What is with the trust of NASA?

Originally posted by dragnet53
photoshop didn't exist in the 60's but sketchpad a minor software version of photoshop did. Invented by an MIT student. I wouldn't doubt if NASA funded the man to make it better. after sketchpad was Paint program.

Sketchpad is a minor version of CAD, not photoshop. You're not going to be able to fake any Apollo photos with sketchpad, that's ridiculous. My point is and was that "photoshop" is not an appropriate term to use in even hypothesizing apollo fakery and gives the appearance of extreme ignorance. Not to derail the thread, but a simple yes/no question; did you ever change your mind about Jcattera's videos or not? Just curious as to whether or not your mind is open to being changed.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by dragnet53
photoshop didn't exist in the 60's but sketchpad a minor software version of photoshop did. Invented by an MIT student. I wouldn't doubt if NASA funded the man to make it better. after sketchpad was Paint program.

Sketchpad is a minor version of CAD, not photoshop. You're not going to be able to fake any Apollo photos with sketchpad, that's ridiculous. My point is and was that "photoshop" is not an appropriate term to use in even hypothesizing apollo fakery and gives the appearance of extreme ignorance. Not to derail the thread, but a simple yes/no question; did you ever change your mind about Jcattera's videos or not? Just curious as to whether or not your mind is open to being changed.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by ngchunter]

Yah sure did about jcaterra and i was a bit skeptical at first anyway. I am always a believer first then I am skeptical second. I found oddities in his work like he was always trying to find some UFO sighting or such. But sketchpad III was a lot more powerful than sketchpad and it was around during the time of the apollo series.

By then they had the means to also create a software that could be pseudo-like photoshop program.

reply to post by dragnet53

You do understand that all of the Apollo images were made with film cameras, right? Film. A CADD program does not work very well with film.

Originally posted by dragnet53
By then they had the means to also create a software that could be pseudo-like photoshop program.

Any photoshop-like program would have required far more processing power than they had available back then. Sketchpad's great if all you need to do is draw lines, but that's not photoshop, not even close, and as phage pointed it, inappropriate for film.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter
You don't know what existed then at all...Just like stealth they guard the secrets well...

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by ngchunter

 

You don't know what existed then at all...Just like stealth they guard the secrets well...

We know what the computers were like so we have a great idea what software would be like, ms paint would look like photoshop compared to what they could run then nice try

reply to post by wmd_2008
This argument is laughable seriously and not my side of it...Look at the C alias parts of the crosshairs disappeared from the film they were tampered with "airbrushed" On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!


*C aulis



[edit on 24-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

This argument is laughable seriously and not my side of it...Look at the C alias parts of the crosshairs disappeared from the film they were tampered with "airbrushed" On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!


*C aulis

[edit on 24-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Post a link or the pic with the cross hair problem because I need a

[edit on 24-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008
While their is some "questionable" stuff on this site they got this very right atleast on this subject...


www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Wow I thought you would be back quickly but maybe someone is learning a few things... Good first step...Reading it whether you believe or not.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
There was a thread not long ago about nibiru, now IM NOT claiming it exists but for all the skeptics the only graphs I got from anyone were from NASA...they have lied to everyone consistently yet we believe them consistently ...I just don't get it.

You engage in red herring after red herring.

Unable to construct a cogent argument to support your ideas or present evidence that falsifies the NASA data, you instead rely on ad hominems and appeals-to-spite. You cannot tell us why the data was wrong, only that you distrust NASA, therefore it must be wrong, evidence be damned.

I agree with you, DR...
...It seems the argument here (and in general) is a circular one:

"NASA can't be trusted, so they must be lying, and since they lie, they can't be trusted. Therefore, if they can't be trusted, they must be lying..." and so on, ad infinitum.

But for this argument to work, one of the two premises must be true (i.e., either they have lied, or they have done something so as not to be trusted -- the argument needs a verified starting point).

So, my question to the others is this:
What specifically has NASA done not to be trusted?....or....
What have they specifically lied about?
(...and please provide at least two independent and reliable sources as back-up to whatever specific claims are made.)

So far, the evidence submitted to back up these claims is old and already-debunked evidence.


[edit on 5/24/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I said that because it is a hoax...clearly photoshopped images that's been pretty much proven...and I'm not giving you links because you can do it for yourself I really don't have time for children that's why I don't have any...Look at the evidence and get on my level, then talk to me.

I'm sorry, but in attempt to clarify what it is you are trying to say here, are you saying thatthe Apollo 17 picture seen here (on the right):
dogsounds.files.wordpress.com...
was photo-manipulated? Photo-manipulated to what end? So it could look like the 3D model from Selene?

The Selene model 3D was created 35+ years later than the Apollo 17 photo, so it can't be that.

I'm sure it's possible that some kind of photo-editing may have been done, but not the kind that would alter the whole view of the mountains.



[edit on 5/24/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

I can't even believe people still don't believe we landed on the moon.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
I would love to hear who your sources are that you deem credible who debunked any of this info...mythbusters? or other discovery or history channel propaganda? I'm sorry and I hope this isn't considered a "personal snip" but I can't take anyone seriously who has a green recycle emblem as their avatar because by all means throw your damn trash away but Global Warming let alone man-made Global Warming is as real as a man bear pig...



[edit on 24-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
I would love to hear who your sources are that you deem credible who debunked any of this info...

Thus far, when asked to provide evidence to back up your claims you have steadfastly refused. Why should anyone back up their claims when you will not?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex
Dude are you serious? Take a long hard look at the link I posted It's all there...Find 3 things that have been debunked...I found 2...but out of all the evidence naw scratch that proof that this was a hoax to 1 up russia then I will gladly oblige your findings...


AND BY DEBUNKED I MEAN THEY MAY BE WRONG BUT WHO THE HELL KNOWS...



[edit on 24-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Dude are you serious? Take a long hard look at the link I posted It's all there...Find 3 things that have been debunked...I found 2...but out of all the evidence naw scratch that proof that this was a hoax to 1 up russia then I will gladly oblige your findings...

All of it. Do the research.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Yeah do the research...

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
No it makes you seem lazy...I'm not going through the net just for my dear friend "wmd_2008" your not that special...

reply to post by DoomsdayRex
I'm afraid I have...
.
.
.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

This argument is laughable seriously and not my side of it...Look at the C alias

The "C" is only visible in one particular scan of a print; all others don't show it because it was a hair or fiber on the scanner, not in the actual picture.

parts of the crosshairs disappeared from the film they were tampered with

The fiducials only appear to disappear in front of bright objects in low resolution or low fidelity scans. High resolution, high fidelity scans restore their appearance. For example:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
Missing fiducial on the flag right? Not so fast...
This much higher quality scan doesn't blow the levels out the way the above scan does:
history.nasa.gov...
Voila, the fiducial was right there all along.

Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!

The astronauts took stereo pictures using the cha-cha method. I've used the cha-cha method myself and it only requires one camera.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter
Yeah lol looking back on it I said I found 2 things on that link that could be debunked that was 1 of them, I looked into it and that is correct.


AND DUDE PLEASE WITH THE NASA.GOV READ WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT...



[edit on 24-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]