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

#451    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 09 September 2005 - 12:19 AM

QUOTE(lonelyalpacafarmer @ Sep 8 2005, 05:39 AM)
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!

View Post


LOL! That's hilarious!
I agree, things can be made from shapes, but I seriously don't believe it in the case of the people in the stills, because they move, and have flesh tones on their hands and faces, and have long sleeved, colored shirts.




#452    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 09 September 2005 - 12:39 AM

QUOTE
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.

Fair enough, MID - I don't doubt your sincerity on what you see or don't see here. I still see it as I have from the first time I saw the clip.

QUOTE
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?

Yes, that's a valid point, which I mentioned in my previous post today. I don't know for sure, but in my opinion, as I said earlier, I believe that the online footage has been doctored already, because this clip is before the camera was said to have been damaged by sensor burnout due to pointing the camera toward the Sun. So why is this footage before damage creating such obscure images? Well,  as you mentioned earlier, this was virtually live footage the public was viewing. They would have to either censor the footage outright, dialogue and video, or keep the footage in and edit it - that goes for the DVD transfer as well. They couldn't remove it outright without raising red flags from people wondering what happened to it, since it was already recorded in the Apollo journals. That is why I believe the only option was to manipulate the images to obscure object details.

QUOTE
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.

Another valid point. That is why, when I obtained the DVD release, I was frustrated because I believe they doctored the segment of video even more than the online version! I had a hunch this would be done, because (again, imo) it is a smoking gun.

Cheers.

Edited by turbonium, 09 September 2005 - 12:42 AM.


#453    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 09 September 2005 - 10:37 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 8 2005, 08:39 PM)
So why is this footage before damage creating such obscure images?

Has anyone claimed that these images result from damage to the camera?


#454    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 10 September 2005 - 01:16 AM

QUOTE(DataCable @ Sep 9 2005, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 8 2005, 08:39 PM)
So why is this footage before damage creating such obscure images?

Has anyone claimed that these images result from damage to the camera?

View Post


No - I never said anyone made that claim. I'm simply emphasizing the fact that the images were taken before the damage, so that cannot be a factor in how poor in quality they are.



#455    johnl285

johnl285

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2005

Posted 10 September 2005 - 04:02 PM

those of you who say "i see nothing" "there's nothing there" "you uninformed conspiracist" or whatever are liars. at least admit you see something.

1. you see arms

    or

2. you see natural effects

at least admit you see something. at least datacable admits there are color streak anomalies that are natural effects in that astronaut photo. at least, admit there's something there and try to show a similar image that explains it away instead of simply denying, and saying it shows nothing. it isn't a complete black background, nor is it completely gold, nor is it completely red. at least admit that.


turbonium, don't blaspheme. swearing and bringing up the bible in jokes. i'm christian.


#456    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 10 September 2005 - 06:02 PM

QUOTE(johnl285 @ Sep 10 2005, 12:02 PM)
those of you who say "i see nothing" "there's nothing there" "you uninformed conspiracist" or whatever are liars. at least admit you see something.

1. you see arms

    or

2. you see natural effects

at least admit you see something. at least datacable admits there are color streak anomalies that are natural effects in that astronaut photo. at least, admit there's something there and try to show a similar image that explains it away instead of simply denying, and saying it shows nothing. it isn't a complete black background, nor is it completely gold, nor is it completely red. at least admit that.


turbonium, don't blaspheme. swearing and bringing up the bible in jokes. i'm christian.

View Post



____________________________________________________________________
One wonders...
What are you talking about?

This discussion centers around a person's interpretation of "people" evidence in a few frames of Apollo 12 footage, and a somewhat intelligent discussion between he and those who see nothing pertaining to people in those frames.

No one said "I see nothing", and meant they saw "nothing".  That should seem obvious to anyone who's explored this thread.

And along those lines, if you examine this thread fully, you will see that vast explanations of what's being seen have been presented.  DataCable and Turb have been hashing back and forth in video-technish, and I've been discussing the hardware and such that was present on the surface of the moon that day and how the images Turb's talking about can be explained by what the camera was actually doing and what it was "seeing".

It's kinda interesting.  

Given all of the above, I have to wonder what you're talking about.


Oh yea, let's leave religion off the table here.  It's irrelevant to this discussion, and people don't need to be told not to blapsheme or swear (besides, who did that, Turb?  Where?...don't answer).   There are certainly other Christians aboard, and probably some agnostics or atheists, and Jews, and maybe even a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Hindu someplace.   No one's wearing their religion on their sleeve here.  This is a scientific discussion (well, I hope so, anyway).

