Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Hidden Science & Advanced Technology

View Poll Results: Do you think the Apollo Lunar landings are fake?
Yes 83 72.17%
No 21 18.26%
Not sure need to do more research. 11 9.57%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-12-2012, 08:49 PM   #201
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
Im not playing to a third party if you cant see the grid pattern thats how you want to see things. But if a third party wants to look the link is there, and no lose of data due to screen print, upload to photo bucket etc.


The picture on Bonhams website is scanned by them. THEY are the third party who has copied the picture of unknown provenance.

Now, your refusal to offer a screenprint for the scaffold poles and curtains - claim dismissed.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:05 PM   #202
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
Im not playing to a third party if you cant see the grid pattern thats how you want to see things. But if a third party wants to look the link is there, and no lose of data due to screen print, upload to photo bucket etc.

Locking away the source negatives into a vault never to be seen again as to preserve them is so lame. They are only negatives (If they exist) not the Phoenix and secrets of Atlantis FFS.
strange how certain negatives are treated like the holy grail and other film/video/data tapes were chucked or taped over.

But i am sure the explanation is obvious and completely innocent.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:15 PM   #203
ianw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,032
Likes: 144 (107 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
strange how certain negatives are treated like the holy grail and other film/video/data tapes were chucked or taped over.

But i am sure the explanation is obvious and completely innocent.
From time to time they have an habit of getting found and thrown out into the public domain in a pristine digital rawscan X format.
The originals get slipped into the vault no doubt.
__________________
My definition of being a flatmooner is the apolow footage was filmed in a studio
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...2&postcount=55
ianw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:36 PM   #204
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

This vague debate is going nowhere until one of you shows a raw scan with a problem.

Getting back to the original OP, from the film "Was it only a paper Moon". The claim is made that regolith expelled from the rover wheels hits a wall of air and stops.

This is just complete rubbish, since anything capable of being stopped by air is of the size that will consequently be suspended as a dust cloud.

truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 10:31 PM   #205
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
This vague debate is going nowhere until one of you shows a raw scan with a problem.

Getting back to the original OP, from the film "Was it only a paper Moon". The claim is made that regolith expelled from the rover wheels hits a wall of air and stops.

This is just complete rubbish, since anything capable of being stopped by air is of the size that will consequently be suspended as a dust cloud.

The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs - YouTube
the thread, instead of going no where, has already reached its desired location (from my perspective).
Only fine tuning is left. (what happened to the OP ?)

You need to define what you believe to be a raw scan.

Is it not all the images used to support the official version of events ?

All the images used by apollogists to support the "apollo science".

This is only the beginning my friend.
A lot of much repeated rebuttals echoed by all apollogists will very soon be shown to be pure delusion. (unfortunately a few CTs will also fall but they will be replaced with new questions)
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 06:21 AM   #206
thommo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Where ever the journey takes me
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermay View Post
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick, it was the Russians who falsified their history of spaceflight. Not the Americans theirs. I suggest if you have any doubts the historical record for the
U.S. put together your own hypothesis and present it to the world, that's the only way.
Take a look at the site below for the truth, lots of good stuff about folklore, and the perpetuation of
myths.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/
Where did I say NASA WAS falsifying history?
__________________
Peace, love & respect

thommo

http://conspoetry.wordpress.com
Where conspiracies and poetry collide
thommo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 06:27 AM   #207
thommo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Where ever the journey takes me
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I disagree. Making a negative look how it should look with all the correction curves and colour balancing compensated for, from the Ektachrome E4, is perfectly normal and acceptable.



The "apparatus" involves a computer or scanner.



Reference please.



Already given, tumbleweeds and armwaving in response....

All the original scans:

PHP Code:
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/ASnn/ASnn-rr-xxxx.jpg

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/lowres/ASnn/ASnn-rr-xxxx.jpg 
nn= mission number rr = roll number xxxx = individual image identifier.
I hoped you might give some thought to the answers you give rather than reeling off the standard answers. Oh well

Don't know if you are in the UK, but there was an interesting programme on channel 5 called 'did we make it to the moon'. Being on mainstream I assumed it would be the standard NASA line, but I was wrong. You guys should watch it

Can someone explain why there are images in which objects are appearing in front of the cross hairs that are etched onto the camera lense? The Royal Photographic Society say that the photo's are clearly faked and theydon't believe NASA went to the moon.

