Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
turbonium

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

548 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Well, I'm back to the Apollo moon hoax topic, as I promised, after receiving the new Apollo 12 dvd. And, it is, to put it simply, one gigantic cover-up job!! The folks at NASA and/or Spacecraft Films (who work closely with NASA) have taken their little editing tools to the original Apollo 12 footage!! If you've followed my previous threads on this, you know I've posted frames from the NASA website that appear to show a bare arm moving about while holding a metal rod, and other people pulling down a black shade or panel.

So I expected much clearer footage on the dvd, as it was transferred directly from the master tapes, according to the makers of the dvd. Uh Uh, DIDN'T HAPPEN! no.gif As a matter of fact, the footage has actually been purposely ruined through extreme pixelating of the critical part of the film, and also inserting lettering that covers the bottom part of the film!!

Here is a comparison of frame stills between the original NASA video as I recorded from their site, and the new (and manipulated) dvd version!! The dvd stills have the lettering on the bottom, the original video stills do not...

[attachmentid=15728][attachmentid=15729] [attachmentid=15731][attachmentid=15730]

The Arm has been DELIBERATELY over-pixelated to the point of creating a "double-knuckle" effect on the hand. And the people behind the black shade have been obliterated from view with mega-pixelation and superimposed lettering!

My suspicions have been confirmed. NASA is very aware of the anomalies in their video, and have manipulated the evidence which proves Apollo was a GIGANTIC HOAX!!

post-16232-1119080567_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119080607_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119080730_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119080914_thumb.jpg

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the update--out of curiosity--did they remove the originals from the webpage? it is truly damning evidence that they had missed but obviously they got word of the mistakes--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for the update--out of curiosity--did they remove the originals from the webpage? it is truly damning evidence that they had missed but obviously they got word of the mistakes--

684152[/snapback]

No, the original video is still online. And yes, it confirmed my fears and suspicions that they would obscure the dvd images! They must feel that the online version is blurry enough not to implicate them conclusively. We now know the dvd would have destroyed any doubts of their staging Apollo....wrong - it just convinced me 100% it was all a hoax!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm.. I dont see any difference between the two versions except that one is darker and has caption...

Personally, I think your paranoid. If the video was a smoking gun, they'd simply not publish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must agree, I lived in Pahrump, NV. for many years about 35 miles, where several people I knew very well worked at the infamous non exsistent Area 51.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

turbo -how is it we get along so weel,and are so different?my uncle was a doctor at nasa in the late 60s,to mid70s.he examined a lot of the astronauts before they went into space,and he even has some money that was on the moon in armstrong's suit.he was very tight with my dad,my dad raised him really cause their mother died when uncle jack was very small.i know about all the top secret things,and you are'nt supposed to tell,i'm telling you he would have told my dad

if he ever thought that the landing was faked,and he was smart enough to have figured it out if it was faked.my dad had a very high clearance in the navy,and so did uncle jack.bro,i'm telling you,it ai'nt fake,it really happened! wink2.gifthumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm.. I dont see any difference between the two versions except that one is darker and has caption...

Personally, I think your paranoid. If the video was a smoking gun, they'd simply not publish it.

684379[/snapback]

Umm....if you don't see the pixelation added, and the double knuckle effect, than you better look again. I'm not paranoid. You might be in denial however, if you don't even see the added pixelation and knuckle effect. You cannot explain away the arm as anything but an arm - period. I have posted countless challenges to explain it as something else...nobody has had even a halfway credible alternative.

The "smoking gun" HAS been edited - deny it if you wish, but it doesn't make it non-existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really need proof of the pixelating, I've cropped two identical sections from the video and dvd versions. Please open your eyes.....

[attachmentid=15752][attachmentid=15753][attachmentid=15754][attachmentid=15755]

post-16232-1119142022_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119142041_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119142233_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119142257_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me we've been to the moon.

