Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
547 replies to this topic

#436    lonelyalpacafarmer

lonelyalpacafarmer

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2005
  • Location:the boonies

Posted 08 September 2005 - 04:47 AM

Those people must have claws for hands apparently.

I enjoy tennis.

#437    Mr. 420

Mr. 420

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2004
  • Location:The Thermo-Stat

  • In a little toolshed he made us suffer, sad satan

Posted 08 September 2005 - 05:05 AM

Why is there a telephone in the one picture with all the arrows?

There are no telephones on the moon.

Posted Image
You wore out your welcome with random precision, rode on the steel breeze...

#438    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 08 September 2005 - 05:29 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 7 2005, 09:02 PM)

QUOTE
Point your cursor at 482x1418.

Pixels? Do you mean 482x418? because I can't get a 1418 measurement from pixels.

Yes, in pixels, and at the coordinates I specified.  The image is 2359 x 2374 in size, how can you not get to 1418y?


QUOTE
you must have color edited your cropped image

Yes, I clamped the tonal range of this image to that of the visible section of aluminized kapton in the RealVideo frame to which I was comparing it.  I also saved it at the highest JPEG compression level, attempting to emulate the distortion of low-bitrate RealVideo encoding... with little success.

Since you run Auto Levels with the default clipping value of 0.5% on every RealVideo frame you post, obliterating details at the brightest and darkest ends of the range, how is this an issue?


QUOTE
Yes - and these are the RealVideo frames, not the DVD frame you posted...

I'm aware of that.  Can you indicate where those features appear in the corresponding DVD frame?

user posted image





#439    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 08 September 2005 - 05:49 AM

QUOTE(lonelyalpacafarmer @ Sep 7 2005, 09:47 PM)
Those people must have claws for hands apparently.

View Post


Those are "rope"-type loops, being clutched by the man in the blue-green shirt. His bearded face is in profile, looking to the man on his left...
user posted image

I added a phone symbol above the "phone"-type object in both stills, to show that while the black shade has been moved up/down, the object has remained stationary on the surface where the man is resting his elbows in the above still. It is pointed out to refute the argument being made here that there has been camera movement, but no movement of the black shade or shapes below it. But it is in fact an area that changes in size on each frame - the more the shade comes down, the less area that is seen where the people are. If this was the lem, as is claimed by some, there can be no such change or movement of these objects. Of course, even the people are in different positions in the below sequence of stills. Either these are people below the shade, or you believe it is all gold foil - none of it gold in the least, and capable of amazing illusions of depth and human forms and colors.....and movement...
user posted image

Edited by turbonium, 08 September 2005 - 05:51 AM.


#440    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 08 September 2005 - 05:49 AM

I have never been one to easily get into conspiracies, there are a few that I think have some merit, but for the most part I don't see how so many folks can get behind some of the theories floating around out there in cyberspace...

The moon hoax is one of those theories that I just don't buy into at all; not even close.

In my opinion the photos presented in this thread are nothing short of a rorschach test; I think Erik Beckjord would be hard pressed to see what is being pointed out here, and that is saying something...disregarding those photos ( I haven't seen one that has sufficient detail to mean anything to me...it could be an arm, or a bat, or a cheeseburger...) just leaves me with nothing at all to support the idea that we never made it to the moon. There have been solid evidence to refute the claims of the conspiricy folks in regards to the science of traveling to the moon. I just don't see any evidence that would lead me to believe anything other than the fact that the Apollo missions went to the moon as claimed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions; in this case I am 100% percent confident that we went to the moon and back several times...



Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#441    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 08 September 2005 - 06:14 AM

QUOTE(Fluffybunny @ Sep 7 2005, 10:49 PM)
I have never been one to easily get into conspiracies, there are a few that I think have some merit, but for the most part I don't see how so many folks can get behind some of the theories floating around out there in cyberspace...

The moon hoax is one of those theories that I just don't buy into at all; not even close.