Also, why are there craters on the moon that are an exact match of craters at Area 51?
__________________
Peace, love & respect

thommo

http://conspoetry.wordpress.com
Where conspiracies and poetry collide
thommo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 06:31 AM   #208
thommo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Where ever the journey takes me
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermay View Post
I post your quote again. See below what oooooooo
States and what is stated by Clavius.

0000000000 Post 34
”Clavius state themselves that NASA "manipulates" and "alters" apollo images to please advertisers or to show the public what they would expect to see.

FREEZE FRAME
The world seen by the still camera is not the world we see with our eyes. The camera freezes an instant in time and lets us examine it in much greater detail than would otherwise be possible. In our visual world we see a continuous sequence of events, many of them so brief they escape our normal attention. A passing shadow, a glint of light -- these things do not bother us even if we should happen to notice them. Our brain is used to dealing with transitory events, but not when they're captured and our brain is allowed to focus on them.
A photograph is a two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional scene upon the plane of the photographic film. This defeats some of our brain's methods of depth perception. Techniques of photography such as lighting and focal length can make the photograph suggest a different three-dimensional arrangement than what was there at the time.
Studio photographers retouch almost every photograph they take. They make a photograph look like what the viewer expects, not what the camera actually captures. It's rare to retouch photographs taken for historical documentation (such as the NASA lunar landing photos). My point is not to expect the NASA photographs to be retouched, but that photographs almost always have something in them that causes the viewer to scrunch up his face and wonder, "What's that?"
As long as we're talking about retouching NASA photographs, it's wise to mention that you'll probably run across some. Historians want the unaltered photos, but public relations people have the same goals as studio photographers: they want the images to look good. And so they airbrush out the lens flares and odd shadows. They crop the images and rotate them to orient the interesting features according to the viewer's expectations. It shouldn't bother anyone that altered photos exist and are available from NASA, so long as the unaltered photos are also available.




We clearly see that ooooooooo has falsified the Clavius text. My question remains. Why have you falsified the Clavius text?
The highlighted bit is not true. We don't see a continuous stream of images. We see about 260 frames per second. The gaps are filled in by the brain, so a lot of what we see is made up.
__________________
Peace, love & respect

thommo

http://conspoetry.wordpress.com
Where conspiracies and poetry collide
thommo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 08:13 AM   #209
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thommo View Post
I hoped you might give some thought to the answers you give rather than reeling off the standard answers. Oh well

Don't know if you are in the UK, but there was an interesting programme on channel 5 called 'did we make it to the moon'. Being on mainstream I assumed it would be the standard NASA line, but I was wrong. You guys should watch it

Can someone explain why there are images in which objects are appearing in front of the cross hairs that are etched onto the camera lense? The Royal Photographic Society say that the photo's are clearly faked and theydon't believe NASA went to the moon.
Also, why are there craters on the moon that are an exact match of craters at Area 51?
channel 5 !
moon craters in Area 51 !
Wow, and i thought channel 5 was all topless darts and news bunny.

Thanks T, i will have a look.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 08:49 AM   #210
mata
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
strange how certain negatives are treated like the holy grail and other film/video/data tapes were chucked or taped over.

But i am sure the explanation is obvious and completely innocent.
Good point that
__________________
il buon tempo verra
mata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 09:35 AM   #211
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
the thread, instead of going no where, has already reached its desired location (from my perspective).
Only fine tuning is left. (what happened to the OP ?)
And specific claims that show deception

Quote:
You need to define what you believe to be a raw scan.
A method to capture all information a camera sensor receives without in-camera processing (for white balance, sharpening, etc.).

Quote:
Is it not all the images used to support the official version of events ?
It is exactly that, as described above.

Quote:
All the images used by apollogists to support the "apollo science".
Using the stock insult of "apollogist" Images used are to debunk the fraudulent, incorrect, badly researched claims of landing deniers.

Quote:
A lot of much repeated rebuttals echoed by all apollogists will very soon be shown to be pure delusion. (unfortunately a few CTs will also fall but they will be replaced with new questions)
Really. What amazes me, is that you seem to think this startling revelation is significant somehow, as though Apollo enthusiasts aren't aware of this stunningly obvious fact. These images have been online longer than the colour balanced/contrast balanced ones.

