another post at another place, (forgive me admin), I get a raw ass just looking at the government. I was serious. Don't be afraid I am seeing things, these are there, if you quit denying and really start looking at the pictures I am presenting you it leaves no doubt. There are limitations to this art form and you will see the same feet and hands and poses and the way the figures are fit together over and over again. I have to point this out to you before it evolves into a form where they can really produce random stuff that can't be proved. They say follow the money. I did and the best trail leads to money from resources they gather from space. How much you want to bet that every probe they send out doesn't have spectral analysis on it and they are always looking for more easy to steal minerals. They boasted they know every last resource on the Earth years ago. Then they started grabbing everything they could lay hands on in the Western US. Then I brought up something very unpopular for them to think about, the land now belongs to the taxpayers of the United States. That's right, I gave them a real frowny. They can't seize land for themselves and when they buy land it becomes public land because it was bought with taxpayer money. They don't only dislike telling the truth they don't like to hear it either. They just like twisting the law so it benefits and suits them. Well, the truth is ugly, and they are not polite.
A note about the cameras they apparently sent into space. Do you really think they sent a dinky obsolete camera into space that takes these small crap pictures, aside from the fact that these released pictures are complete fabrications and have not got one pixel from space mind you. Why do you think they put color adjustments on the rovers, if there are any rovers? Do you know way back Polaroid made a stick camera for $29.95 that was the size of a couple Pez dispensers (a candy) that produced a 64K picture. Do you believe they sent something like that on Clementine? How about these rover panoramas 7 frames high and 12 wide mosaics that are 3 megabytes. Do you believe that one. (I think that one is hilarious)
Back to the face picture. I did a screw up on the left side. In a picture like this one the picture is completely filled without a gap. All the images will fit together perfectly. A quick indication I screwed up is the small face that is not colored. What happened? There are 2 layers with this size figure. I got off one layer and onto another one. On this type of picture you can tell. Other types you can't and generation 2 pictures added depth and one character can be behind another and you can never really be sure. Oh you can be sure you highlighted characters but you will not be sure if you have solved a layer correctly. Specially if the picture has more than one layer with figures the same size. So on the left of this picture when you go to make large figures out of small ones things are distorted. Also it points to one more thing, there are large characters for each of the layers this size and they are different. So there is much more to this picture than I showed you. I managed to show you what's hidden in the picture but, not very well.
At this point it is scrap and I might as well just start over from the beginning and do it much more carefully. These can get very time consuming fast. I tried to do this on the fly. I did the Apollo foot picture and picked up this one from WIKI. Went to sleep without looking at it and then tried to quickly zap it for you and get it to you quick. That was a mistake, while I go over it again you might try doing the picture too. One of you might solve the other layer than the one I do.
I received a couple of questions. Why are the smart guys always from India. And no, relax guys I don't consider the adds you mail service add to your mail spam. My previous warnings were to people that send full page adds for Rogaine and Viagra and stuff like that.
First the guy from India, I appreciate you are making leaps and bounds with selecting colors to find stuff on Hubble pictures. You are one of the guys that would be posting what you find in the simple before 1970 pictures if you hadn't jumped way ahead on your own.
For the guy asking about the animals and you can't see them, Thanks for looking. I will reply mail you a quick and dirty about where they are. The old style single color bla type paint on them so children can't make out what's around them. You'll have to flip between the brightened original and this to see. this is not fit content for this forum. Here if you want to look for animals this one is safe. The thing has a black locomotive one direction and a white one the other and the main theme seems to be things found on the rail road tracks. There are sections of track stamped all over it and again there is not one pixel from space.
International law says a photo whole or in part belongs to the photographer. So, while I am jumping through hoops for you guys I am selecting a photo of grass that I seamlessly tiled to show you and developing one with subliminals I am putting in it to show you also. You can use these free to tile on your desktop background to inspect my work. I did make the claim I seamlessly tile. Remember I'm putting subliminals in one, that's how I know for certain they are there. It will be ready for you soon.
