Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1

That frame shows Young lands at the same time, or before, the Myhtbusters guy.

Which is it? How can you possibly be trying to make some sort of quantitative argument if you cannot even determine something as basic as before, during or after?

reply to post by turbonium1


You haven't shown me it's too fast you have shown me they fall at about the same rate..

Mind explaining why in frame 28 and 29 that the myth busters toes are touching the ground and john young is in the air??

And the important part, Also why in frame 31 myth busters body is still going down to absorb the landing and in frame 32 john young does the same thing??

according to you that if john young is falling faster then why does John youngs body move down in frame 32 and not in frame 31???

Also I highly doubt you would deny that john youngs jumping salute, one of the most well known Apollo lunar footage is not at lunar gravity of 1.62m/s^2..

I mean the jump is demonstrating lunar gravity.. Why would anyone believe that nasa (whether or not they faked it) did not get john youngs jump at 1.62m/s^2..

They manage the hoax of the century but when it comes to demonstrating lunar gravity they decide to show the world john young jumping in gravity that is not 1.62m/s^2?????

Come on really?? Even I gave you more credit then that..

Are you seriously going to deny that john youngs jumping salute is not showing lunar gravity of 1.62m/s^2?? You cannot seriously be that deluded...


Ps
Can you not see the contradiction in your own argument??

You have acknowledged already that an object will take 1.111seconds to fall 1 metre on the lunar surface that is at 1.62m/s^2.. You have acknowledges this

You have also acknowledged that an object will take 0.452seconds to fall 1 metre on earths surface which is at 9.81m/s^2

Since you have acknowledged both those points you can't deny the maths is wrong the timescale factor between the two is 1.111 / 0.452 = 2.46

By acknowledging objects falling 1 metre in 1.111 and 0.452 seconds on the moon and earth respectively you are also acknowledging that the time scale factor between the two is 2.46x there is no way around this..

And yet here you are saying that 2.46x is too fast?? On one hand you inadvertently agree that the timescale factor is 2.46x and on the other hand you deny that 2.46x is the correct factor...

You can't have it both ways so I'll ask again..

Do you deny that if an object is dropped from 1 metre height it will take 1.111 seconds to hit the ground on the lunar surface and 0.452 seconds on earths surface?

You have already acknowledged it once, but you are already contradicting yourself by denying the factor between the two is 2.46x, so what's your explanation here??

reply to post by onebigmonkey

A fair point made fairly.What I will say though is that when I batch convert a lot of my photos with Photoshop,some of them come out alright,while a lot of them don't.If I do them ALL manually one at a time,they ALL turn out alright.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

My only criticism of newer copy is that it is too bright, which does mask some of the detail. In the image below I've taken a small section of the new one and altered the levels to make it darker. I've done nothing with sharpening or anything like that. Which one has more detail?

You enhanced an image to get it to reveal the details that you wanted to see better.
Were you aware if you use NASA/ASU images that you must credit them and not alter the image?

Go back and dig deeper into the agreements between NASA & ASU. NASA's Apollo images, once processed by ASU, are no longer in the public domain.

Once ASU get's their creep-y hands on the images they must show credit to NASA/ASU and they are protected by newly established copyright, which effectively transfers the image rights from the public domain and restricts how they can be used.

These images, and their associated derived products, may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part. Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Once ASU get's their creep-y hands on the images they must show credit to NASA/ASU and they are protected by newly established copyright, which effectively transfers the image rights from the public domain and restricts how they can be used.

Which means that most people will continue to use the public domain originals, with their incriminating reseau marks.

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Once ASU get's their creep-y hands on the images they must show credit to NASA/ASU and they are protected by newly established copyright, which effectively transfers the image rights from the public domain and restricts how they can be used.

Which means that most people will continue to use the public domain originals, with their incriminating reseau marks.

Most likely.

Personally, I don't blame ASU for wanting their versions of the images to have some copyright protection. They are the ones going through the expense of making these high-quality scans from the originals, so those scans should not necessarily be so "absolutely public domain" that they do not get image credit or any copyright protection when someone uses one of those scans.

As for the free ones with the crosshairs? I suppose we will need to use those more, considering they will still be available for all of us to use freely.