Bring it on - stiffles yawn
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 09:52 AM   #212
adralicus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 363
Likes: 136 (63 Posts)
Default

Quote:
channel 5 !
moon craters in Area 51 !
Wow, and i thought channel 5 was all topless darts and news bunny
I watched it and it was very well done and for a change it was a mainstream media documentary that didn't try to debunk what was pretty compelling evidence.There was a guy from Nasa who chimed in now and then. But he must have been towing the party line as I would imagine he was only a kid or not even born when the "moon landings" happened. Good work channel 5!!
adralicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 09:59 AM   #213
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
And specific claims that show deception



A method to capture all information a camera sensor receives without in-camera processing (for white balance, sharpening, etc.).



It is exactly that, as described above.



Using the stock insult of "apollogist" Images used are to debunk the fraudulent, incorrect, badly researched claims of landing deniers.
Really. What amazes me, is that you seem to think this startling revelation is significant somehow, as though Apollo enthusiasts aren't aware of this stunningly obvious fact. These images have been online longer than the colour balanced/contrast balanced ones.
Bring it on - stiffles yawn
the "stunningly obvious fact" of altered apollo images used as scientific data to support the believers claims is not the "revelation".

Merely the ground work.

In order to help an alcoholic, he must first admit he has a problem.only then can the serious work begin.

Edit- you say ALL believers are "aware" of the altered images.
Petermay seemed a little rattled by the news.

Last edited by oooooooooo; 13-12-2012 at 10:06 AM.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 10:08 AM   #214
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
the "stunningly obvious fact" of altered apollo images used as scientific data to support the believers claims is not the "revelation".
You have that the wrong way round. Crappy copies of images used by hoax believers to try and make daft claims. Better quality images used to debunk these claims.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 10:08 AM   #215
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thommo View Post
I hoped you might give some thought to the answers you give rather than reeling off the standard answers. Oh well
Which bit did you feel wasn't answered correctly

Quote:
Don't know if you are in the UK, but there was an interesting programme on channel 5 called 'did we make it to the moon'. Being on mainstream I assumed it would be the standard NASA line, but I was wrong. You guys should watch it
It's 11 years old. It was the Fox TV special that has been soundly trashed ever since it came out.

Take your pick...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/FOX.html


Quote:
Can someone explain why there are images in which objects are appearing in front of the cross hairs that are etched onto the camera lense?
Simple. Another example of either deliberate subterfuge or poor research. The pictures used in the film are really poor copies of unknown provenance.

The cross hairs known as reticles or fiducials are merely fainter on white surfaces, due to light bleeding into them. The reseau plate sits in the camera, a millimetre or so in front of the film.

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/cross.htm

Here are a couple of examples they cited, this time using better quality images...

Good image:



The film example - over exposed and a poor quality image:



Good image:



The film example - over exposed and a poor quality image:



Quote:
The Royal Photographic Society say that the photo's are clearly faked and they don't believe NASA went to the moon.
No they do not. David Percy, a hoax film maker who is demonstrably a very deceptive individual(link below - I can provide dozens of examples if need be), is a member of this society(that anybody can join!) and he says the pictures and video were faked, but according to his film says man went to the Moon.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...3&postcount=21

Quote:
Also, why are there craters on the moon that are an exact match of craters at Area 51?
Who told you that? I have never seen that claim, let alone confirmation of it. The film shows this, and claims only one crater is "the same"...



They are similar, but definitely not the same. Besides, the Moon has millions of craters, you're bound to get one that closely matches an Earth crater - only they failed miserably to get one identical. They also fail to identify which picture it comes from and "cut" the bottom of the Moon crater(hmmm, wonder why).

For this to even be correct, belies the fact that the terrain is totally different in colour and relief and would need EVERY crater to be an exact match of every area they performed EVAs on, or photographed. This Area 51 claim is the magic unverifiable, unsupported claim put out originally by Bill Kaysing.


Now, does any of the above not demonstrate the poor method used in making these films? It is deliberate and shows where the REAL deception lies.

