Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Ove38

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.

Thats right,
I made posts about it way back early in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You know the same lying nazi war criminal who basically envisioned Apollo.
The same guy who was good friends with Disney, and probably used Disney SFX
know how to fake the moon missions, or at least worked with Disney to plant into the American mind that trips to the moon and mars was actually possible.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

As the 1960s ended, von Braun had realized his dream of exploring outer space by helping place a human on the moon and satellite probes to the planets. His engineering and managerial expertise contributed to a technological revolution but his respect for the power of imagination had changed the way America perceived space exploration much earlier in the 1950s. He believed that America's devotion to space fiction in the early 1950s could be channeled into interest in space fact. "It was a matter of synthesizing the philosophical aspects into NEAT packages and solid statements which the public would BUY," according to Erik Bergaust, von Braun's biographer

...there were already more than 15 million television sets in America by 1952 and von Braun recognized that this change in American culture had the potential to fundamentally reshape American past perceptions. So did Walter Elias Disney who had used film as a powerful medium to entertain and inform Americans since the 1940s. "Neither Walt Disney nor Dr. von Braun were ever backward in making maximum use of new media for advancing their ideas: Now was the age of television," said one observer.


And what do most people say about Apollo?
"...It was real, cause I saw it on TV..."

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
But that's my point. I didn't do anything special. All I did was take a crop of that file make another copy of a second generation image I found off a web board (I cropped it using Grab and saved to a tiff a completely different file format) and then I zoomed it 300% in Preview using a program that may or may not have 1:1 scaling, and then resaved it to another completely different file format adding arrows to the image

Because the NASA 3x enlargement looks like someone touched up the dark shadow lines and then used a soft blur effect over it. I then, without researching the steps that had been taken on the image, came back to ATS.

I did some minor corrections to your post. I bolded the changes. Some of my changes may contain assumptions, feel free to correct them. \0/

Here is my resizing of the image:

Cropped Resize

Original

Full Upscale

Rescaling done using Lancoz resampling though you can get about the same results using bicubic or similar.

Note: use the download button to download full size images.

It looks remarkably like the NASA resizing of the image, except I didn't bother doing the tonal adjustments.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Pinke
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..

Tell that to any number of criminals that have been convicted on such evidence; what you're saying is just such a media high school teacher response frankly.

You can reliably enhance an image if you know what you're looking at and have a proper chain of control. There are limits, there's often a trade off, you have to choose the correct maths, and you also should test it on imagery that you already know the 'result' of prior to using it on an image where the result is unknown to you ... that's why a lot of the same test images such as the kodak girl and the photographing man are used because they're good test cases for new techniques.

After completing it you compare the result to the original image, what is already known, and what you think you've found. In this case, we think we've found an object on the moon, which is joined by our evidence that a moon landing apparently took place in the 1960s. Upscaling is an appropriate technique to use in a case such as this because we're wanting to know the location of items which are already there in the data, but difficult for our eyes to see. So we do tonal adjustments and deconvolution to add contrast which eyes love, and we upscale it to see the location of the items. We do the same things in other branches of science to look at how incredibly small things are structured.

Yes, if this was a picture of Mars and we were just guessing it would be obviously unreliable, but there is other evidence and accounts of this event we can match our findings to. So if we find vien like pixel regularities in an image we can with a degree of certainty assume they are tracks.

I realise you don't think much of my IQ level, and for whatever reason likely assume I'm trying to mislead people, so this is as far as I'm going to go on explaining all this and making further examples.

I just find it a little disturbing that people will accuse people of billion dollar fraud, in some cases murder, and misleading the entire scientific community with damning evidence but then say ... oh sorry, don't have time to learn this stuff, too busy drawing arrows on things, out of hand dismissing things, and trolling abovetopsecret.com ... will get to saving the world after I finish having my coffee.

Originally posted by DJW001
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!

What do you mean "a random point" ?


This is the official Apollo 11 landing site

reply to post by ppk55


How is it possible to actually past factual information about something, and then not read it so as to ask a question that has the answer is staring you in the face the entire time?


Your question:

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

(I highlighted the "aperture control" for FoosM's benefit)


Anyway, it is in the ALSJ transcript, the explanation (also was in your post...did you read it fully?):

[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?"

Sorry you missed the point, there. Of course, they would have been given the specs of the new color cameras, even if the real things had not yet been delivered. Training with non-working substitutes is not unusual....in fact, if you'd bother to read the Westinghouse Operating Manual from my earlier post, you'd see that the real thing was far too valuable to be used in the training sessions.