SayonaraJupiter
Choos, you are not being fair to the other posters in the thread. Did you ask OBMonkey why he is playing a game of spot the similarities? TOUCHÉ.

touche?? i dont think you are using it correctly??

its fair for him to play spot the similarities as his argument is consistent..

yours is inconsistent..

you have super advanced transforming mobots made by howard hughes setting up the lunar landscape 40+years ago..

and you are also suggesting that NASA needs to photoshop LRO images 40+ year after the lunar landing to continue faking it..

how can this make any sense for the consistency of your argument when 40+years ago howard hughes super advanced transforming mobots have already set up the lunar landscape and all the LRO needs to do is take photos??

you suggesting that LRO have been photoshopped ie. flag shadows, "stealth" LRV, not enough debris in debris field, same albedo between footprints and tyre tracks, is inconsistent with your claim that howards hughes' super advanced mobots setup the lunar landscape 40 years ago..

thats why im calling you on playing spot the difference and not OBmonkey.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

My only criticism of newer copy is that it is too bright, which does mask some of the detail. In the image below I've taken a small section of the new one and altered the levels to make it darker. I've done nothing with sharpening or anything like that. Which one has more detail?

You enhanced an image to get it to reveal the details that you wanted to see better.
Were you aware if you use NASA/ASU images that you must credit them and not alter the image?

Go back and dig deeper into the agreements between NASA & ASU. NASA's Apollo images, once processed by ASU, are no longer in the public domain.

Once ASU get's their creep-y hands on the images they must show credit to NASA/ASU and they are protected by newly established copyright, which effectively transfers the image rights from the public domain and restricts how they can be used.

These images, and their associated derived products, may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part. Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Uh-huh, not sure how that answers these questions, evasion noted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1. Find any evidence that the ASU have, or even intend to, removed the Reseau crosses from photographs taken on the lunar surface.
2. Find anywhere on any image in the Panoramic or Metric photographs where the removal of the crosses has caused a material change to the view of the lunar surface.

reply to post by Imagewerx


Ditto

My standard procedure on any set of photos is to go through and tweak the levels and add a bit of sharpening. If it looks better I keep it, if it doesn't I'll try again or even leave it as is.

Of course by some poster's logic this means I fake all my photographs and never go anywhere

One of the things about websites, especially those for big organisations, is that they often have a contact address.

Sometimes, if you send people a polite email, they send you a reply.

Here's one I have just received from ASU about the Reseau crosses and whether they are being removed on surface images:

Regarding your email message
and the question of reseau marks, processing for surface images has not
been planned in any specific detail, pending the completion of all
orbital image digitization and processing.

So for all SJ's bluster they haven't even started looking at the surface images yet.

onebigmonkey
Uh-huh, not sure how that answers these questions, evasion noted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1. Find any evidence that the ASU have, or even intend to, removed the Reseau crosses from photographs taken on the lunar surface.
2. Find anywhere on any image in the Panoramic or Metric photographs where the removal of the crosses has caused a material change to the view of the lunar surface.

No evasions, pal. The page says quite clearly, once again I refer you to the same page, apollo.sese.asu.edu...

First, all the 35-mm photographs were scanned (about 620 frames). Next, the Metric camera's 10,153 frames (BW) were scanned, and now the 4,612 frames from the Panoramic camera (BW) are being scanned. Finally, the approximately 20,000 Hasselblad photographs (BW and color) will be scanned. Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

They DO intend to scan the 20,000 Hasselblad lunar surface photos. During that process ASU will remove the backgrounds (same source) and the cross-hairs (same source) from every image with CGI enhancements just as Richard Nixon would have expected... because when the president does something it is not illegal, yet, NASA had to cover up for Nixon's Apollo for 43 years. That's what the Keep Out Zones are about. That's why no humans have been out of low earth orbit since 1972. NASA/LRO cannot confirm NASA/Apollo. You know that. There is no evasion on my part. I will gladly explain the relationship between NASA and ASU in this thread again (as many times it takes) to get you to understand that Apollo images are no longer credible evidence of the moon landings.

