NASA!!!...Psy-op, Photoshop, Terra-forming... What's Up, NASA?

[Voskhod3]

but I hate how Vok has hijacked this whole thread with his stupid unanswerable questions because it does contain tons of good info.

No.. you have to understand.. hoax believers don't listen... I tried the old way for years.. they don't listen.

This works.

jackson holly debunked his own post for gods sake!

And now burlguy (and perhaps the others) are close to debunking the "different lighting" claim.

Perhaps you would like to help.

You are interested in the truth about Apollo?

Or perhaps you are like dok who isn't and only wants to post stuff that fits his belief? (That was a gem).

[DAVIDENGLAND]

No.. you have to understand.. hoax believers don't listen... I tried the old way for years.. they don't listen.

Cool, can you provide a link to the forums where you did this for years?

[Voskhod3]

Cool, can you provide a link to the forums where you did this for years?

I have posted on DU, Loose Change, 3A's, JREF, Progressive Independant and lots of others I've lost track of.

So anyway.. about this "different lighting" claim david, did you do the obvious yet?

 

[DAVIDENGLAND]

I have posted on DU, Loose Change, 3A's, JREF, Progressive Independant and lots of others I've lost track of.

Yeah and I'm the Queen of England. Link please.

[Voskhod3]

Kushfiend,

When faced with an Apollo hoax claim like "different lighting" what should be the first thing you do?

a) Ask "is this true?", then check the original?
b) Post it as proof without any investigation of the claim?

Which?

Did you do the obvious yet?

[Voskhod3]

Yeah and I'm the Queen of England. Link please.

Why?

What has that got to do with the "different lighting claim"?

Have you done the obvious yet?

[Voskhod3]

HAS ANYONE DONE THE OBVIOUS YET?

If not, why not?

What kind of truth seekers are you?

[Yurebis]

I haven't ever bothered to investigate much about the moon landings, it doesn't really appeal to me whether a group of government employed nazi scientists were able to do it or not. The thing that most bothered/bothers me still is the talk about the Van Allen belt radiation and solar winds. I don't quite understand it all just yet but I personally don't ever buy governmental excuses of "coincidence" or "luck". They were devoted scientists who should have known all the risks involved in such a project yet they simply "forgot" about radiation issues and got lucky? I don't buy that for one second... but I'm still agnostic-leaning-hoaxer.

Voskhod3 I don't think your challenge will work either way and you're just spamming in my view. Why not just post what you gt and let the evidence speak for itself. Even if they do agree to your challenge and admit they were wrong on certain aspects, there's tons of other areas to 'debunk', they won't stop exposing more anomalies just as much as you won't stop countering their claims. You can't make a deal to end a debate in one single area. Yeah they're biased, and they have every right to be biased, we've got a lying corrupt government that's willing to kill innocent people to stay in power or for pure eugenic motives. They make mistakes and may overlook flimsy evidence and take it as proof, but so what. If that is so, just show your POV and carry on! Stop spamming...

[Voskhod3]

I haven't ever bothered to investigate much about the moon landings, it doesn't really appeal to me whether a group of government employed nazi scientists were able to do it or not. The thing that most bothered/bothers me still is the talk about the Van Allen belt radiation and solar winds. I don't quite understand it all just yet but I personally don't ever buy governmental excuses of "coincidence" or "luck". They were devoted scientists who should have known all the risks involved in such a project yet they simply "forgot" about radiation issues and got lucky? I don't buy that for one second... but I'm still agnostic-leaning-hoaxer.

I love an open mind.

Voskhod3 I don't think your challenge will work either way and you're just spamming in my view

Of course you think that. You're a hoax believer (albeit one who admits he's never bothered to investigate it.. I mean.. wtf?)

Listen carefully.. I got a hoax believer to debunk his own post, and we are on the verge of a second such debunking.

That isn't spamming.. that's the sweet smell of progress.

[Dustbunny]

Of course you can go through the Van Allen Belt, only thing is that you'd get cancer...

[Voskhod3]

Of course you can go through the Van Allen Belt, only thing is that you'd get cancer...

Hi dustbunny.. I thought you might help the others, what do you think they should do when they see a claim like "different lighting"?

a) Ask "is this true?", then check the original?
b) Post it as proof without any investigation of the claim?

