|
Novus Ordo
|
 |
« Reply #1080 on: July 03, 2009, 10:52:18 AM » |
|
There is clear evidence NASA have not tried to hide the tape. There’s shed loads of shots showing the tape do you want me to upload them?
+ is ‘lighted differently’ a tad ungrammatical?
Wouldn’t a reasonably educated person type ‘lit differently’?
Sad really.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1082 on: July 03, 2009, 10:57:34 AM » |
|
There is clear evidence NASA have not tried to hide the tape. The tape did the job. The decals are on a back sheet which drops down when the MESA is deployed. They are in the shade too, some people have no idea about heat and radiation on the moon. What the hoax believers have to provide is an engineering justification for their premise that the tape wasn't suitable for the job. Jeeze.. Apollo wouldn't have worked without tape. And they have to be honest about the deceptive in the "different lighting" claim. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1083 on: July 03, 2009, 10:57:57 AM » |
|
Dear dok,
The claim is about lighting and...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1084 on: July 03, 2009, 10:59:18 AM » |
|
Oh.. and dok.. you keep posting compressed pictures.
Go and find out about what compression does to pictures. (Then explain to the equally stupid no-planers).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #1085 on: July 03, 2009, 11:03:46 AM » |
|
Oh.. and dok.. you keep posting compressed pictures.
Go and find out about what compression does to pictures. (Then explain to the equally stupid no-planers).
those are NASA'a own pics. so  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1086 on: July 03, 2009, 11:05:55 AM » |
|
those are NASA'a own pics. so You're looking very silly, please answer this simple question. The claim is about lighting and... someone changed the colour changed the brightness compressed it so there is detail loss cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious. is this true? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #1087 on: July 03, 2009, 11:13:48 AM » |
|
You're looking very silly, please answer this simple question.
The claim is about lighting and...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
is this true?
are they NASA'a pics or not? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Novus Ordo
|
|
« Reply #1088 on: July 03, 2009, 11:15:06 AM » |
|
The compression happens automatically ref’ forum restrictions I think Doc’ knows this he’s just being deliberately misleading (happens a lot when he’s loosing a debate)
The hoax pic’ has been deliberately darkened its just above …look!!!!
If you cant see that it’s darker doc’ you have a problem with observation.
But then again you are a crea….
No no
I shall not be confrontational
I shall not be confrontational
I shall not be confrontational
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1089 on: July 03, 2009, 11:16:13 AM » |
|
You can dodge all you like, the question still stands.
The claim is about lighting and...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheCaliKid
|
|
« Reply #1090 on: July 03, 2009, 02:37:06 PM » |
|
Voskhod has about 87% of all the posts in this thread. I love it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1091 on: July 03, 2009, 02:51:53 PM » |
|
I'm a tiger for the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
iks83
|
|
« Reply #1092 on: July 05, 2009, 02:47:18 AM » |
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5737854/Russian-spacecraft-landed-on-moon-hours-before-Americans.html"In July 1969, the telescopes at the Jodrell Bank Observatory, in Cheshire, were tracking the Americans' Eagle Lander carrying astronauts towards the moon's surface. Sir Bernard Lovell, the astronomer, was among the team listening to transmissions coming from the area of space and began tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to collect samples of lunar soil and rock and then return to Earth before the US mission." So how many observatories did track the crafts? Why did anyone come forward and say THEY WEREN'T THERE!!! ITS ALL FAKE!!! OMFGBBQ!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1093 on: July 05, 2009, 04:10:35 AM » |
|
They were all obviously in on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1094 on: July 05, 2009, 08:01:06 AM » |
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5737854/Russian-spacecraft-landed-on-moon-hours-before-Americans.html"In July 1969, the telescopes at the Jodrell Bank Observatory, in Cheshire, were tracking the Americans' Eagle Lander carrying astronauts towards the moon's surface. Sir Bernard Lovell, the astronomer, was among the team listening to transmissions coming from the area of space and began tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to collect samples of lunar soil and rock and then return to Earth before the US mission." So how many observatories did track the crafts? Why did anyone come forward and say THEY WEREN'T THERE!!! ITS ALL FAKE!!! OMFGBBQ!!! Thanks for posting the links ... interesting.