It was shown in this thread how Apollo Defenders don't even know how many Hasselblad cameras were taken to the "moon" (or how many came back from the"moon")

It was argued in this thread about the creep-y connections between Paperclip Nazi's, Howard Hughes Mobots, Wernher von Braun and Richard Nixon; We have discussed the sell-out B*S* propaganda of Mythbusters episode #104, Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer and Jay Windley (JayUtah) both were credited by Discovery Channel for that episode, with a LOT OF EXTRA HELP from NASA.

This thread proves the Apollo Defenders even tried to show the images of Dick Gordon in a simulator as Dick Gordon in cis-lunar space... the Apollo Defenders who tried this dirty trick shall not be named.

I believe that NASA is hiding material facts about the moon, what is on the moon, what we know about it, etc. All those "moon" missions happened during Richard Nixon's presidency. This thread is effectively over for all Apollo Defenders... the battle has been lost for you guys. The Old Apollo Narrative is finished.... the ethics of photojournalism have defeated you all.

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey
Uh-huh, not sure how that answers these questions, evasion noted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1. Find any evidence that the ASU have, or even intend to, removed the Reseau crosses from photographs taken on the lunar surface.
2. Find anywhere on any image in the Panoramic or Metric photographs where the removal of the crosses has caused a material change to the view of the lunar surface.

No evasions, pal. The page says quite clearly, once again I refer you to the same page, apollo.sese.asu.edu...

First, all the 35-mm photographs were scanned (about 620 frames). Next, the Metric camera's 10,153 frames (BW) were scanned, and now the 4,612 frames from the Panoramic camera (BW) are being scanned. Finally, the approximately 20,000 Hasselblad photographs (BW and color) will be scanned. Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

They DO intend to scan the 20,000 Hasselblad lunar surface photos. During that process ASU will remove the backgrounds (same source) and the cross-hairs (same source) from every image with CGI enhancements just as Richard Nixon would have expected... because when the president does something it is not illegal, yet, NASA had to cover up for Nixon's Apollo for 43 years. That's what the Keep Out Zones are about. That's why no humans have been out of low earth orbit since 1972. NASA/LRO cannot confirm NASA/Apollo. You know that. There is no evasion on my part. I will gladly explain the relationship between NASA and ASU in this thread again (as many times it takes) to get you to understand that Apollo images are no longer credible evidence of the moon landings.

It was shown in this thread how Apollo Defenders don't even know how many Hasselblad cameras were taken to the "moon" (or how many came back from the"moon")

It was argued in this thread about the creep-y connections between Paperclip Nazi's, Howard Hughes Mobots, Wernher von Braun and Richard Nixon; We have discussed the sell-out B*S* propaganda of Mythbusters episode #104, Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer and Jay Windley (JayUtah) both were credited by Discovery Channel for that episode, with a LOT OF EXTRA HELP from NASA.

This thread proves the Apollo Defenders even tried to show the images of Dick Gordon in a simulator as Dick Gordon in cis-lunar space... the Apollo Defenders who tried this dirty trick shall not be named.

I believe that NASA is hiding material facts about the moon, what is on the moon, what we know about it, etc. All those "moon" missions happened during Richard Nixon's presidency. This thread is effectively over for all Apollo Defenders... the battle has been lost for you guys. The Old Apollo Narrative is finished.... the ethics of photojournalism have defeated you all.

And the challenge remains for to answer these two questions:

1. Find any evidence that the ASU have, or even intend to, removed the Reseau crosses from photographs taken on the lunar surface.
2. Find anywhere on any image in the Panoramic or Metric photographs where the removal of the crosses has caused a material change to the view of the lunar surface.

You haven't answered them yet. The email I have quite clearly states that they haven't done it yet, and haven't even started planning it as they are still doing the orbital images. Even if you think you have answered question 1, you need to answer question 2. I'll make it easy for you, the Panoramic images have no Reseau crosses - there, all you have to do is look at the Metric Mapping images.

You still haven't made any comment on how the pictures of Hadley Rille I posted taken from the Apollo 15 ascent film matches exactly what was taken with the LRO and images printed in National Geographic. Why is that?

You can believe what you like, this is not the same as the truth. For NASA to be hiding something on the moon, they would have to have been there. For your argument to work, you have to admit that the Apollo missions happened, so why spend your life arguing that they didn't?