There's a simple solution to your problem...If someone is saying something that offends you (and I can't imagine who that might be),  do like you should when you're watching TV and you see something you don't like.   Don't sit there and whine about it... no.gif

Turn the channel...if you get my drift.     thumbsup.gif


#457    I Am Normal

I Am Normal

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 13 posts
  • Joined:09 Jul 2005

Posted 10 September 2005 - 07:00 PM

Hi,

I have been follwing this thread now for a couple of weeks and I think it is fascinating. At the moment im swinging towords Mid, though I do like  Turbs enthusiasm.


Looking forward  to the next instalment.


Just thought I would let you know I appreciate your debating thumbsup.gif


P.S,  I have a feeling you two are going to become good freinds as you both feed well of each other.

Cheers


#458    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 10 September 2005 - 09:02 PM

QUOTE(I Am Normal @ Sep 10 2005, 03:00 PM)
Hi,

I have been follwing this thread now for a couple of weeks and I think it is fascinating. At the moment im swinging towords Mid, though I do like  Turbs enthusiasm.


Looking forward  to the next instalment.


Just thought I would let you know I appreciate your debating thumbsup.gif


P.S,  I have a feeling you two are going to become good freinds as you both feed well of each other.

Cheers

View Post




Well Normal,

Number one I thank you for your comments, and I'm sure Turb will as well.  
I don't know what's next, honestly, as Turb and Data Cable are engaged in a pretty technical discussion of video processing, and pixels and stuff like that.   It's not something I'm familiar with very much, so I'm just reading from time to time and admiring their entusiasm! original.gif

I find it fascinating to see some of the ideas that come up regarding this hoax business.  I of course was around for Apollo and know a little something about it, and I've engaged in some lengthy discussions with folks who are enraptured by the hoax theory (it's mostly younger folks...separated by over a generation from that time and heavily Internet influenced).  I actually enjoy it.  I do not, however, have all too much respect for folks who perpetrate various bogus, unsubstantiated, and often unintelligibnle stuff and present it as fact (i.e., Mr. Kaysing, those Cosmic nuts, and Mr. Sibrel et.al.).  There, I put it in their face sometimes.

But Turb is actually seeing something here that is intriguing.  I understand it and what he's seeing.  I don't buy it, of course, and he doesn't support my position.  That's fair.  He's very intrigued by the possibility that this particular evidence will point to something that would indeed be the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.  He is also exhausting every resource to weed through his contention.

I cannot help but admire that zeal, and that method.  I think it's legitimate.  

He's not one of these crackpots who come out, present something patently false (i.e., Overstreet, Cosmic, etc.), and say, "PROOF: APOLLO WAS FAKED". Those people cannot stand erect, let alone prove anything.   Turb is investigating.  There's a big difference between the two.

We've had a few irrelevant interjections here, of course, but your comment is appreciated.

Regards.  



#459    johnl285

johnl285

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 01:08 AM

there have been people who said they see nothing. this thread is very long with many pages.

at least admit that it is not a complete darkness, which is nothing. or completely gold, which would be the foil. or completely reflective like a shiny mirror.

i suggest, mid, that you follow your own opinions, and leave this forum, if you don't like my reply. this is what you can do when you watch tv. turn the channel, mid.


#460    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 11 September 2005 - 01:22 AM

QUOTE(johnl285 @ Sep 10 2005, 09:08 PM)
there have been people who said they see nothing. this thread is very long with many pages.

at least admit that it is not a complete darkness, which is nothing. or completely gold, which would be the foil. or completely reflective like a shiny mirror.

i suggest, mid, that you follow your own opinions, and leave this forum, if you don't like my reply. this is what you can do when you watch tv. turn the channel, mid.

View Post




I didn't say I didn't like your reply.
You made a comment, which wasn't really clear.
You also told Turb not to blaspheme and swear, invoking your religion.
I asked, "What are you talking about?" and told you to leave the religion at home.  This is not the place for it.  

With this odd comment above, I am still asking what your talking about...




