Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

reply to post by weedwhacker

It is a mis-representation, and is bogus. It is disingenuous. You know, I know it

so it's ok to be mad at me but not NASA ?


is that what your telling us ?

reply to post by easynow


See...that's the big difference, between you and me.

I am NOT "mad" at NASA.

YOU are, and it's sorta pathetic, because everything that YOU are railing and ranting about, are NON-EVENTS.

It is imaginary. Reasonable people can see this. People with experience, in the real world, who don't spend all their time in "conspiracy land".

reply to post by weedwhacker

YOU are railing and ranting about, are NON-EVENTS.

ok i think you answered the question with what you posted,

you obviously have a double standard when it comes to NASA.


i guess altering and changing images that are part of the space program is, in your eyes, ok for NASA to do but if anyone else does something it's wrong.

I am NOT "mad" at NASA. YOU are, and it's sorta pathetic,

once again... *sigh you are making proclamations with nothing to back it up, i'm not mad at NASA but your unconditional love for them is without a doubt "pathetic" !

BTW....Aldrin has already, many MANY times (and verified by other sources) confirmed that they were seeingthe panels fromt the Service Module.

i think you claiming the panel theory "has been verified by other sources" and not quoting those sources after repeated attempts by me (and others) to get you to provide that, is clear evidence of being disingenuous.


[edit on 21-4-2010 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


What? NASA 'alters' images to make them better for public display?!?

i guess altering and changing images that are part of the space program is, in your eyes, ok for NASA to do but if anyone else does something it's wrong.

OK...like OTHER media, meant for public consumption, don't do ANY alterations to the photos they publish.

Right.

Oh, and celebrities do not have surgery to "improve" their appearance.

Right.

Perhaps some straw-graspers just cannot tell the difference, when it comes to publicity, versus historic record.

reply to post by easynow


Right back at you with this GREAT SHOT credit to jra on here for this a still from the the DAC video as the astronauts left the Moon.

The other side the LRO image of the landing site.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


SNAP

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by easynow

 

Easynow.....

Thanks for putting that GIF together.

I see the same # of boot prints, albeit the exposure / brightness is different from 1 pic to the other.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Exactly what I saw easyknow what was it supposed to show the fact that no pink sperm spaceships are in the area.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Right back at you with this GREAT SHOT

and this is relevant to what ?

please provide some context because i never claimed the LM wasn't where it was suppose to be

reply to post by wmd_2008


isn't it a little early to be

Exactly what I saw easyknow what was it supposed to show

why don't you ask the person who altered the image ?

that never crossed your mind did it ?

[edit on 21-4-2010 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


Well we have all the debate on here about NASA this and NASA that I thought it was nice to show a still from a video taken 40 yrs ago MATCHES current info UNLIKE some of the BS images shown by thelivingmoon

reply to post by easynow


Didn't see the claimed alterations re footprints that was made on the post refering to the gif.

reply to post by weedwhacker

It is a mis-representation, and is bogus.

What? NASA 'alters' images to make them better for public display?!?

no hypocrisy there weedwack, none whatsoever



are you going to provide a source for what you claimed about the panel theory being "verified" or do you just like making proclamations with no evidence to back it up ?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is imaginary. Reasonable people can see this. People with experience, in the real world, who don't spend all their time in "conspiracy land".

it seems you're lost in imaginations of your real world..... yada yada yada

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Perhaps some straw-graspers just cannot tell the difference, when it comes to publicity, versus historic record.

like seeing the world the way you are..... failing to provide said 'historical records' to back up claims..... and opting for the dodging publicity...

sadly weak...

[edit on 21/4/10 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by mcrom901
ok.... i c it now..... nice explanation

but how can one verify that i.e. the post by jra.....

I don't understand what you mean, are you implying that jra didn't got that answer?

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I would suggest you reply to NASA's reply with something like this:

thanks.... but i never wrote to them in the first place.... with that quote i was just jokingly pointing out a potential example....

So, does that mean that you are talking about NASA's lies and you post a lie from your own making? Is this a correct interpretation of what happened?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Didn't see the claimed alterations re footprints

ok use some of this first, then go back and look at the animated image made by ArMaP here and you will see about one inch or possibly a little more, just above the Astronauts helmet there is one of the footprints appearing and disappearing. it's blatantly obvious to me so i don't see how anyone is missing it ?


here's what's hilarious about the whole thing LOL, they used that image that was altered, in a article about the Moon Hoax theory !


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/773cd25c5ad6.png[/atsimg]

easynowsufoblog.blogspot.com...

[edit on 21-4-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
so weedwack you flip out if i add Catherine Coleman's UFO audio clip to a video but when absolute 100% proof of NASA editing their images is posted all you have to say is...

Did you altered that video?

If you did, is this going to become a new trend, lying to try to show that other people have lied?

reply to post by easynow


So lets see ONE footprint changes wasn't added but removed now let me see according to you the whole of history needs to be re written NO

reply to post by ArMaP


the video was posted to show what Buzz said and it isn't much different than this video here...



in fact, i added the REAL STS video to it so you implying i lied about something is a lie in itself and a gross exaggeration of the proper context



so the real question is, is NASA going to continue this trend of altering images ?



reply to post by wmd_2008

keep using that windex, there's more than just one

[edit on 21-4-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
in fact, i added the REAL STS video to it so you implying i lied about something is a lie in itself and a gross exaggeration of the proper context

I wasn't implying anything, I was asking, I do not know the video.

the video was posted to show what Buzz said and it isn't much different than this video here...

The image with the copied/pasted ground was not much different from the original either, right?

The Aliens and UFOs field is already too littered with fakes and people with doubtful intentions, so I think we should always post things in the clearest way possible, not only to avoid confusion but also to help those that are seeing these things for the first time.

so the real question is, is NASA going to continue this trend of altering images ?

I'm sure they will continue the trend of altering photos that they post on their "public relations" pages, once a mindset is established in an organisation, even if the will of those in decision making positions changes, the way things are made changes very little, and it will completely disappear only if all people with that mindset stops working there and are replaced by new people.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by mcrom901
ok.... i c it now..... nice explanation

but how can one verify that i.e. the post by jra.....

I don't understand what you mean, are you implying that jra didn't got that answer?

are you suggesting that i should believe without any verification?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I would suggest you reply to NASA's reply with something like this:

thanks.... but i never wrote to them in the first place.... with that quote i was just jokingly pointing out a potential example....

So, does that mean that you are talking about NASA's lies and you post a lie from your own making? Is this a correct interpretation of what happened?

sarcastic mirroring of a few edits back and forth would sound more correct.... in which case i never said anything about nasa..... anyhow, you left out translating the emoticon in your question

Originally posted by mcrom901
are you suggesting that i should believe without any verification?

No, but the way you wrote it looked (to me) that you were considering that another ATS member could have posted something he knew was a lie, something that is a reason for being banned from ATS.

sarcastic mirroring of a few edits back and forth would sound more correct.... in which case i never said anything about nasa..... anyhow, you left out translating the emoticon in your question

That may be the idea, but you can see that the result was that people believed in you and Arbitrageur lost some time because of your "sarcasm", but I'm sure he will forgive you.

Edit: I forgot to say that I hate misunderstandings, that's why I always try to clear doubts like this one. I also suggest that you should make your sarcasm more visible as such, to avoid more cases like this one.

[edit on 21/4/2010 by ArMaP]