[Dustbunny]

Hi dustbunny.. I thought you might help the others, what do you think they should do when they see a claim like "different lighting"?

a) Ask "is this true?", then check the original?
b) Post it as proof without any investigation of the claim?

Both, except nothing is posted as proof... I think that you should post everything you find, even if you don't believe it yourself. This forum has the toughest mofo's there is, you just can't find this tough crowd on any other forum. These guys will filter the shit out... but please, no flooding, people loose their interest on the whole topic if theres a guy like you repeating shit... nothing personal, but please, tone it down... you're just like AJ on the phone, expert you don't have that much to say... and that avatar suits you good... no offence... but you need to change your attitude...

[Voskhod3]

Both,

Well.. NOBODY did "a".

And they sure did "b", but you think this is acceptable?

It's crap.. if they did "a" and asked themselves "is this true"? then checked the originals they would know.

except nothing is posted as proof...

I beg to differ, they see it as proof alright and they are not interested when someone asks them how much investigation they did (because they did none).

I think that you should post everything you find, even if you don't believe it yourself.

This is mad.

This forum has the toughest mofo's there is, you just can't find this tough crowd on any other forum.

The people in this thread don't ask "is this true?" when shown an Apollo hoax claim. That's not "tough".. that's dumb!

These guys will filter the shit out...

No they won't.
They refuse to.
Even when given BIG pointers on where to go and check.

but please, no flooding, people loose their interest on the whole topic if theres a guy like you repeating shit...

Actually I know a lot of people are following this with interest!

[Unintelligable Name]

Fastly becomming the numero uno annoying twit poster of this forum.

[xfahctor]

 I am following this with pop corn in hand.....still waiting on someone to adress the differnt lighting thing too so we can get on with the rest of the claims. No point in moving on to some thing else until the last issue is dealt with right? if the thread jumps from one resolved claim after another after another, it ceases to be any thing like a meaningful debate.
 anyway, carry on ladies and gentlemen.

[Voskhod3]

if the thread jumps from one resolved claim after another after another, it ceases to be any thing like a meaningful debate.

Absolutely correct.

And it's even better if a hoax believer can resolve it themselves.

[Voskhod3]

Fastly becomming the numero uno annoying twit poster of this forum.

Then do some invesigation then instead of blindly accepting any Apollo hoax claim you are told.

Did you do the obvious about the "different lighting" claim?

[pcc]

No.. it has become a case of highlighting how little research hoax believers do to investigate Apollo hoax claims.

very good point, as it runs rampant in other topics as well..
not everyone who is reading this thread is oblivious to this fact..
I will be interested to see someone admit they were wrong.. very rare in conspiracy threads..
questioning your own beliefs can be very liberating..

[Dustbunny]

Proof schmoof, who needs em... no, but I beg to differ, everyone knows about the lighting question at hand, and will reply to it if they have something to say about it. Now you see, take a look at the topic name again, why you want to stick on the lighting issue? I just watched the Mythbusters episode again and realized the footprint myth they busted, was tainted... they got that "moondust" from NASA... If I see normal sand behave like that in a vacuum, then I'm a believer, but where the fu*k will I find a vacuum chamber to test the myth? Still you have to go with your gut feeling, nothing conclusive has been presented, but my gut says it was a hoax... Only thing that bothers me is that how could Kennedy be involved in the hoax, were he lied to too? But when I think of his speech... "we chose to go to the moon and do the other things..." Other things? He speaks like he's in the scam...



I'm still confused how the hell can strong luminosity wash out a CROSSHAIR?

[Novus Ordo]

  Could you please show us the link where nasa says it was strong luminosity.

[Dustbunny]

Could you please show us the link where nasa says it was strong luminosity.

http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm

Strange that this debate has been on FOX Television Network?

[xfahctor]

It was done a couple of pages back.... NASA promoters call it lens flare. Hoax believers say how can you have lens flare when standing in the shadow.

 The reason Vosh is spending so much time with that one is because it is one of the few pieces of evidence that can go either way. It is really dependent on the how close the astronaut was standing to the LEM and what day the pic was taken on. He is clinging to his strawman argument because it is the only thing he has left..... The hoax is being brought to a ruin.

actualy no, he was refering to the picture with the caption that perported that highlights showed adhesive tape. But I'm just a spectator in this for right now. forgive my interuption.

