Apollo 11 Armrstrong “These babies were huge, sir!”

Originally posted by pieman
there's nothing special about gold besides the fact that it looks pretty and doesn't tarnish, as far as i'm aware. it's difficult to imagine a use for the stuff outside ornamentation.

It's a great conductor though due to it's untarnishability.

Maybe gold is a key component of an antigravity or interstellar drive system we're not familiar with yet...and we use it for jewellry....lol...how primative!

Originally posted by Whisper67
I find Phage to be a voice of reason and no, not a disinfo agent. An intelligent person trying like the rest of us to always get to the truth. Just by that statement I may have upset some believers but you have to admit, he's intelligent, a great debater, and often raises some good points.

I'll second that.

I've heard only sense, reason and a wealth of "to the point" information from phage in just about every post he's made.

[edit on 24/3/2009 by nerbot]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Exactly. How many times or instances has NASA been caught with messing with those things? More than once I can assure you.

As I said on other posts, I have only seen altered images on NASA sites twice(and it was nothing special, one I do not even remember what it was), and only in publicity images, not real "archive" records.

And how were things judged on those instances, what did people had to compare to find that the photos (or whatever it was) was altered? (I know what it was on the case I remember)

So we are left with not much to go on, except our own beliefs and confidences.

OK, that must be my "problem", as a sceptic I have very little beliefs and as someone that was raised on a honest family, I have maybe too many confidences.

I often think that one of the reasons why we do not have the prestine copies of these videos is so that it just stirrs up the hornets nest in the UFO community..and on purpose to create that dividing line. NASA knows darn well that every bit of the controversy can be resolved by simply releasing the original everything, unaltered and unedited.

I somewhat agree with that, I even think that they may have kept from publishing things when the Internet became popular just to keep the doubt. If we can find out who was the responsible for the publishing at that time maybe we can draw some (more) conclusions.

Again, if NASA simply released them as they are, for what they are, up front in the begining and not play this "hide and seek and ask and be denied" game of theirs, none of this would be happening.

But that is the real problem, how can we know that they were not released as they were, without any tampering?

Yes, we know that there are many unpublished images and videos, but keeping it from being published is not the same thing as publishing fake data, and I have yet to see a real case of altered data.

Trust is earned over time, not just given away at the spur of the moment. NASA has to re-earn that trust it once had long ago. When NASA earns that trust back, perhaps it wont be so difficult us, to accept what is given upfront.

OK, and how can they re-earn the trust if you say that even if they publish the hypothetical unaltered data people will not believe them? Doesn't that mean that they will never be trusted, even when they tell the truth?

(Putting on my conspiracy theory hat, could it be that someone is behind this whole thing just to discredit NASA to a point where it's no longer possible for them to regains the public's trust? I will have to remember this. )

Originally posted by ArMaP
What "tools" do we have to judge what is acceptable and what is not?

Trust.

OK, then why do some people call those that trust NASA almost everything (dis-info agents, professional debunkers, lemmings, etc.)? Is there a good kind of trust and a bad kind of trust? How can we judge which one is the one we are using?

But trust can also be lost, so that means that trusting someone is not a good enough tool to reach the truth, just one more way of using other tools, and a way that may makes us reach our destination or not, and we can never know until we get there or until we know that we cannot get there anymore because we should have not trusted them.

reply to post by ArMaP


Your joking right ArMaP? You think that becasue only you yourself had only seen 2 instances of altered images, that is all there is????

If there was only 2 instances of altered images, I doubt very seriously there would be reason for millions around the world to be questioning NASA over the last 40 years over just 2 images.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Your joking right ArMaP? You think that becasue only you yourself had only seen 2 instances of altered images, that is all there is????

No, I am not joking, neither am I saying that I think that other people have not seen other instances, I am only saying what I am saying, that I have not seen any other instances, just that.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Exactly. How many times or instances has NASA been caught with messing with those things? More than once I can assure you.

I'd prefer having evidence rather than your assurance.

