NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

[DBunker]

That is a very nice picture.

[MID]

Those couple of frames are showing the boundary between the gold foil and the darker area above it,which is clearly visible in the area of the photo where you've labeled "struts". The camera, still upside down is quickly panning through that region, then you see some evidence of struts and other rigging as the camera moves beyond the aft area of the LM

MID - I bolded your text to point something out. The gold foil has the darker area above it, in the "struts" photo, which of course is not upside down. But you are saying the camera is "upside down" in this still...

But the "foil" is still on the bottom and the "darker area" is still above it. If it is upside down, it should actually look like this...

But then the "foil" is above the dark area.

826137[/snapback]

Turb:

In the top picture, if the camera is upside-down, you are seeing an upside down image. You're standing upright looking at it. And, if you turn the picture over, as you did in the lower one, you are in fact seeing the picture as if you were looking through the view finder on the upside down camera. You are absolutely correct.

But remember, in seeing the picture as it is oriented in the lower frame, you would be upside down looking at it. Thus, at the top of this view, you're seeing the upper edge of the gold foil on the descent stage of the LM, and "below it, the darker area toward the ascent stage. The camera is pointing up toward the top edge of the descent stage.

In this second view I describe, where you're now upside down like the camera is, bending your head toward your chest and looking "down" would find you looking up toward the ascent stage, and moving your head "up" and looking that way would result in your eyes seeing the descent stage, and eventually, the lunar surface.

So, you're correct in that the gold foil is "above" the darker area....as the camera is actually seeing it...but the camera is upside-down upside down...so in relation to gravity, the gold foil area is actually toward the surface, and the darker area is above it.

This is tough to describe. Hopefully, I've been clear enough?

Regards

[LyCaN123]

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

~Thanato

685383[/snapback]

If Nasa did make a cover-up of Appollo why did they do it?

[turbonium]

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.

[turbonium]

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

~Thanato

685383[/snapback]

If Nasa did make a cover-up of Appollo why did they do it?

829330[/snapback]

There are numerous motives for hoaxing the moon landings. The money spent on the Apollo project was enormous, and to not land on the moon would have resulted in an American public outcry at the huge waste of money for little or nothing to show for it.

Remember, this was during the Vietnam War, a quagmire costing thousands of American lives (and many more times Vietnamese lives) and countless dollars - and for what? The Apollo project was seen as not only an ideological battle of Democracy versus Communism (as we were told the Vietnam War was), but also as something positive for American pride and "superiority" over the rest of the world, especially the USSR. Back when Sputnik was launched, during the McCarthy era, to be a "Red" was something akin to being in league with Satan himself.

And of course, the notion of military superiority was considered necessary - and in that era, if you were seen as superior in space, you were considered the world's foremost superpower. It's not true, of course, but at that time it certainly was, in large part thanks to the media hyping it up to the hilt.

But I think money, as it invariably is in most mega-projects, would be the number one reason. If Apollo would have ended in disaster or failure, future funding would have been almost impossible to justify.

Edited September 7, 2005 by turbonium

[DataCable]

There are numerous motives for hoaxing the moon landings.

All of which you have presented are just as valid motives for performing a successful lunar landing mission... or six.

[turbonium]

There are numerous motives for hoaxing the moon landings.

All of which you have presented are just as valid motives for performing a successful lunar landing mission... or six.

831089[/snapback]

I agree - with the exception of another motive I didn't present - the one I feel is the real reason for having to fake it. There was a great leap needed, but far from achieving, in technical ability, due largely to the hazards present in space travel - the radiation, solar flares, and other extreme environmental conditions, to successfully land men on the moon and return safely.

Making actual attempts and showing the disastrous results on live TV while millions watched would have been a catastrophe for the US and its space program.

btw - could you point out where you cropped your photo from on the original pic?

Edited September 7, 2005 by turbonium

[DataCable]

the one I feel is the real reason for having to fake it

In other words, the highly technical boogeyman which is not easily understood by the layman, allowing you to present it as an impenetrable, indefensible, inescapable, insurmountable obstacle, and hence provides a convenient end-run circumvention around the necessity to actually prove any fakery: RADIATION <cue spooky music>

Are you seriously arguing that NASA hadn't considered the issue of radiation at all before they proposed the project to Kennedy?

There was a great leap needed, but far from achieving, in technical ability, due largely to the hazards present in space travel

Wow do the inconsistent verb tenses in that sentence make it difficult to understand.

the radiation

Which was easily shieled against.

solar flares

Rare events which were avoided by keeping the mission durations short.

If you have evidence of a solar flare of life-endangering intensity occuring during an Apollo mission, please present it. The effects of solar flares cannot be covered up, by NASA or anyone else.

and other extreme environmental conditions

Such as?

Making actual attempts and showing the disastrous results on live TV while millions watched would have been a catastrophe for the US and its space program.

Indeed, it likely would have... if the results had in fact been disastrous... which, of course, they weren't.

could you point out where you cropped your photo from on the original pic?

<sigh> Point your cursor at 482x1418.

Can you point out the "flesh tones" in this image?

And the "white, phone-shaped object on the surface," the one which appears at the bottom of all the RealVideo frames, proving that the "metal shade" is actually being pulled down... Does that appear here?

[turbonium]

Point your cursor at 482x1418.

Pixels? Do you mean 482x418? because I can't get a 1418 measurement from pixels. If it is the gold foil, you must have color edited your cropped image, because the actual area looks like the cropped image I posted here below yours....

[turbonium]

Can you point out the "flesh tones" in this image?

And the "white, phone-shaped object on the surface," the one which appears at the bottom of all the RealVideo frames, proving that the "metal shade" is actually being pulled down... Does that appear here?

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

As for the rest of your replies, they were rather childish - you're old enough to be done with that. Follow MID's examples of how to post in a mature, respectful way.

Edited September 8, 2005 by turbonium

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

Those people must have claws for hands apparently.

[Mr. 420]

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

There are no telephones on the moon.

[DataCable]

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?

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?

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?

[turbonium]

Those people must have claws for hands apparently.

832774[/snapback]

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...

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...

Edited September 8, 2005 by turbonium

[Fluffybunny]

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...

[turbonium]

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...

832829[/snapback]

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 September 8, 2005 by turbonium

[turbonium]

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.

[DataCable]

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?

[DataCable]

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:

...is most decidedly better quality than this:

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.

...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.

[DataCable]

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:

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?

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?

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

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!

Edited September 8, 2005 by lonelyalpacafarmer

[Mr. 420]

Hahahaha ^ the most conclusive evidence to date.

[MID]

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.

830895[/snapback]

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.

[turbonium]

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

...is most decidedly better quality than this:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

832900[/snapback]

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 September 9, 2005 by turbonium

[turbonium]

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.

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.

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.