#461    johnl285

johnl285

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 01:37 AM

some people seemed to just deny, deny and then try to digress and counter with circumstantial questions to turbonium. such as, "how could a large agency fake this? why would they leave such tiny evidence? the russian country would have known"

this goes on for pages. until, datacable provided a plausible alternate explanation by giving pictures with natural color anomalies.

do you agree with me that...
1. people denied
2. no picture evidence was given
3. datacable finally gave picture evidence

i put it in 1, 2, 3 format so that you may understand clearly hopefully. and ok, then, don't turn the channel on the tv to my reply.

here are options.
1. deny there's anything unusual, it's normal like other footage
2. deny but say there's a non-continuously colored section
3. accept but say the evidence is inconclusive
4. accept

people seemed to have in general accepted number 1. the only evidence i consider as feasible for natural effects so far is what datacable has given which was some time after the original post.

Edited by johnl285, 11 September 2005 - 03:33 AM.


#462    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 11 September 2005 - 06:20 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 8 2005, 08:02 PM)
Better quality by what standards of measurement?

Overall resolution, degree of preserved detail.


QUOTE
I find the online still to be better in clarity and having less artifacts than the DVD still.

Comparitively far less detail, and what is there is distorded by compression artifacts.


QUOTE
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.

You don't see any "herringbone artifacts" in this frame?

user posted image


QUOTE
If that was the case, the online clip should display this effect as well, but it doesn't.

Depends on how subtle the 2nd exposure is.  For that matter, a double exposure of consecutive frames might not be as apparent in the RealVideo, since typically 3 source frames were skipped between each frame it recorded. (though it varied from as few as 1 to as many as 6 skipped frames, in the section I scrutinized)  


QUOTE
And btw, the rest of the DVD footage does not display herringbone effects...

Depends on what particular interference caused the herringbone at the time.


QUOTE
...or double imaging effects - it should be present throughout the DVD footage, by your reasoning.


user posted image
Disk 2, Title 2, Chapter 1, 0:0:15

user posted image
Disk 2, Title 2, Chapter 1, 0:0:57

user posted image
Disk 2, Title 2, Chapter 1, 0:0:59

And note that those are just a few examples from the first minute of Disk 2.  It's all over the footage


QUOTE
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.

Since all of the DVD footage has been telecined, 2 out of every 5 frames are interlaced, and will display as either bobbed (blended together) or weaved (interlaced) depending on your setup, as explained earlier.


#463    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 11 September 2005 - 07:37 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 8 2005, 08:16 PM)
QUOTE
The four frames which you have, once again, presented out of sequence.

I never said they were in sequence

On the contrary:
QUOTE(turbonium @ Jul 31 2005, 03:46 AM)
These are the frames in sequence... View Post

Further, the captions within the image itself imply they are in sequence: "Same man moving form here...." "..down to here.." "..then down to here"


QUOTE
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.

See below.


QUOTE
It was a color camera, after all.

Actually, no, it wasn't.  It was a modified B&W camera, from which each field was captured through either a blue, green or red filter on a rotating wheel.  The fields were then separated into color channels on Earth.  This allowed a lighter, less sophistocated camera and a signal which took up much less bandwidth than a full color signal, at the expense of some image clarity.  This is the reason for motion color ghosting.

For example, using this theoretical color input:
user posted image

The raw camera output would look like this:
user posted image

And the re-assembled color sequence looks like this:
user posted image


QUOTE
And the phone-shaped object is at bottom center.

You mean the one clearly seen moving out of frame in the following sequence, at the same rate as everything else?

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Edited by DataCable, 11 September 2005 - 07:38 AM.


#464    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 08:41 AM

QUOTE
turbonium, don't blaspheme. swearing and bringing up the bible in jokes. i'm christian.

To repeat what MID asked - what are you talking about? Where have I done this? I don't swear on this forum - and the mod's would take it out if I even tried. And I don't blaspheme, joke about the Bible, or about any religious beliefs.


#465    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 08:59 AM

QUOTE
Comparitively far less detail, and what is there is distorded by compression artifacts.

Your personal opinion, as is mine for the opposite. Subjective opinions are of course all that can be offered for comparitive analysis of the DVD and online video. I have personally shown the stills to about 20 people for impartial opinions on which stills are better quality (clarity, definition, etc.). Three of them are actually professional photographers with many years of experience in the field. All 20 people agreed with my opinion on the stills. They were not told what the stills are from, they were only asked to compare three paired sets of stills. I also posted stills in the Photoshop Forum for opinions - only one reply to date (I don't think it's a big forum) - but the poster also agreed with my opinion. This link is to the reply...Stills





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users