Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

I'm waiting for a, "Wow, JohnnySasaki just single-handedly proved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people wrong", but I'm not getting anything, and it's making me lose faith in humanity as a whole for believing this crap.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Let me get this straight? You manipulate a photograph. You make it look different. Nasa is enhancing photographs? So you work for Nasa now?

edit on 24/10/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

I'll wait for the Japanese HDTV. NASA has had plenty of time to provide clear and conclusive photographs. They claim they can't do it. They say it's not possible. You know the truth. NASA has the technology to do it.

NASA is not telling the whole truth.

reply to post by Pinke

Pinke Look them up and find out, view the originals, and maybe even come up with something useful from it.

The techniques used don't appear to be particularly special. Actually, I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could find out their method.

But that's my point. I didn't do anything special. All I did was take a crop of that file (I cropped it using Grab and saved to a tiff) and then I zoomed it 300% in Preview. I noticed right away that the black around the "Challenger descent stage" was much different configuration. The NASA version of the 3x enlargement shows the extra bulge. Can you suggest a way that NASA is getting from image 1 to image 2?

Because the NASA 3x enlargement looks like someone touched up the dark shadow lines and then used a soft blur effect over it. That's why I'll prefer to wait for the Japanese HDTV

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Originally posted by FoosM

Why is it that I always have to hold peoples hand? Are people really that stupid?

I dont know, why are you holding people's hands? Sounds like a personal issue you have.
Regarding the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Read my post again, and imagine I've quoted that picture you guys are talking about with all the arrows referring to different shadows.

Christ.

So Christ,
Whats your problem with all those arrows in that photo you want us to imagine?
Can you explain how the astronaut's shadow has gaps in the body?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM

 

When questions like this are *posed*, and left dangling as if rhetorical, with intent to sow doubt and derision:

So wait a minute... what am I missing here. Didnt Bean just say "Okay, I'm going to have to stop it down."
What is he referring to when he says STOP IT DOWN?

As far as I can see you couldnt control the aperture

Makes one wonder just how deep attempts to discredit Apollo will sink, and if those who claim to be "researching" simply wish to play games, and feign *ignorance* when it suits them?

(Or, to put another way -- pretending to be an ace "researcher", but playing *dumb* on purpose?)


WEC Color TV Manual

Section 2, paragraph 2.1.1

'....The iris limits are F/4 to F/44..."

I think that could be for the "J" missions. Not Apollo 12.

The flag is made up of a few black pixels? I guess the shutter got stuck or the F-stop was nerfed.

Walt Disney made "Man and the Moon"

Walt Disney with Wernher von Braun

Walt Disney picked the Apollo 11 landing site

Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)


Walt Disney & NASA (Buzz Aldrin Apollo 11)

reply to post by Pinke

Look them up and find out, view the originals, and maybe even come up with something useful from it.

The techniques used don't appear to be particularly special. Actually, I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could find out their method.

The "originals" would not show clear walking tracks as the world was shown..
The resolution of the camera was simply NOT good enough at that altitude..

Enhancing them is nothing but adding detail where is wasn't previously..

reply to post by FoosM


Yep, there's something funny with the Apollo 12 camera 'incident'.

Many say the reason the camera 'malfunctioned' was so they could reduce the hours of TV footage that could later be examined. It makes sense.

There is something just a little strange though ...

If you're going to give Westinghouse millions of dollars to produce the first colour TV camera that would operate from the lunar surface ... why would you give the astronauts who would use it ... wait for it .... a block of wood to train with?

[Conrad - "It was the first color camera. Neil and Buzz had a black and white camera. And, I think, the real (color) camera showed up three days before the flight. And we never saw it before that. As a matter fact, the first time we saw the real camera was on the lunar surface, if I remember correctly. (To Al) Didn't we have a wooden block that looked like it? That's all we had to train with. What's your remembrance of that?"

Thanks for this info Foos.