Well strike that I tried making it smaller and I still can't post so I'm out of here. Remember I said if you apply yourselves. I'd rather spend some time with the old lady anyway.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f79_1271622798
please watch the whole video without interruption.
this is the first part of a Saturn V launch(largest rocket ever built in history) at 500 frames per second of Apollo 11. intense!
Saturn V rockets were far more massive and fueled then ICBM's and ICBM's can make it to space, flying through the Van Allen belt gives an ex-poser of just 4 Pet scans max traveling through at their velocity through the Van Allen belt, if you wish me to prove this then I already did on a previous post about how much radiation that is ex-posed to astronauts during exit and re-entry upon return to Earth, if you don't understand by now then you are just babbling with out any scientific data to back you up.
Astronauts would have minimal problems going to the Moon and back, although progressive trips by the same individuals might of posed a health problem in the long run.
there is nothing in the recorded physics evidence that supports any failure of man not being able to go to the Moon and back, if you think you have evidence then I would love to challenge you.
did you know it is 1/6th easier to land on the Moon as it is on Earth? this is a fact.
landing on Earth is 6 times more dangerous than landing on the moon! yet it was done quite frequently.
It appears from your post that you think the amount of gravity is a problem in landing a craft. It's the atmosphere and it's probably 100 times easier to land on the moon. That's if you aren't foolish enough to build a rocket of course. I shot and arrow into the air, the rocket assembly in it's entire configuration is the most unstable thing they have ever built. It's a side show to keep anyone else from going. The engine is alright but, very wasteful. It has no balance what so ever. Space travel should not be hard. Put an engine lighter than the craft engine at the top. Use the engine as a parachute and break before you even enter the atmosphere. The modern day rocket is a prime example that the smarter they are the less common sense they have. They expect you to believe you have to get this incredible speed to achieve orbit. If your going to the moon why would you waste the time to go into orbit? When you go home from work do you circle the block first before you take the turn into your driveway? Do you put powerful G forces on your vehicle and shake the crap out of it every time you take off? Do you buy a new car every trip because the vehicle is unrecoverable scrap after one use? That's what NASA does.
I have a picture on Chemtrailcentral that is supposed to be a failed launch. The post is easy to search there. Type in search I found Einstein. All I did was pink highlight the face. He has a halo of smoke above his head and you don't want to know what the rest of the rocket exhaust is. The picture is not in the post, it's either in the regular images or my image folder.
I say they did not show us one straight picture from space, I would like to know who is looking at the real pictures. I just got a new compressor and some equipment I need for experiments. I would rather have spent on a camera and telescope. Maybe next time. I know where to go that they don't spray chemtrails. I don't expect there is a clean area of atmosphere anywhere on Earth but, it will be better than here. Well when I can afford to.
Back to the face picture. I'd like to point out to you that the nuttiest nut in the world couldn't consecutively one beside the other show you all these images unless they are there. So I'm not disinforming you. Which brings us back to they are hiding the entire contents of a planet on us. This is the start of an adventure. Come on guys. We need pictures, good ones. From countries that aren't sprayed with chemtrails. We can go for moon pictures first. We have to check every last one for fakery. The government would like to help us out with this I'm sure and we don't need that. Look the blackbird was designed when? Look it up. The Shuttle? They have been hiding all types of technology and science on us. How many people are missing from the U.S. alone a year? All the fear mongering, Aliens, radiation, unlivable conditions. They have you all buffaloed. What is out there has been out there a long time and is no threat to us, except for the weapons our own governments put up there. If they mess with us in space we can take them down right here on the ground so, let's go people. What are you afraid of, the few crooks that run your country? Remember I said there is a whole planet up there, you should be feeling really up about things right now. It's time to do some exploring.
I completely support Arizona and instead of boycotting it I'm going to get a telescope and camera from there. Well, it's the way I am.
It may sound shocking but there are people that go far beyond the questionings in this discussion about published truth for the moon. Not without a more powerfull help of course.
Here is the relevant videos. It took me some hours to watch them and days to digest the information, but after that my life has changed.
