Yet another nail in the Apollo Hoax coffin

[Jack by the hedge]

I think it's simply an effect of the raster in the Scotchlite front projection screen background.

Raster? You think there is some kind of massive video projector making the background in all of those photos?

Have you considered how far away and inconceivably large that screen would have to be, especially considering the panoramas of photos taken? And what kind of video system could have created this 'raster' you imagine you see? What possible system could project images to match the resolution of those medium format Hasselblad photos? The answer is simple: none. No system could do anything even close to that. Your explanation is no explanation at all. It's a dream, not reality. It doesn't work.

[Anders Lindman]

Raster? You think there is some kind of massive video projector making the background in all of those photos?

Have you considered how far away and inconceivably large that screen would have to be, especially considering the panoramas of photos taken? And what kind of video system could have created this 'raster' you imagine you see? What possible system could project images to match the resolution of those medium format Hasselblad photos? The answer is simple: none. No system could do anything even close to that. Your explanation is no explanation at all. It's a dream, not reality. It doesn't work.

The technique is explained here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJUyYuzivo

[Jack by the hedge]

The technique is explained here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJUyYuzivo

Baloney. That just cherry-picks Apollo pictures where the curvature of the ground happens to leave a discontinuity between the foreground and background. And that system uses projection of full plate slides. No video. No raster. No raster lines. Your fantasy still fails.

[Anders Lindman]

Baloney. That just cherry-picks Apollo pictures where the curvature of the ground happens to leave a discontinuity between the foreground and background. And that system uses projection of full plate slides. No video. No raster. No raster lines. Your fantasy still fails.

In the picture I posted earlier the raster of imperfections is seen: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Dark_Mission/001.png

And notice the horizontal bar that is similar in both pictures!

[Tomblvd]

The technique is explained here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJUyYuzivo

Heh. Earlier you said:

I only trust information that I can get verify for myself (sic).

That and stuff you get from Youtube, huh?

[Anders Lindman]

Heh. Earlier you said:



That and stuff you get from Youtube, huh?

I have looked at some NASA Apollo pictures of the moon and examined them to see if a fake horizon can be found, and in many cases it can! So if you examine for yourself the images in that video and other Apollo images of the moon surface then you will see that for yourself.

[JayUtah]

they could have used some more 'clever' image contrast enhancement.

You mean like commonplace edge enhancement?

[Anders Lindman]

You mean like commonplace edge enhancement?

More like pretty much ordinary contrast enhancement, but with some modification so that the rest of the ground doesn't turn up too white.

[Mudcat]

I have looked at some NASA Apollo pictures of the moon and examined them to see if a fake horizon can be found, and in many cases it can! So if you examine for yourself the images in that video and other Apollo images of the moon surface then you will see that for yourself.

You do you understand that the horizon on the moon is different right?

[Jack by the hedge]

In the picture I posted earlier the raster of imperfections is seen: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Dark_Mission/001.png

And notice the horizontal bar that is similar in both pictures!

The point is that the technique described in your University of YouTube link does not cause raster lines, therefore it is not the explanation for any horizontal artefacts in the umpteenth-generation pictures you're using. Stated simply: you have not shown us any evidence of fakery.

[Anders Lindman]

You do you understand that the horizon on the horizon is different on the moon, right?

Oops. My mistake. I didn't mean horizon. I meant the separation between the ground and the background screen, such as marked by a while line in this picture: http://jayweidner.com/images/image042.png

[Mudcat]

Oops. My mistake. I didn't mean horizon. I meant the separation between the ground and the background screen, such as marked by a while line in this picture: http://jayweidner.com/images/image042.png

...You're kidding me, right? That's nothing more than light reflecting off of a piece of the land that's at a different angle to the camera. Cause, get this, land scape isn't uniform.

[Jack by the hedge]

I have looked at some NASA Apollo pictures of the moon and examined them to see if a fake horizon can be found, and in many cases it can! So if you examine for yourself the images in that video and other Apollo images of the moon surface then you will see that for yourself.

What about the rest of the multiple thousands of Apollo pictures? All you have is some pictures where, if it were to have been a composite picture, you can see where you might put the join. That explanation is no use if there are also pictures where there's nowhere to put the join. There's no shortage of pictures. It's a dead end Anders. You got nothin'.