It wasn;t fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbo -how is it we get along so weel,and are so different?my uncle was a doctor at nasa in the late 60s,to mid70s.he examined a lot of the astronauts before they went into space,and he even has some money that was on the moon in armstrong's suit.he was very tight with my dad,my dad raised him really cause their mother died when uncle jack was very small.i know about all the top secret things,and you are'nt supposed to tell,i'm telling you he would have told my dad

if he ever thought that the landing was faked,and he was smart enough to have figured it out if it was faked.my dad had a very high clearance in the navy,and so did uncle jack.bro,i'm telling you,it ai'nt fake,it really happened! wink2.gif  thumbsup.gif

684901[/snapback]

We agree to disagree, that's all, my friend thumbsup.gif . Nothing personal, I just see what I see - and I see a fleshy arm in the video. I really think the Apollo astronauts were and are sworn to secrecy at peril of death (Gus Grissom was taken out, imo). Can you even imagine if, say, Armstrong spilled the beans on it all? It may take a deathbed confession by an Apollo astronaut who has no family in danger if he spoke out. Every time I see Armstrong, he has the look of someone who is disgusted with having to maintain the charade. He does not have the look of having accomplished something as significant as first man on the moon. I think it's because he is deep down a man of highest integrity...I really feel bad for the guy.....Anyway, we don't need to agree on all this, it's just a difference of opinions among buds.. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trust me we've been to the moon.

It wasn;t fake.

685210[/snapback]

Sorry, bud, I don't - I don't expect anyone to trust me either just because I say so. I'd like to know how to explain a fleshy arm as something else, for starters......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm....if you don't see the pixelation added, and the double knuckle effect, than you better look again. I'm not paranoid. You might be in denial however, if you don't even see the added pixelation and knuckle effect. You cannot explain away the arm as anything but an arm - period. I have posted countless challenges to explain it as something else...nobody has had even a halfway credible alternative.

Lmfao. You call that pixilization? Christ, I wish people at least understood basic things about video editing before putting foreward arguments like this. The images are not pixilated at all, what you're calling "pixilization" is simply the use of video compression.

And not only that, but what you call an "arm" really cant even be identified as an arm. The human mind tries to identify unknown images with shapes we can recognise... but seeing an arm in that is, IMO, more forced than naturally.

I have posted countless challenges to explain it as something else...nobody has had even a halfway credible alternative.

Thats because you wont accept anything as "arm" being credible. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say "arm", you're talking about some sort of robotic extension, right? Not an actual human arm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say "arm", you're talking about some sort of robotic extension, right?  Not an actual human arm?

685349[/snapback]

Bare human arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DVD one is accualy better qulity i think, i can make out Details better.

~Thanato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First it was....

Umm.. I dont see any difference between the two versions except that one is darker and has caption...

Then it became....

Lmfao. You call that pixilization? Christ, I wish people at least understood basic things about video editing before putting foreward arguments like this. The images are not pixilated at all, what you're calling "pixilization" is simply the use of video compression.

So it's darker, and has a caption. That's all. But then when I show the difference in a close-up, you laugh it off as "hah! that's not pixelization, that's COMPRESSION!" laugh.gif

Here are the video stills with pixelation - [attachmentid=15760][attachmentid=15761]

Not out of the realm of possible video tools used, is it? More to the point, it doesn't matter WHAT the tools used, and in what sequence they were apllied to the original. The point is that they WERE used to alter the images - even compression being applied is an edit, my friend!

post-16232-1119149577_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119149595_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The DVD one is accualy better qulity i think, i can make out Details better.

~Thanato

685383[/snapback]

The REST of the DVD is impeccably clearer in quality. I'll put up some comparison stills of the video just a minute or two BEFORE the segment they manipulated. But these stills, uh uh, you can't even compare in overall sharpness or color quality. But you may have a point in that the original source WAS sharper, so certain aspects within the little "rectangles" of their editing may be better.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trust me we've been to the moon.

It wasn;t fake.

685210[/snapback]

Sorry, bud, I don't - I don't expect anyone to trust me either just because I say so. I'd like to know how to explain a fleshy arm as something else, for starters......

685218[/snapback]

You do know that when you pixilate an image you can see things that arn;t really there.

If you post the priginal image i might not be so skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ou do know that when you pixilate an image you can see things that arn;t really there. If you post the priginal image i might not be so skeptical.

I have - the originals of the online video clip are the stills in my first post WITHOUT captions on the bottom. The original DVD stills are the ones WITH the captions. All original, from both sources......I think I see where you may be confused - I stated the new DVD stills as (manipulated).....I meant that to mean 'manipulated by NASA and/or Spacecraft Films'. They ARE the original stills right from the source DVD.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well i'll take another look at them more closely this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First it was...

Then it became....