Here is a page that has the recording: http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/news/2009/luna15-apollo11/Maybe someone can make sense of it, because I can't. ~~~~~~~~~~~ I find it not surprising that the revered 'international' astronomy community led by the crusty old Knight of the British Empire, Sir Bernard Lovell would find these important, 'lost' artifacts confirming once and for all and without a shadow of a doubt the Apollo 11 moon landing ... and just in time for the big 40th Anniversary celebration AND the kickoff for the all-new "USA" MOON lander program! How auspicious! Awe-inspiring! DOUBLEPLUSGOOD!
... and just after the British government somehow, someway was able to 'find' the funding necessary to keep the Lovell telescope boondoggle afloat!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1031637/Government-backs-plans-close-Britains-eye-sky-Jodrell-Bank-observatory.html(EXCERPT) Government backs down over plans to close Britain's 'eye in the sky' Jodrell Bank observatoryBy David Derbyshire Last updated at 6:52 PM on 03rd July 2008 The world famous Jodrell Bank observatory has been thrown a lifeline with the promise of Government cash 'to keep its future secure'. The historic radio dish - which detected the first signals from the Soviet Sputnik satellite in 1957 - had been threatened by savage spending cuts. But a meeting of the astronomy and physics funding council this week agreed to back a key project - eMerlin, an upgrade that would keep the telescope going for another 10 years or more. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From the Novel 1984: Excerpts: The Ministry of Truth - Minitrue, in Newspeak - was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party : WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH The Ministry of Truth contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. Scattered about London there were just three other buildings of similar appearance and size. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) - the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened - that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Winston examined the four slips of paper which he had unrolled. Each contained a message of only one or two lines, in the abbreviated jargon - not actually Newspeak, but consisting largely of Newspeak words - which was used in the Ministry for internal purposes. They ran: times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling With a faint feeling of satisfaction Winston laid the fourth message aside. It was an intricate and responsible job and had better be dealt with last. The other three were routine matters, though the second one would probably mean some tedious wading through lists of figures. Winston dialled " back numbers " on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of the Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from the Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother's speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened. Or again, the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a " categorical pledge " were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April. As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of the Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames. What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place. The largest section of the Records Department, far larger than the one on which Winston worked, consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers, and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction. A number of the Times which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Even the written instructions which Winston received, and which he invariably got rid of as soon as he had dealt with them, never stated or implied that an act of forgery was to be committed : always the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps the Queen has given Sir Bernard a copy of 1984?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1095 on: July 05, 2009, 08:35:55 AM » |
|
Before you zoom off on another one, let's resolve this;
The claim is about lighting and...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1096 on: July 05, 2009, 08:45:40 AM » |
|
Before you zoom off on another one, let's resolve this;
The claim is about lighting and...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
is this true?
^^^ Nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1097 on: July 05, 2009, 09:24:40 AM » |
|
Jackson Holly,
You are saying this is nonsense?
The claim is about lighting and...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
Every single one of those points ist true.
And yet you say "nonsense".
What kind of a truth seeker are you?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1098 on: July 05, 2009, 09:30:59 AM » |
|
Jackson Holly,
You are saying this is nonsense?
The claim is about lighting and...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
Every single one of those points ist true.
And yet you say "nonsense".
What kind of a truth seeker are you?
The two original photos in question of the taped-up flag have been posted here, straight off the NASA website, by dok ... what are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1099 on: July 05, 2009, 09:32:44 AM » |
|
The two original photos in question of the taped-up flag have been posted here, straight off the NASA website, by dok ... what are you talking about?
No.. I posted them. And they prove the deception in your post because in your "lighted differently" post... someone changed the colour changed the brightness compressed it so there is detail loss cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious. Do you deny it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1101 on: July 05, 2009, 10:10:09 AM » |
|
No.. I posted them.