May we assume you have discarded the 'raster' idea?

[Anders Lindman]

What about the rest of the multiple thousands of Apollo pictures? All you have is some pictures where, if it were to have been a composite picture, you can see where you might put the join. That explanation is no use if there are also pictures where there's nowhere to put the join. There's no shortage of pictures. It's a dead end Anders. You got nothin'.

May we assume you have discarded the 'raster' idea?

If you can give an example of a NASA picture supposedly taken on the moon surface without such division between ground and background, I will take a look at it.

[Anders Lindman]

...You're kidding me, right? That's nothing more than light reflecting off of a piece of the land that's at a different angle to the camera. Cause, get this, land scape isn't uniform.

I mean the line between the ground and the background. Here is another picture showing this: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_luna/apollomissions11_17.jpg

[Mudcat]

I mean the line between the ground and the background. Here is another picture showing this: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_luna/apollomissions11_17.jpg
Someone photoshopped those, obviously. Probably a CT looking for something that ain't there.

[Anders Lindman]

Someone photoshopped those, obviously. Probably a CT looking for something that ain't there.

Here is a more clear example. This time from the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey: http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/images/image014.png

[Mudcat]

Here is a more clear example. This time from the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey: http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/images/image014.pngHighlight mine. Because there is an ever slight distinction between fiction and reality about as slight as the difference between the sun and the moon.

[Anders Lindman]

Highlight mine. Because there is an ever slight distinction between fiction and reality about as slight as the difference between the sun and the moon.

Sure, but the point is that the claim is that a similar or the same technique was used for the Apollo images as in Kubrick's movie.

[Jack by the hedge]

If you can give an example of a NASA picture supposedly taken on the moon surface without such division between ground and background, I will take a look at it.

Take a look here: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

There is no shortage of very high quality pictures.

Perhaps you could start by taking a look at this one I picked more or less at random: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=381&imageID=AS17-137-20977

I picked a mission at random and searched for the word 'distance' in the description.

Do be sure to check the high resolution version, just to make sure you're not missing the join that isn't there. So, just how large was the studio stage they would need to have used to fake this? Makes the imaginary Youtube version look kinda stupid, doesn't it?

[Mudcat]

Sure, but the point is that the claim is that a similar or the same technique was used for the Apollo images as in Kubrick's movie.No. Seriously, just no.

[Jack by the hedge]

Sure, but the point is that the claim is that a similar or the same technique was used for the Apollo images as in Kubrick's movie.

But that claim is a dead end because it doesn't explain the horizontal lines you said were 'raster' lines and they were the only evidence you had which made you imagine that technique had been used in the first place.

Also there are loads of photos which obviously could not have been faked in that way as there's no discontinuity between foreground and background.

[JayUtah]

Sure, but the point is that the claim is that a similar or the same technique was used for the Apollo images as in Kubrick's movie.

Do you realize that the well-known theatrical illusion works only because such things occur in real life? Local horizons occur in nature.

[Anders Lindman]

Take a look here: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

There is no shortage of very high quality pictures.

Perhaps you could start by taking a look at this one I picked more or less at random: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=381&imageID=AS17-137-20977

I picked a mission at random and searched for the word 'distance' in the description.

Do be sure to check the high resolution version, just to make sure you're not missing the join that isn't there. So, just how large was the studio stage they would need to have used to fake this? Makes the imaginary Youtube version look kinda stupid, doesn't it?

That image is perhaps not done by front projection screen. Instead I suspect something like this:

http://s16.postimage.org/uuvd762th/image.jpg

[Jack by the hedge]

That image is perhaps not done by front projection screen. Instead I suspect something like this:

No you don't. You don't believe this garbage any more than we do. Early '70s Photoshop is not an explanation. You're just playing a stupid game, trying to get a rise out of the grown ups.

[Anders Lindman]

No you don't. You don't believe this garbage any more than we do. Early '70s Photoshop is not an explanation. You're just playing a stupid game, trying to get a rise out of the grown ups.

Yes I do! And also, where the heck are the wheel tracks from the lunar rover in that picture? :confused:

[Patrick1000]

There ain't a feature within 250,000 miles that identifies one of those BOGUS shots as uniquely Tranquility Basely lunar.

Go get 'em Anders buddie. The Apollo Program Apology Team that hangs out here ain't got more than a clue.........