(1st from 12 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ls7lcturUQ
I extract some of the impressive information of the many hours 12 videos
of the previous post at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkEsR5Id3gU&feature=related
According to the humans from Andromeda the moon was brought 11,230 years ago in this solar system from the constellation of Ursa minor (it was build there around of one of the the 17 planets of a solar system there) It is essentially an artificial spacecraft , hollow , a metal structure inside, with its own propulsion system, that can move it to other planets. According to the humans from Andromeda, this moon is a small construction. In nearby galaxies they have build spacecrafts twice as large as the planet Jupiter!...Also the galactic civilizations do engineer solar systems, bring planets, bring satellites, change planet orbits, engineer the suns etc It is a discipline called "solar system building". The same with the satellite "Phobos" of Mars.
Some plausible question arise:
1) Was this moon brought here by the half-reptilian civilizations from the constellation of Orion (that after 300,000 BC ruled this solar system according the humans from Andromeda as reported by the same speaker in an other series of videos at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRATOtRt6D4&feature=related) ?
2) Was, the cataclysm that its time somehow coincides, was related to orbit changes of earth at that time due to the new brought moon?
Democritus , Anaxagoras ,Aristotle,Apollonius of Rhodes
,Plutarch,Hippolytus, Old testatment Job 25:5, Indians, Cordilleras of
Colombia , etc
all mention historic times and human civilizations, when the moon was not...... around earth
Here is a link
http://www.varchive.org/itb/sansmoon.htm
The soil on the moon is more than 6 billion years old and not of this solar
system.
Nevertheless under the soil it is a metallic spherical shell, with internal
installations.
The soil was part of the construction of the moon around the 17th planet of
the 21 planets of a star of Ursa Minor.
The reptilian dominated civilizations (Dragon, Orion, Sirius B) brought it and
put it in orbit around the earth 11,230 years ago.
The equality of period of rotation, with that of spin, and with that of sun's
spin, is artificial on purpose choice to create a permanently hidden side. .
(Very unnatural to all other satellites in the solar system, as well as the
relative size of moon and earth. Moon is too big to be a natural satellite of
earth. Also the large craters are too shallow to be natural)
Before that, millions of years ago, many alien groups lived in cities inside and
on the surface of the moon. And many wars had occurred ruining many of the bases
and installations on the surface. There plenty many ruins , ruined spacecrafts,
and ruined cities on the surface and under it, and on the hidden side of the
moon that were beyond doubt discovered when earthly astronauts went there.
Such
spherical artificial satellites like the moon are considered "Colonization War
Carriers" All these were discovered also by the NASA astronauts, but they were
forced to keep their mouth shut, as it was not for the benefit of the regressive
aliens that had already tricked and trapped and hijacked the USA, and other
allies Governments (British, French, USSR), as well as the shadow (hidden)
world government.
The Andromeda council (that consists from 139 different human and non-human free
star systems civilizations with non-regressive principles) decided to put a stop
to the human abductions and many more other malevolent actions to earth by some
regressive civilizations, that used the moon as a base. This was supposed to be completed by
the end of 2003.
More on that in the 12 videos at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkEsR5Id3gU&feature=related
You know I cant say they did or did not go to the moon. But what would be nice is if we had a satellite orbiting the moon, and then did the moon like we do google earth. Then everyone could see the moon in fairly nice detail. Now I dont know if they can get a satellite to orbit the moon, but if they can that would be a good thing to solve alot of unresolved issues, and be good for educational images, for kids, schools and researchers.
It amazes me that the people who claim we never went to the moon are also the people who believe Aliens created crop circles and accuse the government of hiding/suppressing (super)technology.
You can't have it both ways. Either we are complete morons and can't make to the moon or its possible. If Aliens can make it here over light years why can't we make it a few hundred thousand klicks.
The argument that the shadows are wrong is wrong. The shadows are absolutely correct. something rising above the ground has shadows cast from them, something indenting into the ground (craters) have shadows formed in them. the sun shines on one side of the rising object and on the opposite side of the sunken object.