Those other space agencies of other nations have only begun compared to how long NASA has been around. Those other space agencies do not have the track record like NASA, hence it is why there is less "picking" on them than there is on NASA.

While it's true that most space agencies don't have NASA's track record. Some of them have been around for almost just as long as NASA.

Originally posted by ArMaP
OK, and how can they re-earn the trust if you say that even if they publish the hypothetical unaltered data people will not believe them? Doesn't that mean that they will never be trusted, even when they tell the truth?

Loosing the faith and trust of the people over a 40 year span will take almost as long, if not longer, to re-earn that trust.

Originally posted by ArMaP
(Putting on my conspiracy theory hat, could it be that someone is behind this whole thing just to discredit NASA to a point where it's no longer possible for them to regains the public's trust? I will have to remember this.

)

Here at ATS? Heh, thats a laugh. ATS might be a huge popular forum, but it is not where the masses are going to find if there is some conspiracy to discredit NASA. You stand to gain more by doing that on MTV or VH1 or Fox News.

Originally posted by ArMaP
But trust can also be lost, so that means that trusting someone is not a good enough tool to reach the truth, just one more way of using other tools, and a way that may makes us reach our destination or not, and we can never know until we get there or until we know that we cannot get there anymore because we should have not trusted them.

Isnt it a lovely web NASA has weaved for itself?!! It is not up to the public to instigate regaining of the trust. It is up to NASA to do that..since they are the ones that lost the trust of the people.

I dont know what it is like there where you are in the world, but here in the US, with all the other lies and deceptions that have been in abundance out of the US government over the last 8 years and more, we tend to not just give exemption to a space agency run by same government and expect them to be any more honest than the dishonest controllers of that agency..ie the US government.

It may take more than just NASA itself to re-earn that trust. All of us know NASA is controlled by the government. And because of that fact alone, and the fact of the deceptions by that controlling government, and NASA's deceptive actions over the last 40 years, why should there be reason to just trust them?

Look up the latest statistics on how much the people do not put trust into the government as well as NASA. There is a reason for it.

They know what they have to do to earn that trust back. It is up to them, not the people.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by RFBurns
Exactly. How many times or instances has NASA been caught with messing with those things? More than once I can assure you.

I'd prefer having evidence rather than your assurance.

Then you dont pay much attention to the whole picture..only what you want to precieve and believe as truth. Very narrow preception. I dont expect you to take my word for it. Do your own homework, but I would suggest you go byond the limited box of a government controlled agency.

Originally posted by jra

Those other space agencies of other nations have only begun compared to how long NASA has been around. Those other space agencies do not have the track record like NASA, hence it is why there is less "picking" on them than there is on NASA.

While it's true that most space agencies don't have NASA's track record. Some of them have been around for almost just as long as NASA.

And did what? Care to put up a side by side chart showing exactly what those other nation's agencies did compared to what NASA has done?

You can include the USSR/Russian space agency too if you like...beings they are the only ones that can really be said to have done just as much as NASA, except land on the moon with men.


Cheers!!!!

I don't see any references here to the 'Apollo Lunar Surface Journal' project, that has been working on transcripts and annotating them with comments from the astronauts and scientists actually involved. If there's an authoritative version of Apollo space transcripts, it's there. Why isn't it mentioned?

Originally posted by JimOberg
I don't see any references here to the 'Apollo Lunar Surface Journal' project, that has been working on transcripts and annotating them with comments from the astronauts and scientists actually involved. If there's an authoritative version of Apollo space transcripts, it's there. Why isn't it mentioned?

Jim,

Out of curiosity, is it an independent organization in charge of this project? The only reason I ask is because we all know (you included) that if it isn't, it will do little to quell the rumors and innuendo that are prevalent in this thread.

IRM

[edit on 25/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Here at ATS? Heh, thats a laugh. ATS might be a huge popular forum, but it is not where the masses are going to find if there is some conspiracy to discredit NASA. You stand to gain more by doing that on MTV or VH1 or Fox News.