And they prove the deception in your post because in your "lighted differently" post...
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
Do you deny it?
Sorry ... I am not getting your point. We have gone over those photos quiet a bit ... I have said that I believe the original composite was to show the ridiculous scotch tape and only incidentally to show how the tape reflected multiple lights. Whatever point that you are trying to make about the photos' cropping, compression, etc seems inconsequential. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ chrisfromchi: Great stuff from good ole Walt! In many ways this whole thread is about the collaboration between NASA/von Braun -and- DISNEY/Hollywood. ... and lets not ever forget who we are talking about when we use the the term NASA ... NAZI!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1102 on: July 05, 2009, 10:34:11 AM » |
|
Sorry ... I am not getting your point. We have gone over those photos quiet a bit ... I have said that I believe the original composite was to show the ridiculous scotch tape and only incidentally to show how the tape reflected multiple lights. Whatever point that you are trying to make about the photos' cropping, compression, etc seems inconsequential. This is completely dishonest and you know it. The post you put up is deceptive because... someone changed the colour changed the brightness compressed it so there is detail loss cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious. Do you deny it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1103 on: July 05, 2009, 10:43:51 AM » |
|
What is your point?That the photos were manipulated ... to what purpose?  ? ? ?? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1104 on: July 05, 2009, 11:44:20 AM » |
|
What is your point?That the photos were manipulated ... to what purpose? ? ? ?? Oh FFS! For purpose of creating yet another false Apollo hoax claim. You you agree that the claim in your post is bullsh*t? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1105 on: July 05, 2009, 11:55:06 AM » |
|
For purpose of creating yet another false Apollo hoax claim. What claim? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1106 on: July 05, 2009, 12:08:14 PM » |
|
What claim?
Pathetic. Why should anyone take you seriously. Typical hoax believer.. or maybe you're deliberately spreading disinfo. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1107 on: July 05, 2009, 12:32:57 PM » |
|
OK ... one more time for any very confused member who has unfortunately happened upon these pages. This is the photo composite (which I posted) that Voskhod3 has been harping about incoherently for days now:  1.) I posted the pictures to show a good example of NASAs use of SCOTCH TAPE on the MOON LANDER. Top line of composite states: "Adhesive Tape Giveaway". IT IS ABOUT THE TAPE! 2.) The NASA file numbers are there for anyone who wants to see the originals - no photo deception intended.3.) The picture on the left is the APOLLO 17 LM - it is there to show that the flag is indeed on the LM, and where it is located. The copy states: "Same decals - lighted differently". I understand the composite/copy is only to show that the RH pic ... the closeup ... is indeed the same flag as shown on LH pic, though from a different angle/distance/lighting. The RH pic was used because it shows the offending tape in detail ... NOT for some nefarious lighting deception. 4.) The bottom line reads - "Specular highlights on Scotch Tape show fill lighting". This, I believe was referring to a photo not shown that was most likely cropped out from underneath the composite/original page. That the tape reflections MAY show fill lighting ... I don't know - it is too crumpled to argue about what it shows in my opinion. BUT ... it is inconsequential to the intent of the composite ... simply to show the TAPE. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1108 on: July 05, 2009, 12:53:54 PM » |
|
The picture is a deception because:
someone changed the colour
changed the brightness
compressed it so there is detail loss
cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is
cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious.
Do you deny it?
How can you have a picture making a claim about lighting when all of the above has been done to one or the other or both pictures?
Are you seriously defending this?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1109 on: July 05, 2009, 01:01:43 PM » |
|
Is this about your embarrassment at the reported use of scotch tape on the LM?