There is nothing apparently faked about the photo's I have seen.
CC
I'm sure they went to the moon. I was saying they have never shown you a real picture from space. I just look at the supposed leak information on Apollo 20.
It is as fake as the rest of the crap that comes from government sources. They did not deviate from their artwork one bit. They lock up our time arguing about what we are seeing on the pictures and the pictures are not real. Go download the mars map and the moon map and then view the pictures they have been showing us. It's a 3D model. Type in search missing crater on the moon. Try explosions and vehicles rushing away. The second one is rather old and questionable about results. They are up there, we are just not included in the details. The search is for the truth. They are hiding everything they do in space. All the scientists that know are afraid the talk. That would be committing career suicide. You don't want to take my word for this but, I'm sure you don't want to take theirs either. I'm not sure of the final result of the truth. I am sure even on a stack of Bibles in front of a judge with their right hand raised you're not going to get the truth from the government. I still don't have a camera on a telescope. Blew my wad on a rare Earth mineral. I will have to make this a priority in the near future. I know were they don't spray chemtrails at and can likely get higher resolution pictures with better zoom than they give you on the net with a 6 inch reflector. How many of you have wondered about that and why our scientists do not work with their own data?
There are other layers on these pictures too. On a panorama I can show you three monkeys sitting with their legs crossed and the first one has his hand over his eyes and the second one has his hands over his ears and the third one has his hand over his mouth and, that's really rich considering the source it came from.
Quote from: stevensrd1 on September 28, 2010, 07:40:47 AM
You know I cant say they did or did not go to the moon. But what would be nice is if we had a satellite orbiting the moon, and then did the moon like we do google earth. Then everyone could see the moon in fairly nice detail. Now I dont know if they can get a satellite to orbit the moon, but if they can that would be a good thing to solve alot of unresolved issues, and be good for educational images, for kids, schools and researchers.
http://www.google.com/moon/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/20feb_orbitingthemoon/
I absolutely agree 100%
Our government lies, through its collective teeth.
Your government (the US) is one of the worst in the "free world" <== important!
But ask yourself how many times have they(both) actually succeeded in lying? We know they are dishonest because of the number of times they have been caught. Ponder that.
Then think how can they possible keep something as huge as the lunar missions covered up for so long?
Quote from: raburgeson on October 15, 2010, 06:09:30 PM
I still don't have a camera on a telescope. Blew my wad on a rare Earth mineral. I will have to make this a priority in the near future. I know were they don't spray chemtrails at and can likely get higher resolution pictures with better zoom than they give you on the net with a 6 inch reflector. How many of you have wondered about that and why our scientists do not work with their own data?
Before you decide on spending this money, make sure you can use your nice 'scope for other uses. It would take awesome shots of the night sky, maybe even near galaxies. Wow the first time I saw a galaxy outside of the milky way through a telescope it floored me, even though it was just a small collection of pinpricks of light.
But as I said look at this page before you decide
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/
There are plenty of others you can use to verify the statements on that page.
I come from a family of religious zealots. I understand paranoia and conspiracy theory. Honestly don't go down that path. In the end you just die full of doubt after a life of worry. Even if its true its not actually worth the worry. We have limited time on this planet. some things we should just accept. or put it another way, pick our fights carefully.
CC
P.S. My fight is to prove Newton wrong. or at least the current interpretations of Newtons work ;)
P.S.S
To explain the "free world" <== important bit...