In my opinion the photos presented in this thread are nothing short of a rorschach test; I think Erik Beckjord would be hard pressed to see what is being pointed out here, and that is saying something...disregarding those photos ( I haven't seen one that has sufficient detail to mean anything to me...it could be an arm, or a bat, or a cheeseburger...) just leaves me with nothing at all to support the idea that we never made it to the moon. There have been solid evidence to refute the claims of the conspiricy folks in regards to the science of traveling to the moon. I just don't see any evidence that would lead me to believe anything other than the fact that the Apollo missions went to the moon as claimed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions; in this case I am 100% percent confident that we went to the moon and back several times...

View Post



That's fair enough - indeed the people who don't see these things as I do are as entitled to their views as I and others who do see things differently. I do find it amazing how many people who believe in the moon landings react with more emotion than virtually any other "conspiracy" topic, like JFK or 9/11, in many cases. Not in your case, Fluff, but in many I have had replies from. Well, just look at how this thread keeps on going - it seems to hit a nerve with many, but I'm not trying to upset anyone, just point out what I see to others. There are those who don't see it, and there are those who do.

I am 100% confident that the Apollo 12 mission, which I have focussed on in my posts, was hoaxed. By extension, it would mean they would all have been hoaxed.

This is the first case where I believe there are actual Earth-bound people visible in any Apollo footage. Shadows and waving flags have been debated by many others for many years, but I believe that if it can be proven that these are people in the video clip, it would singlehandedly prove the moon landings were hoaxed.

The DVD release of the footage was deliberately edited to cover up the truth, in my opinion. I have the DVD set, and the only footage that is worse in quality than the online clip, is this tiny 30-40 seconds of film. The entirety of the Apollo 12 footage, save this piece, has been greatly improved in quality - sharper images, improved colors, etc. from the online clips from the NASA website.

There is no reason that on the transfer to DVD from the original source film, there should now be herringbone pattern pixelation, double-imaging of objects, etc. in this small 30-40 second sequence, while in the 1 hour plus of footage before and after there is sparkling improvement in quality. To me, it has to have been done to intentionally conceal the images in obscurity. I can think of no other possible reason.

Edited by turbonium, 08 September 2005 - 06:23 AM.


#442    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 08 September 2005 - 06:37 AM

Just a note to add to my previous post about the DVD version. I also think that the original Apollo 12 footage has been edited from the original film, in this 30-40 second segment. I say this because this filming occurs before the camera is alleged to have burned out when it was pointed toward the Sun.

The objects in the clip look to have been blurred and color edited in a few frames. When you look at the footage, frame by frame, as in the four frames I just posted, there is a complete change in clarity and color loss in a frame or two, and then back again. The only still left relatively untouched is the one I posted in close-up earlier, with the man in the blue-green shirt. That same man is standing in an earlier frame, but the color has been removed, and the image has been blurred. The DVD version of this still, however, has been obliterated into a mess, with edited-in artifacts everywhere.


#443    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 08 September 2005 - 06:57 AM

QUOTE
I added a phone symbol above the "phone"-type object in both stills, to show that while the black shade has been moved up/down, the object has remained stationary on the surface where the man is resting his elbows in the above still.

If the "phone" is stationary, why is the icon in the 2nd frame shifted approx 1/4 of the frame width to the right of the one if the previous frame?


#444    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 08 September 2005 - 07:37 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 8 2005, 02:14 AM)
I have the DVD set, and the only footage that is worse in quality than the online clip, is this tiny 30-40 seconds of film. The entirety of the Apollo 12 footage, save this piece, has been greatly improved in quality - sharper images, improved colors, etc. from the online clips from the NASA website.

Examples, please, of online clips you consider to be worse quality than the DVD.  Obviously we're using different standards, since this:

user posted image

...is most decidedly better quality than this:

user posted image


QUOTE
There is no reason that on the transfer to DVD from the original source film, there should now be herringbone pattern pixelation...

Unavoidable, if it was present in the original TV transmission.