Your diversionary tactics are useless, this thread is over for you. Mythbusters had help from NASA? Wow - they asked NASA for information about something NASA did. They asked an astronomer and a rocket scientist about astronomy and rocket science - truly astonishing. Nixon? Irrelevant. Hughes? A dribbling maniac by the time it all happened. Keep out zones? No such thing, you're exaggerating and twisting the truth and no matter how many times you repeat it it won't stop what you're saying being deliberate attempts to mislead people.

As for dirty tricks by Apollo Defenders, you know full well that this was an error, and it was an Apollo Defender who actually pointed it out, not you. Your attempt at painting it as some sort of deception is a lie.

Here. Have a picture of Alan Bean in cislunar space.

SayonaraJupiter

First, all the 35-mm photographs were scanned (about 620 frames). Next, the Metric camera's 10,153 frames (BW) were scanned, and now the 4,612 frames from the Panoramic camera (BW) are being scanned. Finally, the approximately 20,000 Hasselblad photographs (BW and color) will be scanned. Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

They DO intend to scan the 20,000 Hasselblad lunar surface photos. During that process ASU will remove the backgrounds (same source) and the cross-hairs (same source) from every image with CGI .

From your own source

Since photographic paper also has a logarithmic response and reverses the films response, conventional paper prints have a natural contrast range. The logarithmic histogram correction applied to the scanned images therefore produces a virtual print that simulates the natural contrast of a conventional paper print.

The real problem is because YOU have no real understanding of of photography,optics or image processing you make up your own little theories about what it means.

NO CGI the images are being scanned to CLEAN & improve the contrast of the images.

The REAL important part for the likes of YOU!!!

The original, unprocessed raw scans are also provided on this website in full-resolution 16-bit TIFF format.

So NOW do you understand or do you need the meaning of original and unprocessed explained to you

Why is this thread still going on? It contains nothing worth reading.

Because people have posters on their wall ''I want to believe'' [all the B....sh..t the Government tells me ]

DJW001
Why is this thread still going on? It contains nothing worth reading.

Why do you want it to stop DJW001 ?

Why don't you just go away and never return like apollo never returned after 1972 ?

It's not your job is it ?

webstra

DJW001
Why is this thread still going on? It contains nothing worth reading.

Why do you want it to stop DJW001 ?

Why don't you just go away and never return like apollo never returned after 1972 ?

It's not your job is it ?

I don't want to stop, I'm just pointing out how boring it is. Are you actually planning on contributing something to it some day, or are you just going to kibbitz?

DJW001

webstra

DJW001
Why is this thread still going on? It contains nothing worth reading.

Why do you want it to stop DJW001 ?

Why don't you just go away and never return like apollo never returned after 1972 ?

It's not your job is it ?

I don't want to stop, I'm just pointing out how boring it is. Are you actually planning on contributing something to it some day, or are you just going to kibbitz?

That says it all..you are boring of it but still returns. Why ? Just go to another post and don't bother us of that you are boring....i'm still exited of the moon fakery :-)

webstra

DJW001

webstra

DJW001
Why is this thread still going on? It contains nothing worth reading.

Why do you want it to stop DJW001 ?

Why don't you just go away and never return like apollo never returned after 1972 ?

It's not your job is it ?

I don't want to stop, I'm just pointing out how boring it is. Are you actually planning on contributing something to it some day, or are you just going to kibbitz?

That says it all..you are boring of it but still returns. Why ? Just go to another post and don't bother us of that you are boring....i'm still exited of the moon fakery :-)

edit on 4-3-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)

Why do you want to be rid of me? Am I ruining your fun?

DJW001

webstra

DJW001

webstra

DJW001
Why is this thread still going on? It contains nothing worth reading.

Why do you want it to stop DJW001 ?

Why don't you just go away and never return like apollo never returned after 1972 ?

It's not your job is it ?

I don't want to stop, I'm just pointing out how boring it is. Are you actually planning on contributing something to it some day, or are you just going to kibbitz?

That says it all..you are boring of it but still returns. Why ? Just go to another post and don't bother us of that you are boring....i'm still exited of the moon fakery :-)

edit on 4-3-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)

Why do you want to be rid of me? Am I ruining your fun?

No it's necessary DJW0001, posts like this.

Nasa fakery has to be exposed....in the name of science and mankind.