I see so many people who accuse governments in the free world of being evil, yada yada yada. why is it these people go on about the evil of such governments. would you prefer to live in a "non free" society ruled by religious zealots, evil dictators so on and so forth. not me I'll put up with my less than perfect but mostly benign government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8095368/Nasa-uncovers-new-life-on-Mars-evidence-after-rover-got-stuck-in-the-mud.html
I showed people this about three years ago. Look I worked hard trying to find the truth. The picture of the rover near the landing pad driven up to a rock. The rover is perfectly clean in that picture. Bring it up with a good editor and pick a low area yellow pixel and turn it light green for the whole picture. The rover needs mud flaps as you will notice. The wheels have suddenly become covered in mud. I posted this on chemtrailcentral.com because of the limits on the picture posts here. They were bogged down in mud from the first minute of moving the rover. I showed a reflection on a rover surface that revealed a support team was following it around. Then I started posting the sublimes. I haven't been to chemtrailcentral.com for some time. I have sign-in problems now. That is a bit curious don't you think? I have the pictures I have worked on here on disk, well, most of them. I can show you what I have uncovered. I will hold a few of them back like the oil drilling rig. It wasn't CGI. I'm after them for the truth. I think you all deserve to here it. If Mars has a cold core why are they drilling for oil? Why did they con the right of a nation by treaty from claiming rights to the resources of the solar system and then have three US citizens gobble up all the rights because the treaty did not include companies? I'm trying to get you all to think here. I made the statement on chemtrailcentral that it looked like the most probable cause of death on Mars would be drowning. I have a lot of years tied up in trying to find the truth. I am missing a few important keys to put it all together. One of them is what was the name changed to when Operation Silverbug become when it went Black Ops.
I will pull out the pictures and try to beg more space from Harty. I'm not a scientist and have no reason to hide this stuff because of the stupid things I said looking at the fabricated pictures. I'm not touting I'm smarter than everyone around me waving a doctorate and guilty of giving these guys awards for finding things on the fabrications either. Right now that seems to be the main thing holding back the truth.
A little more about the support for the rover. In the reflection is a device much like a fork lift at the back end. In the front there are no rails, instead it has a dedicated design lifting surface that lifts like a new tow truck and it has a touch pad instead of a wheel. With it's usefulness gone as a disinformation device they are not going to pull it out of that mud hole. Please note the new software in the news that can remove objects even from a video and show the real time results in 41 seconds. It's important I get you to realize this is all a big lie before they get better at modifying pictures. You will never have a chance to discover the truth if that happens. They have decided to change the way they do things instead of telling the truth. The first changes they made was to hide the subliminals by putting them in the background as near pixels. If you take the right vintage picture and change a random pixel or two to a visible color with replace color you will see what I mean. The subconscious mind can see these, or, they would not have bothered to do it. I couldn't figure out the agenda for this but, that was made clear to me by another person. It's called social engineering.
I came across this one first. It's the reflection off a small gold foil square on a rover and small enough to post. I found the full picture of the rover with mud on it's wheels. I can change a low lying yellow pixel again and make a new crop if I don't find the old one.
I have to make a report on a new picture. Harty 2 medium 720 X 722 pixels. I had to load Photoshop in and had previously reloaded my computer because it was running sluggish. The first time I opened this picture I selected assign red, green and blue. Then I selected replace color and the default black color that was sampled I left alone. On the replace color window I lowered the fuzzyness down. I then had pixels flashing in white on the screen. I need to get a camcorder to capture this. My computer will not display this now. I have had Photoshop display skullduggery before and not show it again and always wondered if I completely reload if it will come back. As soon as I get a camcorder I will completely reload and find out. I have an image from JPL that did this and it had a animated background of diagonal bars, black and white, scrolling from left to right. It will be a while on this. If you have a computer that doesn't have Photoshop in operating history then maybe you can look this over. Bottom line they will do anything to lie to us.
Touched indicates I used sharpen once or twice. It's normal image handling procedure for and image that has been increased in size by anyone handling photos. Ask a Photoshop forum. Photoshop program has no agenda. The math it uses to resize pictures is the best the civilian world can purchase. The fork truck and the building are behind the rover.
Quote from: angryScientist on August 27, 2009, 12:16:40 AM
Sorry Stephan,
I agree with MileHigh.It looks to me that the sun is shining from left to right. Instead of those things being hills it look like they are craters.
Pictures look good to me. Now whether there where real men down there not just robots, I don't know.
Yeah those are not hills, they are holes!
The shadow is allied correctly. The shading of the "hills" is actually the shadow of the craters. Its a perspective trick that fools the eye all the time. The sun is on the left.