[R.A.F.]

....where the heck are the wheel tracks from the lunar rover in that picture? :confused:

"If" it were a hoax, what would stop them from simply rolling/driving/pushing the damn thing along to make tracks???


What a stupid argument...

[R.A.F.]

The Apollo Program Apology Team that hangs out here ain't got more than a clue.........

Go back to your modded thread...intellectual coward.

[Anders Lindman]

"If" it were a hoax, what would stop them from simply rolling/driving/pushing the damn thing along to make tracks???


What a stupid argument...

The absence of clearly visible wheel tracks is perhaps not any evidence. But I found many images where the wheel tracks are missing, such as: http://www.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/space/1600x1200/Lunar_Rover__LoadOut_At_LEM_Module_1600.jpg

In that image there is a wheel track in the foreground but no visible wheel tracks where the rover is located.

[Patrick1000]

Go back to your modded thread...intellectual coward.

Not That Anders Needs My Support RAF.....He is more than capable and is quite simply correct.

The pics are bogus RAF. Matter-o-fact, looks to me as though they took the Apollo 11 shots in Slayton's backyard, and for all we know, they probably did.

As I am ever so fond of saying, I WANT MY MONEY BACK, $433 DOLLARS TO BE PRECISE. Heck of a lot of cash to shell out for staged shots of Aldrin with an upside down gold fish bowl incasing his fraudulent zombie navigator head.........

[R.A.F.]

Not That Anders Needs My Support RAF.....He is more than capable and is quite simply correct.

..are you once again answering questions no one asked?

The pics are bogus RAF. Matter-o-fact, looks to me as though they took the Apollo 11 shots in Slayton's backyard, and for all we know, they probably did.

Blah...no one here agrees with you except proven ignorant liars like anders....have you heard the old saying that one is "judged" by the company they keep...you 2 make a good pair.

I WANT MY MONEY BACK

Intellectual coward thinks he is entitled to something...


When will you face those you have called liars??....what are you scared of, Patrick?

[R.A.F.]

staged shots of Aldrin with an upside down gold fish bowl incasing his fraudulent zombie navigator head.........

Why don't you walk right up to Aldrin and say that to his face?


Oh, that's right....you are too much of a coward to do that.

[Craig4]

Why are you trying to denigrate one of humanity's greatest achievements with such sloppy work? If you're going to call the thousands of people who worked to make the moon missions happen liars you could at least put some effort into it. My personal theory is you compare your achievements to theirs and arrive at the obvious conclusion.

[Jim_MDP]

Edited for civility. I'll steer this back to something plesant.

I give you... Space Porn.

http://io9.com/5884344/50-million-years-ago-this-boulder-rolled-across-the-moons-surface

http://io9.com/5883453/this-eye+popping-mosaic-takes-us-inside-the-beautiful-carina-nebula

[sts60]

....You're just playing a stupid game, trying to get a rise out of the grown ups.

Of course he is, just like fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc.

Don't feed the troll; don't indulge the liar.

[Craig4]

Edited for civility. I'll steer this back to something plesant.

I give you... Space Porn.

http://io9.com/5884344/50-million-years-ago-this-boulder-rolled-across-the-moons-surface

http://io9.com/5883453/this-eye+popping-mosaic-takes-us-inside-the-beautiful-carina-nebula

Far more interesting and valuable than anything else in this thread.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What is this "Moon" everyone keeps talking about?
I know there are lights in the sky and some are bigger than others, but since you haven't been there, clearly everything else is photoshop.

And mass hallucinations.

All to keep us down by 'the man', because ever since we "went to the moon" all humans lost all free will and have been enslaved by the sheer awe of that achievement. which is why the hoax is there of course.

I also understand Patricks, AL's en 88's frustration. What is the world coming to when the word and evidence of hundreds of thousands of experts in their field is taken over that of a few people posting anonymously from their parent's basement about technology they cleary do not (fully) understand?

/sarcasm off

I wonder if the hoax theories are some sort of knee-jerk reaction to growing up on science fiction stories/series that promised a functional moon base and interstellar program by now. Since we don't have that, clearly that whole moon thing must be a lie too!
And the fact that humans have been there and learned that there isn't all that much reason to go there anymore as we can learn the rest via unmanned probes is irrellevant.