Its the same thing. Its the same picture... No editing. Its simply darker in one than the other. The "pixilation" is due to compression, not the image being edited.

So it's darker, and has a caption. That's all. But then when I show the difference in a close-up, you laugh it off as "hah! that's not pixelization, that's COMPRESSION!"

Thats because it is the video compression. I was looking for editions to the film, some doctoring to it, and as such, all that poped into view as changes to the image is the brightness and the caption. When talking about pixilation, what you say was pixilated was not pixilated at all.

Here are the video stills with pixelation -

Wait a sec... Why is the left most picture you showed ACTUALLY pixilated while the others posted previously were not? Have YOU edited it?

Not out of the realm of possible video tools used, is it? More to the point, it doesn't matter WHAT the tools used, and in what sequence they were apllied to the original. The point is that they WERE used to alter the images - even compression being applied is an edit, my friend!

What tools being used is not being discussed here. The point is, video tools did not pixilate the image. The compression being applied does not pixilate the image, nor can it be considered "doctoring". THAT is whats being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wait a sec... Why is the left most picture you showed ACTUALLY pixilated while the others posted previously were not? Have YOU edited it?

YES - that's what I'm pointing out to you - I edited the originals with pixelating to resemble the DVD stills that THEY have edited. I'm pointing out the way pixelation effects could have been at least part of what they did to the dvd version.

Thats because it is the video compression. I was looking for editions to the film, some doctoring to it, and as such, all that poped into view as changes to the image is the brightness and the caption. When talking about pixilation, what you say was pixilated was not pixilated at all.

What tools being used is not being discussed here. The point is, video tools did not pixilate the image. The compression being applied does not pixilate the image, nor can it be considered "doctoring". THAT is whats being discussed.

OK - this is important. You claim that these rectangular artifacts on the stills are the result of "compression". The original films were transferred digitally to retain the quality virtually as identical to the original. These transfers were done with frame by frame digital scans, with no compression. The digital transfer is actually greater in clarity, especially with professional studio equipment.

THIS is a comparison of stills between the online video (1st pic) and the DVD still (2nd pic)

[attachmentid=15766][attachmentid=15767]

That is how the rest of the DVD is - much sharper and clearer than the VERY COMPRESSED original online video!! It HAS to be better quality as a digital transfer from the ORIGINAL FILM!!

post-16232-1119157860_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119157880_thumb.jpg

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YES - that's what I'm pointing out to you - I edited the originals with pixelating to resemble the DVD stills that THEY have edited. I'm pointing out the way pixelation effects could have been at least part of what they did to the dvd version.

Your pixilated version looks nothing like the dvd version.

OK - this is important. You claim that these rectangular artifacts on the stills are the result of "compression". The original films were transferred digitally to retain the quality virtually as identical to the original. These transfers were done with frame by frame digital scans, with no compression. The digital transfer is actually greater in clarity, especially with professional studio equipment.

When you put video onto a DVD, they're compressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesnt surprise me really that people in 2005 still are in denial over the Moon landing ... back in the 50's people were running around arguing the Moon was a big hunk of cheese lmao

Ive tried to follow the theory proposed as objectively as possible, and even with the most creative way I can look at it ... if that is an arm its definitely NOT a human arm ? maybe its a pic of an alien or something ??? they could have been there secretly watching over the Moon landing you never know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your pixilated version looks nothing like the dvd version.

Really? Never woulda guessed! rolleyes.gif My point was only to show how the pixellating type effect, and/or OTHER effects, can easily have been used to generate the segmented/pixelated effect on the DVD still.. I'm sure the pros can duplicate it no problem. THAT is ALL I'm trying to get across with the editing I did....that it WAS edited for the DVD.

When you put video onto a DVD, they're compressed.

From this link DVD transfer it explains one method of uncompressed transfer to DVD....

Film is digitized frame-by-frame with no interlacing to provide a completely frame-accurate transfer. Transferring frame-by-frame ensures 100% frame accuracy for critical sound sync applications. Also, such frame discretion means the clearest, most crisp picture possible next to a Rank transfer.You get the full resolution of DVD with more than twice the horizontal resolution of VHS.

We digitize all film using a 850-line 3-CCD broadcast video camera and capture from a component 10-bit 4:2:2 signal to 10-bit 4:2:2 uncompressed, 8-bit 4:2:2 uncompressed or 8-bit 4:1:1 DV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.