[Yurebis]

I love an open mind.
Of course you think that. You're a hoax believer (albeit one who admits he's never bothered to investigate it.. I mean.. wtf?)

Listen carefully.. I got a hoax believer to debunk his own post, and we are on the verge of a second such debunking.

That isn't spamming.. that's the sweet smell of progress.

I've seen that, and I find nothing wrong with it. It's critical to have people arguing for both sides when you want to find out the truth; I'm just saying, you should forget about the challenge thing because it's pointless, no one is going to forfeit their point of view from being wrong in only one subtopic.

I haven't bothered to investigate it because I don't go out saying it happened this way or that way... I could care less if we went to the moon ATM. Only reason why I lean towards 'hoax' is because of the little I've heard about radiation and the Van Allen belt. It doesn't just cause cancer, it should fry and kill any living being trying to fly so far as a few Earth radii away (without proper insulation). I don't feel like arguing either, that's just what I've come to conclude personally. If you can disprove that, great, whatever.

[Voskhod3]

Proof schmoof, who needs em... no, but I beg to differ, everyone knows about the lighting question at hand, and will reply to it if they have something to say about it.

Like.. "yeah it's horsesh*t".
If everyone knows then why is no one agreeing it's a crap claim?
Why is it so difficult to admit a hoax claim is wrong?

Now you see, take a look at the topic name again, why you want to stick on the lighting issue?

I haven't stuck to this one subject..
I got jackson Holly to debunk the "still wrapped up Lunar Rover" claim all by himself.
We are close to ending the dumb "different lighting" claim.
I intend to move onto Dok's "multi-lightsource" shadows next.
You have to be patient, I know hoax believers always want to move on (especially when they start looking silly) but be patient.

I just watched the Mythbusters episode again and realized the footprint myth they busted, was tainted... they got that "moondust" from NASA...

"Want to move on" QED.

Why don't we settle the "different lighting" claim first?

Did you do the obvious yet? If not, why not?

[Voskhod3]

It was done a couple of pages back.... NASA promoters call it lens flare. Hoax believers say how can you have lens flare when standing in the shadow.

is was not "done" a few pages back.
"Lens flare" is just a small part of it. "The shadow" forms another small part of it.
But the claim contains a deception which if you had checked the originals you would have seen.
Did you not even check the originals after all this time?

What kind of a truth seeker are you?

The reason Vosh is spending so much time with that one is because it is one of the few pieces of evidence that can go either way.

There is no "either way".. the claim IS A LIE.
Which if you had checked the originals (which I can't believe you haven't done yet) you would know.

It is really dependent on the how close the astronaut was standing to the LEM and what day the pic was taken on.

Check the original dammit.

He is clinging to his strawman argument

I'm not "clinging to a strawman", I'm very close to getting you to debunk this all by yourself.
Check the original if you have any integrity.

because it is the only thing he has left.....

Is that right?

Well you're in for a surprise.

doks post about "multi-light sourse shadows" is next.

I suggest you do some research, this could be a long one too.. unless the hoax believers here want to start checking out their stuff properly for a change.

[Voskhod3]

I've seen that, and I find nothing wrong with it.

You saw the "still wrapped lunar rover" claim and you saw nothing wrong with it? Did I just read you right?

Are you serious?

Jackson Holly debunked his own post on that, do you want to go back and check it?

I'm just saying, you should forget about the challenge thing because it's pointless, no one is going to forfeit their point of view from being wrong in only one subtopic.

No it isn't.
It works.
I've proved it works.

I haven't bothered to investigate it because I don't go out saying it happened this way or that way... I could care less if we went to the moon ATM.

So... you're posting here because....?

 

Only reason why I lean towards 'hoax' is because of the little I've heard about radiation and the Van Allen belt.

Ah.. now it's clear. You are in fact a hoax believer.
May I suggest instead of basing your belief on "the little" you've heard that you do some proper investigation.

It doesn't just cause cancer, it should fry and kill any living being trying to fly so far as a few Earth radii away (without proper insulation). I don't feel like arguing either, that's just what I've come to conclude personally. If you can disprove that, great, whatever

.
Seriously, you need to read a little more about the subject.