[Patrick1000]

What is this "Moon" everyone keeps talking about?
I know there are lights in the sky and some are bigger than others, but since you haven't been there, clearly everything else is photoshop.

And mass hallucinations.

All to keep us down by 'the man', because ever since we "went to the moon" all humans lost all free will and have been enslaved by the sheer awe of that achievement. which is why the hoax is there of course.

I also understand Patricks, AL's en 88's frustration. What is the world coming to when the word and evidence of hundreds of thousands of experts in their field is taken over that of a few people posting anonymously from their parent's basement about technology they cleary do not (fully) understand?

/sarcasm off

I wonder if the hoax theories are some sort of knee-jerk reaction to growing up on science fiction stories/series that promised a functional moon base and interstellar program by now. Since we don't have that, clearly that whole moon thing must be a lie too!
And the fact that humans have been there and learned that there isn't all that much reason to go there anymore as we can learn the rest via unmanned probes is irrellevant.

Actually, It Has Very Little To Do With Technology, and quite a bit to do simply with the principle of contradiction. Neil Armstrong and NASA cannot claim on the one hand that no one knew where the Eagle had landed, and then on the other hand, provide in the Apollo 11 Mission Report very accurate coordinates for the Eagle's location. Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent.

Not so very difficult after all, was that now?........

[Mudcat]

Neil Armstrong and NASA cannot claim on the one hand that no one knew where the Eagle had landed
It's a good thing that they didn't then.

[Patrick1000]

It's a good thing that they didn't then.

On the contrary, they did just that and there is no debate as regards the point.., or perhaps better said, "points"....

Read Armstrong's authorized biography by Hansen, Chaikin's book or any other respected pop book on the Apollo Missions. Read the Apollo 11 voice transcript and the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Report itself. It's all there before one's very peepers, no contradiction as regards the fateful contradiction.......

[threadworm]

Edited for civility. I'll steer this back to something plesant.

I give you... Space Porn.

http://io9.com/5884344/50-million-years-ago-this-boulder-rolled-across-the-moons-surface

http://io9.com/5883453/this-eye+popping-mosaic-takes-us-inside-the-beautiful-carina-nebula

~disappears to a quiet room for some quality time~

Meanwhile, have another coffin nail Oh yes we did (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76882844/Clouds-Across-the-Moon)

[Jim_MDP]

Patrick, you are just... sad. I'm at a loss for a kinder way to put it.


Actually, It Has Very Little To Do With Technology, and quite a bit to do simply with the principle of contradiction.

OK, start there...


Neil Armstrong and NASA cannot claim on the one hand that no one knew where the Eagle had landed, and then on the other hand, provide in the Apollo 11 Mission Report very accurate coordinates for the Eagle's location. Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true,


Huh, who, where... wait, how, uh... WHAT?

Would you like to rephrase that, laddie?

[Erock]

Actually, It Has Very Little To Do With Technology, and quite a bit to do simply with the principle of contradiction. Neil Armstrong and NASA cannot claim on the one hand that no one knew where the Eagle had landed, and then on the other hand, provide in the Apollo 11 Mission Report very accurate coordinates for the Eagle's location. Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent.

Not so very difficult after all, was that now?........

That is possibly the most idiotic thing you've said.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8016630&postcount=62

You're either a doctor or not, therefore you're neither, proving you are fraudulent.;)

As for Apollo 11 not knowing where they were but still have accurate coordinates? Are you just trolling or can't you understand simple explanations.

Doctor 1 diagnoses AIDS
Doctor 2 diagnoses Alzheimers.

Tests later show Doctor 1 is correct - he didn't know for sure at the time of diagnosis. Where's the problem?

Provide your details to Jay and let's see you PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!


p.s. facebook pages go missing, therefore they never existed or were created fraudulently.

[Captain_Swoop]

Actually, It Has Very Little To Do With Technology, and quite a bit to do simply with the principle of contradiction. Neil Armstrong and NASA cannot claim on the one hand that no one knew where the Eagle had landed, and then on the other hand, provide in the Apollo 11 Mission Report very accurate coordinates for the Eagle's location. Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent.

Not so very difficult after all, was that now?........

Evading Moderation of your own thread on this subject by hijacking a different thread?

Report needed I think.

[jhunter1163]

Thread closed. Please take this discussion to the moderated thread.