QUOTE
...double-imaging of objects...

Unavoidable, when a 24fps kinescope frame "straddles" two 30fps television frames.  Its practically impossible to deconstruct such "double-exposed" frames from each other.

Compound that with the fact that the kinescope footage has been telecined back up to 30fps on the DVD.  If you're viewing it on a TV, the interlaced frames (2 out of every 5) will just look blended.  If you're viewing it on a computer monitor, wether or not you can see the interlacing will depend on your DVD software, if it "bobs" or "weaves" interlaced frames (or allows you the choice of either).  The above frame is from a sequence of the DVD footage which I inverse-telecined back to 24fps progressive.




#445    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 08 September 2005 - 09:00 AM

QUOTE
When you look at the footage, frame by frame, as in the four frames I just posted...

The four frames which you have, once again, presented out of sequence.  In your image, the fourth frame coumes first, then the second, then the first, then the third, as below:

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image


QUOTE
The only still left relatively untouched is the one I posted in close-up earlier, with the man in the blue-green shirt.

How do you know that frame is "untouched", but the others have been "altered?"  And if the others were altered, why would this one not be?


QUOTE
That same man is standing in an earlier frame, but the color has been removed, and the image has been blurred.

Again, why does this make the "colored" frame the correct one?


And BTW, where are the flesh tones and stationary phone-shaped object in this frame?

user posted image



#446    lonelyalpacafarmer

lonelyalpacafarmer

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2005
  • Location:the boonies

Posted 08 September 2005 - 12:39 PM

I think it is becoming increasingly clear what actually happened on this so called trip to the moon. The government sent a squad of super intelligent primates to the moon so if the mission failed, they could simply blame the apes.

I have circled proof of the primate's presence on this mission in the enclosed photo.

[attachmentid=18488]

Obviously, Nasa has not been telling us the truth!

Attached Files


Edited by lonelyalpacafarmer, 08 September 2005 - 12:42 PM.

I enjoy tennis.

#447    Mr. 420

Mr. 420

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2004
  • Location:The Thermo-Stat

  • In a little toolshed he made us suffer, sad satan

Posted 08 September 2005 - 06:52 PM

Hahahaha ^ the most conclusive evidence to date.

Posted Image
You wore out your welcome with random precision, rode on the steel breeze...

#448    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 08 September 2005 - 10:55 PM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 6 2005, 09:26 PM)
Hi MID - well, I think you then mean that the top still of the two is actually right side up, correct? That would have to be the case, since the gold foil area of the lem is below the dark "strut" area.

View Post




Hi Turb:

This is getting difficult, I think!

Yes:  The top still is a view that you would see, were you standing there looking at the same area that the camera was looking.   The dark area is above the gold foil.
Despite the fact that the camera is upside down...it's still imaging the correct scene for the person looking at the image standing upright.  


You take a video camera, turn it upside down at something similarly devided, and look at the image through the inverted view finder...while still standing upright, you'll basically see the same inage your eyes are seeing.  

So, you can conclude that your area where the people evidence is is below the dark area.   But my point in speaking of camera orientation was to initially show that the original "arm" that you saw in the earlier frames was coming from the MESA area, an area where there was no room for a person to be.   And in this case, your "people's arms" would be in that same area.   There's no room for people there.

The bottom line is that what I'm seeing in these pictures, which basically mirrors what I saw some 36 years ago, is the camera panning past the MESA area, picking up some of the structure of the LM as it does so, and swiftly getting fried by direct exposure of the aperture to the brilliant sun.  

The only way that people, or parts of people could possibly have manifest in these pictures is if there was no MESA or LM descent stage there, really, and this whole thing was shot on a sound stage somplace here on our planet.


Of course, you're contending that that is in fact what the evidence is showing.   Unfortunately, I don't see that at all.  I cannot see anything clear indicating but perhaps a mere suggestion of a human body part in any of these frames.  