[Voskhod3]

No interruption man.... More the merrier. I am quite aware of what he is referring to and the question is not the tape, that is standard NASA operating procedure. The question lies with the lighting and the fact that that side of the lem is in the shade yet still showing highlights. You see a day on the moon can last as much as 14 earth days so the sun should have moved very little in the sky. It is a controversial piece of evidence. If I was concerned about it I could find the original pics and be able to tell the distance from camera to LEM and find if the astronaut was still in the shadow or not. It is irrelevant to me there are 1000's of discrepancies that cannot be dismissed.

Let me translate.

"I know I'm wrong but my only hope is to pretend I'm not interested".

Check the originals, then come back and say "I was wrong".

Go on, it's easy.

I sure wish I could find some of their super tape that withstands the extreme temperatures of space and G-Forces of launch.

It's called duct tape.
The American space program found thousands of uses for it, it's very good with high temperatures but has deteriorated a little as you can see in the photos.
And as for tape surviving high g-forces... what? Is there some reason it wouldn't?

Now.. did you check the originals yet?

What kind of a truth seeker are you?

[Voskhod3]

Come one guys, you can work it out.

Why is this picture deceptive?

[Voskhod3]

Ok guys.. I'm going to give it to you.

The original longshot: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21370HR.jpg  (you must view it in full size, it's big)
The original closeup: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20469HR.jpg

Now.. I want a hoax believer to tell me hand on heart that the picture in the "different lighting" claim is an honest representation of the originals in terms of detail, color, contrast and lighting.

I'm keen to get to doks shadows, but not before a hoax believer admits the "different lighting" claim is a crock.

[TheCaliKid]

I see a spotlight from above!!!


























Just kidding. Geezzzzzzz.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Ok guys.. I'm going to give it to you.

The original: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21370HR.jpg  (you must view it in full size, it's big)

Now.. I want a hoax believer to tell me hand on heart that the picture in the "different lighting" claim is an honest representation of the original in terms of detail, color, contrast and lighting.

I'm keen to get to doks shadows, but not before a hoax believer admits the "different lighting" claim is a crock.

Question -

What are those streams of light which streak down from the top of the photo?

[Voskhod3]

Question -
What are those streams of light which streak down from the top of the photo?

What do you think they are?

[DAVIDENGLAND]

What do you think they are?

I would have thought that they would be produced by sunlight but the sun would have to be pretty high up to produce streaks coming down fron that angle. I don't know I'm just trying to understand what's in the photo.

[Voskhod3]

I would have thought that they would be produced by sunlight but the sun would have to be pretty high up to produce streaks coming down fron that angle. I don't know I'm just trying to understand what's in the photo.

Seek and ye shall find.

You need to investigate lens flare.

Don't give up david.

I'm a little disappointed that after all this time and all my promptings this is the first time you looked at the originals.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Seek and ye shall find.

You need to investigate lens flare.

Don't give up david.

I'm a little disappointed that after all this time and all my promptings this is the first time you looked at the originals.

Well if you'd stop presuming for one minute you'd realise that I'm no expert on this and my only motivation is to understand what's going on in these photos. I'm totally prepared to engage with you in debating this but only if you stick to presenting evidence and quit laying down these counter productive challenges.

[Novus Ordo]

This is the original of AS17-134-21370




I have similar looking ‘lights/lamps’ to illuminate my garage J
There’s one or two photo’s been taken between AS17-134-20469 and 21370.
Notice how the hoax photo has been deliberately darkened to hide tape.
What’s the big deal about tape anyway?

If your not left with a feeling this is really a quite foolish hoax attempt try here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiiHKOLiCG4&feature=related

[Voskhod3]

Novos Ordo,

Even the picture you posted is compressed and there is detail loss.

The tape is clearly defined in the picture I posted a link to: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21370HR.jpg

Now.. we wait for a hoax believer to admit it's a crock.

But will any of them have the bottle?

[DAVIDENGLAND]

So what are the streaks of light in your opinion Voskhod3?

[Voskhod3]

So what are the streaks of light in your opinion Voskhod3?

Did you check out lens flare like I suggested?

Your research skills are very poor.

here's a clue.. type "lens flare" in google images and see what you get.

Come on david.. please make an effort.

[Novus Ordo]

Just having a laugh no offence meant