Originally posted by FoosM

Well why aren't you looking for it?
Its pretty easy to find.
Its mentioned in the JW's videos.
Its mentioned in this thread.
Its a google search away.

What a juvenile reply Foos........ in most of my posts in reply to you FoosM I have provided quotes and links......you on the other hand have provided NADA!..........
So less of the "Why aren't you looking for attitude" please

Originally posted by FoosM


I understand the subject.
But as long as you dont go the distance and get this info, you dont have an argument.
You are taking shots at JW, without taking a deep hard look on what van Allen had said DURING the Apollo era.

As for taking a deep hard look on what Van Allen says DURING the Apollo Era..........Jarrah mentions
articles Van Allen wrote in 1959 and 1961........BOTH of these were BEFORE the APOLLO era.......which only began in 1963.

You also have to factor in that the new information about the Van Allen belts was being recovered from test probes right throughout the sixties and beyond.......which means by 1968 all scientists including Van Allen would have had a better understanding of the radiation belts than they had back in 1959 and 1961.

Foo you obviously admire Jarrah........but aren't you taking things a little far when you'd rather take advise from
a TV & Film graduate rather than a renowned astrophysicist?
If you had serious medical condition would you rather take advise offered to you from a top highly experienced medical specialist..........or would you disregard his/her advice and consult a medical student?

Originally posted by Logical one

As for taking a deep hard look on what Van Allen says DURING the Apollo Era..........Jarrah mentions
articles Van Allen wrote in 1959 and 1961........BOTH of these were BEFORE the APOLLO era.......which only began in 1963.

So what did van Allen say about shielding?

Originally posted by FoosM



So what did van Allen say about shielding?

I'm sure you are dying to tell us ......go on supply a quote for once!

reply to post by Pinke

Tell that to any number of criminals that have been convicted on such evidence; what you're saying is just such a media high school teacher response frankly.

Gee mate, obviously you're way smarter than me...

The question is, WHY did they need to enhance it at all??

If the resolution was 0.5m per pixel then why not simply post the pics as such?

It's really something they do in the entertainment of advertising industry, not in the scientific community..

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM



So what did van Allen say about shielding?

I'm sure you are dying to tell us ......go on supply a quote for once!

Come on now, you made two or three posts after I asked the question.
And all you are doing is tap dancing around the subject that you brought up.
Whats the matter? Are you having a hard time finding info on van Allen, or is the information that
you found contradictory to your original statement and you cant own up to it?

reply to post by Ove38


Nonsense!!

Disney is pointing at the Moon in general...not any one particular location. It's like pointing at a map of France, and saying "I'm going to France....not sure which city I'll visit first, though".

A little bit of actual research, well away from that christian nut-job faith-based site where this baloney seems to be spewed, and swallowed by some:

Landing Site Selection

The Apollo 11 landing site in Mare Tranquillitatis was one of three sites selected for the first lunar landing [color=gold]from a list of 30 sites originally under consideration.

www.lpi.usra.edu...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, this snippet sums up the idiocy of the source that most probably provided the material and gist of your latest posts. It is truly sad that any thinking, sane adult would still believe this crap:

Editor's Note

If Dr. Wernher von Brain had read the incomparable German Bible translation of Dr. Martin Luther, he would not have been surprised that space travel is impossible.... Space travel, evilution, life on other planets is sheer LUNACY. JEHOVAH created the universe about 6,000 years ago and this is the ONLY planet capable of sustaining life. The Bible says:....

(Followed by an histerically funny misinterpretation of a psalm).


Rest of the sourced website is loaded with more factual errors, hilarious misspellings, and nutty claims

Originally posted by FoosM


Whats the matter? Are you having a hard time finding info on van Allen, or is the information that
you found contradictory to your original statement and you cant own up to it?

Errr what's the matter with you more like!

I can't find an original Van Allen quote on shielding of Apollo craft......or any other space craft for that matter........and I've not heard Jarrah make any direct quotes off Van Allen on this matter.........but If you have found a Van Allen quote in context then post it!

I am giving you a great opportunity to support your case............take it man........what are you shying away from?

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM


Whats the matter? Are you having a hard time finding info on van Allen, or is the information that
you found contradictory to your original statement and you cant own up to it?

Errr what's the matter with you more like!

I can't find an original Van Allen quote on shielding of Apollo craft......or any other space craft for that matter........and I've not heard Jarrah make any direct quotes off Van Allen on this matter.........

Fail.