One thing to mention is that if NASA had edited these films for public consumption, surely they'd have editied out any evidence of their fakery from the get-go.  Wouldn't you think?  Why would these out of focus, rather nebulous frames be included at all?   After all, planning a conspiracy of the scope you're suggesting would require all parties involved to be on their toes and pay attention to every detail, no?  

I see the same films I've seen for years.   Perhaps cleaned up where possible to be a little clearer in places, but the same films.  

At any rate,   you've got to substantiate your claims of people being there, beyond the rather grainy, suggestions presented.   That's enough of a job in itself.  I don't think I can add anything more.

Besides...you and Data Cable are going over my head (you guys know alot more about high-tech video editing and pixelation and such that I do!), and it seems there's more for you fellows to discuss.

Be nice, Data Cable...no point in being nasty.   This is a discussion forum.  
There are people who believe in the Apollo hoax, and others who don't.   No point in nastyness.  Just talk.  

I'm not always amicable...You ought to see what I say to people like Bart Sibrel and people like Dave Cosnette and Bill Kaysing....I have few manners with them!

...of course, they don't want to discuss. They have agendae, not curiosity.  It's really rather stupid.   This place is different though, so be nice!

Regards.
  







#449    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 09 September 2005 - 12:02 AM

QUOTE(DataCable @ Sep 8 2005, 12:37 AM)
Examples, please, of online clips you consider to be worse quality than the DVD.  Obviously we're using different standards, since this:

user posted image

...is most decidedly better quality than this:

user posted image


Better quality by what standards of measurement? I find the online still to be better in clarity and having less artifacts than the DVD still.

QUOTE
There is no reason that on the transfer to DVD from the original source film, there should now be herringbone pattern pixelation...

QUOTE
Unavoidable, if it was present in the original TV transmission.


The online clip displays no such herringbone artifacts - with the heavy compression ratio of the online clip compared to the DVD transfer, there should be more artifacts present, but there are none.

QUOTE
Unavoidable, when a 24fps kinescope frame "straddles" two 30fps television frames.  Its practically impossible to deconstruct such "double-exposed" frames from each other.


If that was the case, the online clip should display this effect as well, but it doesn't. And btw, the rest of the DVD footage does not display herringbone effects or double imaging effects - it should be present throughout the DVD footage, by your reasoning.

QUOTE
Compound that with the fact that the kinescope footage has been telecined back up to 30fps on the DVD.  If you're viewing it on a TV, the interlaced frames (2 out of every 5) will just look blended.  If you're viewing it on a computer monitor, wether or not you can see the interlacing will depend on your DVD software, if it "bobs" or "weaves" interlaced frames (or allows you the choice of either).  The above frame is from a sequence of the DVD footage which I inverse-telecined back to 24fps progressive.

View Post



Same lack of consistency once more - if it was due to change in fps, the artifacts should have been on all the Apollo 12 footage - it is most definitely not.

Edited by turbonium, 09 September 2005 - 12:04 AM.


#450    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 09 September 2005 - 12:16 AM

QUOTE
The four frames which you have, once again, presented out of sequence. In your image, the fourth frame coumes first, then the second, then the first, then the third, as below

I never said they were in sequence - I posted them to show that the stationary object was still there while the other objects had moved. That is still the case with the frames in proper sequence.

QUOTE
How do you know that frame is "untouched", but the others have been "altered?" And if the others were altered, why would this one not be?

That is simply my take on it, due to clarity of the image and colors being present. It was a color camera, after all. Why it wasn't altered to the same degree is something I can't answer. I can only speculate that it was either overlooked or left as is by a whistleblower. But there is no way of knowing for sure.

QUOTE
And BTW, where are the flesh tones and stationary phone-shaped object in this frame?

I already pointed this out in my previous post. On this still, the flesh tones are not very distinct, only slightly on the man seated on our right, as the other man, standing, has his face blocked behind the shade and his hands are only in lighter shades. And the phone-shaped object is at bottom center.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users