Last edited by truegroup; 13-12-2012 at 10:47 AM. Reason: adding more content
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 10:11 AM   #216
petermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sweden but born in England
Posts: 290
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thommo View Post
I hoped you might give some thought to the answers you give rather than reeling off the standard answers. Oh well

Don't know if you are in the UK, but there was an interesting programme on channel 5 called 'did we make it to the moon'. Being on mainstream I assumed it would be the standard NASA line, but I was wrong. You guys should watch it


The Royal Photographic Society say that the photo's are clearly faked and theydon't believe NASA went to the moon.

Also, why are there craters on the moon that are an exact match of craters at Area 51?



No you did not say the US faked the images, But I could be forgiven for thinking that you don’t support the Apollo record. See revised text below.

Edited text:
Why would the Russians have more credibility than the U.S? It was the Russians who falsified their history of spaceflight. Not the Americans theirs. I suggest if you have any doubts the historical record for the U.S. put together your own hypothesis and present it to the world, that's the only way. Take a look at the site below for the truth, lots of good stuff about folklore, and the perpetuation of myths.

If you mean, ”Did we land on the moon” by FOX, this total piece of rubbish has been debunked thoroughly numerous times. Look elsewhere on the net at
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Nothing is etched into the lens. A transparent ”Reseau plate is mounted in front of the film engraved with a number of crosses as an aid to measurement .

Your statement about the Royal Photographic Society (below) is totally false.

The Royal Photographic Society say that the photo's are clearly faked and theydon't believe NASA went to the moon.

Last edited by petermay; 13-12-2012 at 11:27 AM.
petermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 11:45 AM   #217
thommo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Where ever the journey takes me
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I don't believe either way.

I have seen nothing to prove that men have been to the moon that can't be falsified. Maybe when the Chinese or Indians go there we might get some proof either way.

In the same vein, I don't take the standard NASA faked it responses as proof either. Until someone goes there again (or for the first time) we will not know conclusively.

Take the moon threads on this forum as an example. There are page after page of ego bashing, going round the same circles time after time. It seems to me that the idea here is to try and prove one belief system is more correct than the other belief system. There in lies the problem. Belief.

Phrases like NASA shill and Apollo deniers do nothing except inflame. It is deliberately done as neither side is capable of proving their point, yet the aim is to convert people to your own belief system, to win. Sounds a bit too close to a cult or religion to me.

So, why does it matter so much whether NASA is correct? Is it going to fundamentally change mankind? What does it prove if NASA is wrong? The governments of this world are not exactly known for being transparent and honest, so another lie can just be added to the pile of other government lies.

If you can't keep an open mind about this, what chance have you got when it comes to things that actually do affect people here on earth?

When it comes to NASA, the space programme is the least worrying thing they are involved in. Things like MK Ultra spring to mind and if as much energy and effort was put in to uncovering that, the world might just be a better place to live in.

Does that clear up what my view is?
__________________
Peace, love & respect

thommo

http://conspoetry.wordpress.com
Where conspiracies and poetry collide
thommo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 11:48 AM   #218
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
channel 5 !
moon craters in Area 51 !
Wow, and i thought channel 5 was all topless darts and news bunny.

Thanks T, i will have a look.
Video is on youtube - here.

It was only 1 crater as detailed in my post above, and not the same. Nice try though.

Thommo, you raised a number of points about this film, in the rant room thread. Bring them here and I will enjoy taking them apart
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 11:52 AM   #219
thommo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Where ever the journey takes me
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Video is on youtube - here.

It was only 1 crater as detailed in my post above, and not the same. Nice try though.

Thommo, you raised a number of points about this film, in the rant room thread. Bring them here and I will enjoy taking them apart
Answer them in the rant room.
__________________
Peace, love & respect

thommo

http://conspoetry.wordpress.com
Where conspiracies and poetry collide
thommo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 12:06 PM   #220
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thommo View Post
Answer them in the rant room.
Nope, I'm pretty much done there*, it was fun to have a tear up, but the proper debate lies in the main forum. Come on, let's test your statement that it's one belief system against another.

Anyway, look at how dodgy the claims are as I identified above. This is why these debates never get resolved, because when I make detailed posts showing how the claims are wrong, they pretty much get ignored.

You asked about the cross-hairs and the Area 51 crater(just the one), what did you think about my answers?





* I reserve the right to change my mind.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.