Well then I expect you take back what you stated about van Allen and Jarrah White till you actually watch his videos on the subject, or research more about what van Allen said. Then you have a leg to stand on. See that post number? Thats right, your coming in on a thread where many of us have spent countless hours discussing and digging deep into various subject matters relating to Apollo. Come better prepared next time.

Originally posted by ProudBird

Nonsense!!

Disney is pointing at the Moon in general...not any one particular location. It's like pointing at a map of France, and saying "I'm going to France....not sure which city I'll visit first, though".

Actually, its more like he is pointing at a map of Europe, on a globe, and saying "I'm going to France". And next thing you know we get

Originally posted by FoosM

Fail.

Well then I expect you take back what you stated about van Allen and Jarrah White till you actually watch his videos on the subject, or research more about what van Allen said. Then you have a leg to stand on. See that post number? Thats right, your coming in on a thread where many of us have spent countless hours discussing and digging deep into various subject matters relating to Apollo. Come better prepared next time.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
But that's my point. I didn't do anything special. All I did was take a crop of that file make another copy of a second generation image I found off a web board (I cropped it using Grab and saved to a tiff a completely different file format) and then I zoomed it 300% in Preview using a program that may or may not have 1:1 scaling, and then resaved it to another completely different file format adding arrows to the image

Incorrect. The file I used was not a "second generation image I found off a web board". The file I used was :
wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc.browse/view/M168000580R

Why don't you show your "expertise" by re-creating the image that NASA wants us to see? You know, the image with an extra bulge and the flat shadow lines, etc. And don't forget to tell us what "enhancements" you are using.

I'd like you to pay special attention to the "extra bulge" because that is the part of the image which apparently NASA and you have special technical knowledge.

Originally posted by DJW001
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!

Did somebody mention Stanley Kubrick??

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Did somebody mention Stanley Kubrick??

Yes, about a dozen --- maybe as many as three dozen times in this thread, already.

And, it was shown multiple times that his association with Apollo has nothing at all to do with the ridiculous claims that *he* was involved in filming the EVA footage.

Anyone with common sense can just look at the very best guess they had in 1966 to 1968 (before actually landing there with Humans) for what it *might* look like on the Moon, from his film "2001: A Space Odyssey", and see just how badly wrong he and his production designers got it. They did the best, with what they had to presume at the time.

As I said, and to repeat: People with common sense can see the differences immediately. Among other aspects of reality, that preclude Kubrick being in any way responsible for any aspect of Apollo footages.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

Fail.

Well then I expect you take back what you stated about van Allen and Jarrah White till you actually watch his videos on the subject, or research more about what van Allen said. Then you have a leg to stand on. See that post number? Thats right, your coming in on a thread where many of us have spent countless hours discussing and digging deep into various subject matters relating to Apollo. Come better prepared next time.

Let me throw you a bone to help you along your way...

A couple of articles on the artificial belt that was created.
You will read that:

1. The belt was considered hazardous to astronauts.
2. The belt lasted longer than expected (10 years).
3. van Allen complained about being "EXCEEDINGLY Intimidated" by government officials.

We are not even talking about the normal belts here.
We are talking about an additional artificial belt made by a (I believe) hydrogen bomb.
So thats at least 3 belts Apollo 8 had to go through.




So now, put together the rest of the story.
How did Apollo 8 get past the new belt?
Was van Allen silenced during Apollo? Because he sure was active in the beginning, but later... we heard nothing.



news.google.com...,1930869&dq=radiation+belt+van+allen&hl=en
news.google.com...,6012095&dq=radiation+belt+van+allen&hl=en

Originally posted by ProudBird


Anyone with common sense can just look at the very best guess they had in 1966 to 1968 (before actually landing there with Humans) for what it *might* look like on the Moon, from his film "2001: A Space Odyssey", and see just how badly wrong he and his production designers got it.

No, they didnt get it wrong. They did it different. Kubrick is not stupid.
Of course he would have to make the Apollo footage look like something never seen before.
And I dont know how many times it must be stated, 2001 was an ART film. Not a documentary.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Ove38

 

Nonsense!!

Disney is pointing at the Moon in general...not any one particular location. It's like pointing at a map of France, and saying "I'm going to France....not sure which city I'll visit first, though".

A little bit of actual research, well away from that christian nut-job faith-based site where this baloney seems to be spewed, and swallowed by some:

This has nothing to do with the site you refer to.

It was Walt Disney & Wernher von Braun's "Rocket to the Moon" show that turned into the Apollo project