It had a focus control, aperture control and zoom control. How could you replicate that training with a ... block of wood?



Also, it seems strange that such a well regarded camera could just burn out like that.
This paper was presented at the Electro-Optical Systems Design Conference in New York in 1969. It specifically mentioned 'Tolerance to high saturation levels'.



www.hq.nasa.gov...

Another thing that is quite puzzling. Why would they have not added a simple disconnect switch for the automatic light control so that it could have been adjusted manually.

A $2 switch that could have saved the entire Apollo 12 broadcast.



next.nasa.gov...

And lastly, give me a break, as if Al Bean couldn't have studied a manual about this ...

"I thought it was just like a (photographic) camera

Really? But he had enough time to read manuals when getting his hair cut...
I rest my case.

reply to post by Ove38


Note how closely this model resembles the Saturn 5!



These spacesuits are identical to the ones worn on Apollo!



This is an exact copy of the Apollo lunar module!!!



Your fundamentalist "Christian" source.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38

 

Note how closely this model resembles the Saturn 5!

What are you talking about ? The Walt Disney-Wernher von Braun collaboration is a known fact. Walt Disney picked the Apollo 11 landing site, as seen in this photo from 1955.




Apollo 11 in Disneyland 1969

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Pinke

 

Look them up and find out, view the originals, and maybe even come up with something useful from it.

The techniques used don't appear to be particularly special. Actually, I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could find out their method.

The "originals" would not show clear walking tracks as the world was shown..
The resolution of the camera was simply NOT good enough at that altitude..

Enhancing them is nothing but adding detail where is wasn't previously..

If the detail wasn't there previously then why does it only show up on the path the astronauts walked? If this process makes stuff up as you claim then the whole surface would be the same. Not just the path.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You are just screwing with us right? When you zoom into that picture it looks nothing like what you showed us. Ffs look at the ground around the module. In your picture it is pixelated to hell. You have screwed the image with your process.

reply to post by ppk55


Rest your case please do. What has this got to do with whether they landed men on the moon or not? I'll tell you what....nothing. Might as well argue a point like: Charlie Duke farted in his space suit and his com-mike didn't pick it up, therefore they weren't on the moon!!! I'd give you a star for that.

reply to post by Ove38

What are you talking about ? The Walt Disney-Wernher von Braun collaboration is a known fact. Walt Disney picked the Apollo 11 landing site, as seen in this photo from 1955.

Are you implying that they secretly collaborated on a lunar landing project and secretly aired it on television in 1955?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38

 

What are you talking about ? The Walt Disney-Wernher von Braun collaboration is a known fact. Walt Disney picked the Apollo 11 landing site, as seen in this photo from 1955.

Are you implying that they secretly collaborated on a lunar landing project and secretly aired it on television in 1955?

There's no way around this. The Walt Disney-Wernher von Braun collaboration was no secret. You cannot deny the very fact, that Walt Disney is pointing to the Apollo 11 landing site in this 1955 photo.

Blow-Up > files.abovetopsecret.com...

Apollo 11 was screened in Disneyland 1969

Disneyland > files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Ove38

There's no way around this. The Walt Disney-Wernher von Braun collaboration was no secret. You cannot deny the very fact, that Walt Disney is pointing to the Apollo 11 landing site in this 1955 photo.

This is a startling development! Having read "The Conquest of Space" and "The Conquest of Mars," and seen Walt Disney's many films based on his collaboration with Von Braun as a child, I had no idea that they were in any way connected. And now you have managed to find a Top Secret photograph showing Walt Disney pointing to a globe of the Moon! Wow! He's pointing exactly to a random point on the globe only several hundred kilometers northwest of where the astronauts would land! Might as well wrap this thread up now... you have definitively proven that the Moon landings were not filmed by Stanley Kubrick!

reply to post by Ove38


Here's the final proof: This space station is exactly like the one they built for Project Apollo!!!

www.pbs.org...