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

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.

Just as you can take the paintbrush and color every pixel in to match the DVD still. Either way, what you're calling pixilation in the DVD still is simply a result of compression.

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.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question596.htm

Honestly, how long is the DVD you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as you can take the paintbrush and color every pixel in to match the DVD still. Either way, what you're calling pixilation in the DVD still is simply a result of compression.

Compare the two frames other the arm frames - that it how much sharper the entire DVD quality is. By your logic, I may as well watch the online video version for better quality!! laugh.gif

Honestly, how long is the DVD you have?

There is barely an hour of footage from Apollo 12. There are 3 DVD's in the set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Compare the two frames other the arm frames

Rephrase plz.

There is barely an hour of footage from Apollo 12. There are 3 DVD's in the set.

The 3 DVDs are simply that "barely an hour" footage, or is there more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i saw a show on nat geo a few months back,and they tried and were very succesful at re-creating the nasa moonshot footage in the desert somewhere out

west,they used the same tyoe of film,camera,and high intensity lights was the light source.they proved that even on earth,you could'nt see stars in the night with a camera,they showed how flimsy the pole holding the flag was,they accounted for many of the shadowed photos.the one thing they did'nt or could'nt figure out was why the lander did'nt kick around a lot of dirt when it landed when by all the laws of science,it should have,and they did'nt even address the arm photo.did anybody else see this show?

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can explain away for me how the historic video of the Earth rising over the Moons horizon was taken then ???? .... No ? didnt think so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people feel the need to believe these conspiracy theories for some reason no matter how goofy they are. It is sad really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe someone can explain away for me how the historic video of the Earth rising over the Moons horizon was taken then ???? .... No ? didnt think so

686752[/snapback]

that would have been hard to fake back then i would think.

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused...

Is the claim that NASA just released a videotape with footage that can be seen to be edited from previous footage, and that that footage contains evidence of...something?

Wouldn't that be a little silly of NASA to do, assuming they are trying to hide whatever it is they are supposed to be hiding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Compare the two frames other the arm frames

Rephrase plz.

There is barely an hour of footage from Apollo 12. There are 3 DVD's in the set.

The 3 DVDs are simply that "barely an hour" footage, or is there more?

686298[/snapback]

Look at the two frames on my post #21. Compare the DVD frame to the online video frame. See how much BETTER quality the DVD still is? That's how the rest of the DVD footage compares to the online video, as one would expect. But the quality is WORSE on the DVD only for those 30 or so seconds that show the arm and the people. There is NO reason for a reverse in quality there.....except for an intentional editing!!

The DVD's are the hour of footage, plus some still photograpghs and a couple of short clips inside NASA testing areas on Earth. That's basically all of it. The other Apollo mission sets have 6 DVD's!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a little confused...

Is the claim that NASA just released a videotape with footage that can be seen to be edited from previous footage, and that that footage contains evidence of...something?

Wouldn't that be a little silly of NASA to do, assuming they are trying to hide whatever it is they are supposed to be hiding?

687002[/snapback]

Yes it was edited - it's plain as day as you can compare from the stills. I have NOT edited the original stills in any way (except, obviously, the two in one post I pixelated to show a possible effect they added to the DVD.)

It's not really silly of NASA to do what they did - imo it was their only real option.. NASA had the choice of no editing, which would have sharpened the arm footage, or editing it to obscure the arm. If they had deleted it outright, they would be flagged for censoring the material, because it's available online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe someone can explain away for me how the historic video of the Earth rising over the Moons horizon was taken then ???? .... No ? didnt think so

686752[/snapback]

that would have been hard to fake back then i would think.

user posted image

686856[/snapback]

user posted image

Wish the pic was larger. sad.gif

Anywho, 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968, a full year before the Apollo 11 mission, and I think the fx still stand up even to today's standards (not that I'm getting involved in this discussion, mind). innocent.gif

Edit: oops, got the missions mixed up.

Edited by theSOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywho, 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968, a full year before the Apollo 11 mission, and I think the fx still stand up even to today's standards (not that I'm getting involved in this discussion, mind). innocent.gif

Edit: oops, got the missions mixed up.

