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

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!

833081[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why is this footage before damage creating such obscure images?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why is this footage before damage creating such obscure images?

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

834905[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

836895[/snapback]

____________________________________________________________________

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

837091[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

837494[/snapback]

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Better quality by what standards of measurement?

Overall resolution, degree of preserved detail.

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.

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

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)

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

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

...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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The four frames which you have, once again, presented out of sequence.

I never said they were in sequence

On the contrary:

These are the frames in sequence... 764011[/snapback]

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

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.

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't see any "herringbone artifacts" in this frame?

?? Your still is very different than mine - I captured the video from the streaming clip from the NASA site. I don't know what sort of capturing software you used, but it seems to have made the arm similar in color to the DVD version. And similar "double-knuckling effect. Are you sure that your still is from the online clip, and not the DVD? Look below for the comparisons of your still, then mine, then the DVD....

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, no, it wasn't.

It was described as a color camera. That a color wheel was used to provide the color does not mean otherwise for its general description. From this link is a description of the camera.....Apollo 12

Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP), color TV camera,...

Let's not get too nitpicky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And note that those are just a few examples from the first minute of Disk 2. It's all over the footage

No doubt frames can be found - I said the footage in its entirety should exhibit the effects from the clip - but the overwhelming majority of the footage does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your still is very different than mine

Somewhat different, yes. But the question remains. Do you see herringbone artifacts in the image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the one clearly seen moving out of frame in the following sequence, at the same rate as everything else?

Look again at your stills - in the top frame, the black shade does not have its top visible - by the 4th and 5th of your frames, it is visible. The camera has moved slightly upwards over the course of these four frames. That is why the phone-type object moves out of view.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm sorry if i'm wrong and offended others when i used the term "liars." that may have been too strong of a word. perhaps "biased" would have been more appropriate.

turbonium, i've read a lot of your posts. i don't know if i've read them all. but i remember you saying "they take it as the gospel truth" or whatever, which i consider a joke against the real gospels. you also said "for God's sake" when the bible says not to swear by heaven or earth. the title "God" also may have a pagan origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was described as a color camera.

Yes, it was. And my point was to explain the color discrepancies in the aluminzed kapton coloration. The camera is in motion, hence the color channels to not properly register, and areas which border significantly differing values show a color alteration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said the footage in its entirety should exhibit the effects from the clip - but the overwhelming majority of the footage does not.

The footage in its entirety isn't in constant motion, the overwhelming majority of it is largely static images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The camera has moved slightly upwards over the course of these four frames. That is why the phone-type object moves out of view.

Precisely! The phone-type object which you claimed remained stationary in the frame, when in fact it moves along with everything else in the scene, in the same direction and at the same rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm sorry if i'm wrong and offended others when i used the term "liars." that may have been too strong of a word. perhaps "biased" would have been more appropriate.

turbonium, i've read a lot of your posts. i don't know if i've read them all. but i remember you saying "they take it as the gospel truth" or whatever, which i consider a joke against the real gospels. you also said "for God's sake" when the bible says not to swear by heaven or earth. the title "God" also may have a pagan origin.

837999[/snapback]

"The gospel truth" is not meant as a joke, it's a common saying, which I inferred in my post as meaning impeccable or undeniable truth.

"For God's sake" is not meant as a blespheme. It's another common saying, not meant in any way as anti-Christian, or as a denigration of God. "Thank God" is also used in that same general fashion. And if you are a devout Christian, you may also interpret that as wrong.

But that is also personal interpretation of the Bible. It's not meant as anything other than as I described. I was raised Catholic, but do not personally interpret these sayings as any sort of denigration. It is intent of what is spoken, more than the words themselves, that is most important. My usage of these phrases was not done with any such anti-Christian intent.

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.