I haven't mentioned ATS or anything else, I was just saying that I have to keep that in mind for future reference(s).

They know what they have to do to earn that trust back. It is up to them, not the people.

But the people are the ones that can trust them, so if they do not want to, then it useless for NASA to try to gain the people's trust.

If people close themselves against or ignore any eventual trust gaining action from NASA then they are behaving like the people we (from both sides of any discussion) accuse of denying other possibilities, because they will deny that NASA is being honest (hypothetically ; ) and will never trust NASA, even if NASA tells them the truth.

That is why I think that even in a relation based on trust, a healthy dose of scepticism is always good, trust, but with some confirmation.

PS: once more I have noticed that I can not explain myself as I wanted to, or maybe it's you that read on my answers things that I did not wrote and that I didn't not meant to say (like that reference to ATS), so I would be glad if you could tell me how can I write in a more comprehensible way.
Thanks.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is hosted at history.nasa.gov... but is a private scholarship project, as described in the opening pages, of independent scientists and historians.

I'm sure RFBurns knows all about it already, and why it can't be trusted.

jupiter mission 18 months later

I think this is the reply to a thread i postede off topic
(according to the person that told me so)

ya know i sit here again watching 2001: a space odessey

Ya know, the B-day part.


I is 1968 movie, that is reely kool,

Ya know what ?

the puter( HAL)(which) has nothing to do with this.
or Dave,dave I cant heer u)

Why would anyone who doesn't trust NASA look for evidence of their deceit on official NASA websites? All I read on here is people, who I tend to agree with, who say that NASA is hiding something vitally important concerning the Apollo moon missions, being directed to official NASA websites, etc, as if they held the truth! The fact is if we are right and the moon images have been tampered with and there is something sitting up there on the moon, we're hardly likely to find what that something is on the webpages of those who are covering this up. . .

reply to post by ArMaP

As I said on other posts, I have only seen altered images on NASA sites twice(and it was nothing special, one I do not even remember what it was), and only in publicity images, not real "archive" records.

I know we don't agree over the NASA tampering with photographs issue but I would be interested in what you think of this?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
All I read on here is people, who I tend to agree with, who say that NASA is hiding something vitally important concerning the Apollo moon missions, being directed to official NASA websites, etc, as if they held the truth!

The burden of proof is on the accusers to show that the original images do not hold the truth. As pointed out, ALSJ is curated by independent scientists and historians, NASA only provides hosting.

The fact is if we are right and the moon images have been tampered with and there is something sitting up there on the moon, we're hardly likely to find what that something is on the webpages of those who are covering this up. . .

Actually nearly every single accusation of Apollo image tampering I have come across has been resolved by examining the high resolution original images on ALSJ (duplications, blurring, fiducials, etc). The rest have been resolved by understanding astronomy and photographic principles (lack of stars, shape of the earth in pictures, etc).

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Is that that quindar tones nonsense again? They used (and sometimes still use) quindar tones on space shuttle missions. I've found examples where a quindar tone happens during shuttle missions as "something else happens" - it doesn't mean anything was faked anymore than the shuttle is faked. Why do only a small fraction of the tones coincide with another event, and why are the events they coincide with different and otherwise unlinked? The simple answer is that it's a case of severe confirmation bias.
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 30-3-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Please have a look at the youtube video I asked ArMap to check out. I'd like to hear what you think as it seems to show how the images were tampered with.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

www.youtube.com...
Note the quindar tone right as the roll begins. If quindar tones indicated edits, then the first space shuttle flight was faked. Quindar tones are not a conspiracy, they ALWAYS coincide with communications beginning or ending. Anything else is a coincidence. By selecting just the communications that coincide, you try to build a conspiracy out of confirmation bias.

I can't view the video at the moment, but it sounds like that's what it is. If there's another point from the video you were trying to make, please just make it here so we can all see.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


OK, this is what I think of that video.