687195[/snapback]

I loved 2001 Space Odyssey .... Quite honestly though great effects are just not anywhere near the video Im referring to. When they made 2001 they didnt realise that particular arrangement (in the pic youve shown) wasnt possible. The vid I refer to is taken from the command module orbiting the Moon & catching Earth breaching the horizon & ascending all while taking in the Moons horizon and the bottom part of the footage shows the Moons surface speeding past under the ship relative to everything else. Still today a mind blowing video (Just seen it recently too on History on the doco 'Race to the Moon')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're whole theory rests on the fact that one copy of fooage is better quality then another copy? And you admit to purposely editing the footage? Wow, really grasping at straws here aren't you? Are you a photo/film expert? Do you have any qualifications?

There was no bare arm on the moon, but there definately were humans on the moon.

Can you counter all the evidence that shows we were there? All the people that worked on the mission... The fact that Russia does not dispute the fact we were on the moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i liked 2010,with roy scheider,john lithgow,and madilyn smith and to me it was way better 2001 was .i saw it (2001)at the movies when it came out,and it was one of those insomniac

flicks ya can't help but fall asleep at!!! laugh.gif

Edited by openmind1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're whole theory rests on the fact that one copy of fooage is better quality then another copy?  And you admit to purposely editing the footage?  Wow, really grasping at straws here aren't you?  Are you a photo/film expert?  Do you have any qualifications?

There was no bare arm on the moon, but there definately were humans on the moon.

Can you counter all the evidence that shows we were there?  All the people that worked on the mission...  The fact that Russia does not dispute the fact we were on the moon?

687768[/snapback]

Go back and read what I said -I edited two stills to prove a point, in one of my posts!!! The others are all original stills. rolleyes.gif You can be a newbie or a pro at film and video, it doesn't matter when you compare all the footage, as long as you've got decent eyesight!! laugh.gif

btw all your many extra questions show much desperation in hanging on to a myth....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i liked 2010,with roy scheider,john lithgow,and madilyn smith  and to me it was way better 2001 was .i saw it (2001)at the movies when it came out,and it was one of those insomniac

flicks ya can't help but fall asleep at!!! laugh.gif

688557[/snapback]

laugh.gif I think 2001 is the perfect cure for insomniacs!! Actually, you can easily fall asleep to it even if you're not!! rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Go back and read what I said -I edited two stills to prove a point, in one of my posts!!! The others are all original stills.  rolleyes.gif You can be a newbie or a pro at film and video, it doesn't matter when you compare all the footage, as long as you've got decent eyesight!! laugh.gif

It would help!

Well, you see a bare arm, I don't... and neither do most people here... So who's got the better eye sight?

btw all your many extra questions show much desperation in hanging on to a myth....

You dodging these questions tells me you have much desperation to hang on to a myth

You counter all the facts and evidence that we went to the moon, by saying you see a bare arm in some picture that has been compressed and is hard to make out?

So your "arm" beats all the evidence supplied by...

http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

And many many more?

Start proving these people wrong, and maybe i can start to take you seriously

Do you know what pareidolia means?

I think I asked this in your last post... but I'm still unsure what you think is an arm?

is it this picture?

If so, I have no idea how you get an arm out of this? How many elbows do you have? Either that arm you have two forearms that split off you elbow in two different directions. Not to mention there are no fingers...

Edited by Nethius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is utter foolishness.........I agree with the comment made that Russia would have called B.S. if they thought for any reason they could discredit the U.S.......

Don't you think a WHOLE COUNTRY bent on defeating the U.S. on a global basis, with access to information from possibly every level of goverment would point out to the whole world that the Apollo missions were fake?!?!?!?!? The Russians would have EVERYTHING to gain from such a debacle.

Cheese and rice man, your talking CRAZY. If your gonna try to prove something, please leave the crazy stuff at the front door, we're all stocked up here. w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just for reference

[attachmentid=15852]

[attachmentid=15853]

[attachmentid=15854]

post-11756-1119366169_thumb.jpg

post-11756-1119366200_thumb.jpg

post-11756-1119366246_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

I still dont see the shape (besides the one you put in there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just for  reference

[attachmentid=15852]

[attachmentid=15853]

[attachmentid=15854]

689730[/snapback]

Oh My!

I especially like that last one! I'm at work, and my manager walked by looking at my funny, because i was laughing so hard (she had no idea why)

[sarcasm]Yea that really makes it clear as day![/sarcasm]

You could draw those faces and arms over any picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

I still dont see the shape (besides the one you put in there).