Are you trying to send the thread off into spiraling circles of nonsense
to take us away from that embarrassing fact?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
iks83
|
|
« Reply #1110 on: July 05, 2009, 01:02:58 PM » |
|
Enough with this BS... thats not even scotch tape but some other kind of tape. Do you have some document that clearly tells you what kind of tape that is? If not then how do you know what kind of temperatures that tape can handle? Its all baseless speculation about things none of the hoaxers care about. Oh there are no tire tracks from the rover... well the rover bumped around so the tires sometimes didnt or just barely touched the ground. Also they sometimes carried the rover around. I wonder if anyone ever checked the mission transcripts and logs.... I think I might do that with one of the pictures I linked some pages ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1111 on: July 05, 2009, 01:07:07 PM » |
|
Is this about your embarrassment at the reported use of scotch tape on the LM?
Are you trying to send the thread off into spiraling circles of nonsense
to take us away from that embarrassing fact?
No.. it's about the bullsh*t claim in that post, the pictures in the claim are a deception because... someone changed the colour changed the brightness compressed it so there is detail loss cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious. Do you deny it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1112 on: July 05, 2009, 01:10:10 PM » |
|
Enough with this BS... thats not even scotch tape but some other kind of tape. Do you have some document that clearly tells you what kind of tape that is? If not then how do you know what kind of temperatures that tape can handle? Its all baseless speculation about things none of the hoaxers care about. Oh there are no tire tracks from the rover... well the rover bumped around so the tires sometimes didnt or just barely touched the ground. Also they sometimes carried the rover around. I wonder if anyone ever checked the mission transcripts and logs.... I think I might do that with one of the pictures I linked some pages ago.
Tape is an excellent engineering tool, Apollo would have be doubly difficult without it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1113 on: July 05, 2009, 01:32:30 PM » |
|
Bumped for truth.....  You avoid the truth. Are you ready to be truthful about the "lighted differently" claim? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1114 on: July 05, 2009, 01:32:51 PM » |
|
Enough with this BS... thats not even scotch tape but some other kind of tape. Do you have some document that clearly tells you what kind of tape that is? If not then how do you know what kind of temperatures that tape can handle? Its all baseless speculation about things none of the hoaxers care about. Oh there are no tire tracks from the rover... well the rover bumped around so the tires sometimes didnt or just barely touched the ground. Also they sometimes carried the rover around. I wonder if anyone ever checked the mission transcripts and logs.... I think I might do that with one of the pictures I linked some pages ago.
I did try to find some mention of their use of scotch tape ... or what appears to be scotch tape. But whatever it is, it is flaking and coming off ... not working all that well ... a lot like my Xmas presents!  I did run searches on some NASA document sites for 'scotch tape' and 'clear tape' and so far the only matches I have found are about NASA models for students to make. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it is most probably scotch tape. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
iks83
|
|
« Reply #1115 on: July 05, 2009, 01:59:35 PM » |
|
I did try to find some mention of their use of scotch tape ... or what appears to be scotch tape. But whatever it is, it is flaking and coming off ... not working all that well ... a lot like my Xmas presents! I dont see anything coming off there.  You are talking BS clearly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1116 on: July 05, 2009, 02:02:07 PM » |
|
This is bullsh*t. The sooner you admit it Jackson Holly the better. It's bullsh*t because... someone changed the colour changed the brightness compressed it so there is detail loss cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious. Do you deny it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1117 on: July 05, 2009, 02:08:50 PM » |
|
^^^
Deny what? I just answered (see above) your ridiculous query yet again to the best of my ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #1118 on: July 05, 2009, 02:10:44 PM » |
|
Deny what? Deny this... someone changed the colour changed the brightness compressed it so there is detail loss cropped the right picture so it doesn't show where the shadow is cropped the left picture so the lens flare is not obvious. Well? I just answered (see above) your ridiculous query yet again to the best of my ability. No you haven't. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #1119 on: July 05, 2009, 02:41:23 PM » |
|
Here is a question for the NAZI NASA apologists ... is the use of SCOTCH 'high-temp' tape OK in this case? This is the original composite of this photo that I posted a few pages back  This is the highest resolution shot I could of AS11-40-5922 - it is cropped - the entire huge file can be seen here: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg~~~~~~~~~~~
It looks like the whole dang thing is taped together! Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