First, the stars do not show because that is the way photography works. Photos taken with lower light levels show the stars. Give me some (more) time and I will post them (I have them but I do not have the photo IDs).

AS15-91-12343
From the photos I have seen, only the photo on Keith Laney's site shows that "masking", the photos on NASA servers look normal.
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.keithlaney.net...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

AS08-15-2561
I could not find any photo with that "masking"
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
history.nasa.gov...

AS12-51-7541
How can he/she know that there was some "vertical structuring" on that part of the photo? Only the photo from Keith Laney had that "effect".
The "object" is visible on the photos taken after that one, and that is clearly noticeable here at www.lpi.usra.edu..., and it looks like some reflection. And why add an object to "obscure an object that is above the lunar surface" if they were going to paint the sky black?
www.lpi.usra.edu...
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
www.keithlaney.net...

AS12-46-6826
I could not found any photo that looked like that, and I don't see what is the problem with the photo on the video, it looks like nothing special.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

AS12-49-7318
I could not find any photo looking like that.
images.jsc.nasa.gov... (too dark, the antenna is not visible)
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

AS12-49-7319
It's just the sunlight on the lens.

AS17-148-22679
I could not find any photo looking like that.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS17-148-22680
I could not find any photo looking like that.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS17-148-22681
I could not find any photo looking like that.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS17-148-22682
I could not find any photo looking like that.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS17-148-22685
I could not find any photo looking like that.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS17-140-21434
There are several photos with that problem, the photo from eol.jsc.nasa.gov... shows that the line extends beyond the image area.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS10-31-4599
Only the image on Keith Laney site shows that line.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.keithlaney.net...

AS17-148-22687
It's not a crop line, even in the video it's visible that it's just one of those bands across the photo, like in photo AS17-140-21434
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS17-148-22688
Same as above

AS16-P-5677
It's true that there is some tape on the photo, but that does not mean that the tape was put there to cover something, aren't they (NASA) supposed to "airbrush" photos instead of taping them over?
From what I have seen on other occasions, there was probably another photo tapped to the left side of this side, to make a crude panorama.
As for that band across the photo, on all these photos (www.lpi.usra.edu...) there are some noticeable bands over the Moon, it could be a camera or film problem.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

AS14-78-10376
The video is not correct, when it changes from the over-exposed image to the one where he shows the image with signs of rectangular masking he failled to show that the area with those rectangules is not the one on the right, it's the on the top of the image.
I could only find a photo looking like that on Keith Laney's site
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.keithlaney.net...

AS15-87-11697
I don't know what that rectangle is, but it does not look like any tampering (it's not really covering anything), and all photos show it.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
history.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

AS11-41-6156
Once more, only Keith Laney's version shows that "tampering".
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.keithlaney.net...
history.nasa.gov...

AS11-44-6559
The two cases I could find with some banding (Wikimedia and Keith Laney) are not as exagerated as the one on the video.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
upload.wikimedia.org...
www.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
www.keithlaney.net...

AS17-134-20420
It's another of those bands on the photo.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
history.nasa.gov...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS17-134-20421
Ssame as above, in the photo in eol.jsc.nasa.gov... it's visible that the band extends for all of the frame, even outside the photo itself, it's just one more of those bands on the film.
history.nasa.gov...
* eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

AS08-13-2269
I could not find any photo looking like that
history.nasa.gov...
www.keithlaney.net...

The links marked with a * do not have the image online, we have to ask for them and wait some minutes (usually around five minutes) for the image to be copied to the FTP site on the link they give us.

In conclusion, that video shows some photos with signs of tampering but the NASA sites that have those photos (at least the ones that appear on top of the results on a Google search) do not show them. Some of the problems are the result of the interpretation of the guy that made the video of common photo problems (like the bands and the sunlight on the lens).

PS: sorry for only posting the direct links, but this took me too much time, and to post it today (although it's already tomorrow in Portugal, 2:06 AM ) I had to leave the links just as that.