689739[/snapback]

You are ignoring this point so here it is again....

Look at the two frames on my post #21. Compare the DVD frame to the online video frame. See how much BETTER quality the DVD still is? That's how the rest of the DVD footage compares to the online video, as one would expect. But the quality is WORSE on the DVD only for those 30 or so seconds that show the arm and the people. There is NO reason for a reverse in quality there.....except for an intentional editing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Go back and read what I said -I edited two stills to prove a point, in one of my posts!!! The others are all original stills.  rolleyes.gif You can be a newbie or a pro at film and video, it doesn't matter when you compare all the footage, as long as you've got decent eyesight!! laugh.gif

It would help!

Well, you see a bare arm, I don't... and neither do most people here... So who's got the better eye sight?

btw all your many extra questions show much desperation in hanging on to a myth....

You dodging these questions tells me you have much desperation to hang on to a myth

You counter all the facts and evidence that we went to the moon, by saying you see a bare arm in some picture that has been compressed and is hard to make out?

So your "arm" beats all the evidence supplied by...

http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

And many many more?

Start proving these people wrong, and maybe i can start to take you seriously

Do you know what pareidolia means?

I think I asked this in your last post... but I'm still unsure what you think is an arm?

is it this picture?

If so, I have no idea how you get an arm out of this? How many elbows do you have? Either that arm you have two forearms that split off you elbow in two different directions. Not to mention there are no fingers...

689649[/snapback]

You need to look at the stills on post #21 also, before you can even start to know what I'm talking about. I will also re-post the entire motion of the arm so you can understand that there are only "knuckles" showing, not fingers, as you would expect when grasping an object. Phil Plait and Clavius are full of garbola - their answers to the flag waving, no blast crater and lack of ANY stars are quite funny. But if you really want to take their ridiculous excuses for science, be my guest. Typical answers they provide to cover up anything common sense......."but consider the Moon is nothing like the Earth, so nothing behaves the same way....yadda, yadda." laugh.gif They figure that the public's ignorance of basic scientific principles will buy them any answer they need. First it was "there should be no flame visible" then it became "of course, there should be flame visible", back to no flame, etc.. "Well the astronauts move slowly in near zero gravity, because their suits weigh so much" (psst Phil, they really don't weigh much on the Moon)....."er that is, they move slowly because they don't want to puncture their suits....yeah, that's it". Whatever you say, there, Phil!! rofl.gif

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

I still dont see the shape (besides the one you put in there).

689739[/snapback]

You are ignoring this point so here it is again....

Look at the two frames on my post #21. Compare the DVD frame to the online video frame. See how much BETTER quality the DVD still is? That's how the rest of the DVD footage compares to the online video, as one would expect. But the quality is WORSE on the DVD only for those 30 or so seconds that show the arm and the people. There is NO reason for a reverse in quality there.....except for an intentional editing!!

690560[/snapback]

The online video there was enlarged, thats why the quality is better on the DVD. The DVD didnt have to enlarge the video.

Either way, the online vid and the DVD for the clips in question have pretty much the same quality, its just a different compression format. You've got no case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The online video there was enlarged, thats why the quality is better on the DVD. The DVD didnt have to enlarge the video.

Either way, the online vid and the DVD for the clips in question have pretty much the same quality, its just a different compression format. You've got no case...

690805[/snapback]

Your argument is completely flawed. Here is the DVD still REDUCED to the size of the online still - the resoultion of course REMAINS better for the DVD still. And you can NOT explain why the online stills of the arm and people are BETTER than the DVD stills - even when the online stills are enlarged!!.

The first two pics are the online still on the left, then the DVD still. The DVD still is sharper. But the REAL contrast in quality are the next two pics. The first pic is the online still! The second (with lettering on the screen) is the DVD still. You are in denial or are lying if you state that the DVD still of the people is of comparable quality to the online still! Not even CLOSE!! There is OBVIOUS editing they did on the DVD here. It has nothing to do with compression types - the entire DVD footage, except for this 30 second span of controversial images, is of the quality shown in the other still pic on this post. The truth shall set you free - we have never walked on the moon.. rolleyes.gifno.gif

[attachmentid=15877][attachmentid=15878][attachmentid=15879][attachmentid=15880]

post-16232-1119397362_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119397418_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119397467_thumb.jpg

post-16232-1119397494_thumb.jpg

Edited by turbonium

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.