Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

View Poll Results: Do you think the Apollo Lunar landings are fake?
Yes 51 68.92%
No 17 22.97%
Not sure need to do more research. 6 8.11%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-11-2012, 07:22 PM   #21
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Apollo Happened. Snap out of your dreamworld.
Posts: 15,202
Likes: 904 (707 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
Thanks for posting OP, some may not have seen the vids.

Evidence for the "big lie" is overwhelming.
Talking about big lies, can you please offer me a response to video 1 in post 4 of mine above. It demonstrates one of these lies you refer to.

Here is a screenshot taken from the film, showing the claim, that the flap at the back is not visible, when below the actual picture shows it is clearly the front left flap...



Original picture here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...13-18339HR.jpg


Picture of J-mission top PLSS:

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Debunk: To expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief.

Last edited by truegroup; 28-11-2012 at 07:27 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 08:04 PM   #22
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucel View Post
give it up tg your childhood heroes, as-in hero sandwich, did not go to the moon TRANSPARENCIES such as
the one used in the apollo moonmovie is commonly found on all startrek spacetype movies where they need
to show the starfleet enterprise flyingby near & distant planets
Give it up brucel, your fantasy delusions don't make sense. The claims in the youtube videos that say transparencies were used are lies, easily proven as such. They deserve a punch in the face.

As has been shown to you many many times, it's not a transparency, it's the Earth broadcast live on TV, with a hurricane only visible on that day in that formation in the shot. That live TV shot appeared on lots of newspaper front pages the day after.

Explain that.

While you're at it explain how every photo and video of Earth taken from space (including live TV broadcasts) is an exact match for satellite photos taken at the time. That's every photo and video. All of them.
moving finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 08:26 PM   #23
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Talking about big lies, can you please offer me a response to video 1 in post 4 of mine above. It demonstrates one of these lies you refer to.

Here is a screenshot taken from the film, showing the claim, that the flap at the back is not visible, when below the actual picture shows it is clearly the front left flap...



Original picture here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...13-18339HR.jpg


Picture of J-mission top PLSS:

having not seen the videos for a while i thought the issue was that the stills did not match the video of "salute jump".
As for the flaps, i am less concerned by which flap is "fluttering", and more concerned with yet another apollo "equipment malfunction".

Unless of course the flaps are designed to expose whatever lies underneath during actornaut lunar tom foolery.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 08:33 PM   #24
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moving finger View Post
Give it up brucel, your fantasy delusions don't make sense. The claims in the youtube videos that say transparencies were used are lies, easily proven as such. They deserve a punch in the face.

As has been shown to you many many times, it's not a transparency, it's the Earth broadcast live on TV, with a hurricane only visible on that day in that formation in the shot. That live TV shot appeared on lots of newspaper front pages the day after.

Explain that.

While you're at it explain how every photo and video of Earth taken from space (including live TV broadcasts) is an exact match for satellite photos taken at the time. That's every photo and video. All of them.
didnt you and TG concede that the earth was not spinning at the correct speed for the "exhibit A" video to be genuine ?
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 08:36 PM   #25
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Apollo Happened. Snap out of your dreamworld.
Posts: 15,202
Likes: 904 (707 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
didnt you and TG concede that the earth was not spinning at the correct speed for the "exhibit A" video to be genuine ?
That was a false claim by another member. The Earth does spin though, and that in itself completely refutes the claim of a transparency.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Debunk: To expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 08:40 PM   #26
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Apollo Happened. Snap out of your dreamworld.
Posts: 15,202
Likes: 904 (707 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
having not seen the videos for a while i thought the issue was that the stills did not match the video of "salute jump".
As for the flaps, i am less concerned by which flap is "fluttering", and more concerned with yet another apollo "equipment malfunction".

Unless of course the flaps are designed to expose whatever lies underneath during actornaut lunar tom foolery.
Please concede that the film maker is lying or very badly mistaken on this. I just showed that the stills do match(see video) and that the claim was incorrect regarding the basic premise of which flap.

There was a 6 hour delay to the Lunar landing on Apollo 16, missing buttoning down a flap on the PLSS(during the EVA checklist), that wasn't critical, is of no real concern to the operation of it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Debunk: To expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief.

Last edited by truegroup; 28-11-2012 at 08:44 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 08:41 PM   #27
petermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sweden but born in England
Posts: 290
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
having not seen the videos for a while i thought the issue was that the stills did not match the video of "salute jump".
As for the flaps, i am less concerned by which flap is "fluttering", and more concerned with yet another apollo "equipment malfunction".

Unless of course the flaps are designed to expose whatever lies underneath during actornaut lunar tom foolery.


And here is something of a knockout punch. A new website which corelates
weather satellite images taken at the time of the Apollo missions, and matches then to a particular mission.

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/catmall.html


Surely, ignorance is the last refuge of the Apollo conspiracy theorist.

Last edited by petermay; 28-11-2012 at 08:53 PM.
petermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 09:21 PM   #28
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
That was a false claim by another member. The Earth does spin though, and that in itself completely refutes the claim of a transparency.
i agree that yes, the earth does indeed rotate.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 09:46 PM   #29
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Please concede that the film maker is lying or very badly mistaken on this. I just showed that the stills do match(see video) and that the claim was incorrect regarding the basic premise of which flap.

There was a 6 hour delay to the Lunar landing on Apollo 16, missing buttoning down a flap on the PLSS(during the EVA checklist), that wasn't critical, is of no real concern to the operation of it.
sure, the film maker may have been mistaken, but thats no proof man landed on the moon.
I thought the issue was that the stills and video of the same event did not match (i may be mixing my films though).

So now if you would be so kind to explain why the flap was chosen at the "design and application" phase of the suit, even "designed and manufactured" with a button to keep it fastened.

Yet you claim it is just more unnecessary over design of equipment which is able to malfunction with no impact on its primary function.

Seems very strange and fortunate.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 10:33 PM   #30
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermay View Post
And here is something of a knockout punch. A new website which corelates
weather satellite images taken at the time of the Apollo missions, and matches then to a particular mission.

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/catmall.html
Surely, ignorance is the last refuge of the Apollo conspiracy theorist.
we have all seen the extremely fuzzy early NA$A weather satellite images.
And in fact MF is some what of an expert on the matter.

However matching A11 pics with satellite images requirers suspended disbelief and a sprinkling of religious fanaticism.

We have established NASA "alters and manipulates" its images to please the public and advertisers.

What source did the satellite image originate from that is used to support the idea of NASAs A11 mission ?
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 10:56 PM   #31
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Apollo Happened. Snap out of your dreamworld.
Posts: 15,202
Likes: 904 (707 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
sure, the film maker may have been mistaken, but thats no proof man landed on the moon.
OK, so the film maker was "mistaken", when he blatantly lied. That admission is good enough. It's proof that your proof they didn't go was deceptive.

Quote:
I thought the issue was that the stills and video of the same event did not match (i may be mixing my films though).
That is exactly the point. The stills DO match, because HE got the wrong flap. He also deliberately compared jump 2, with still 1, because Young pitches forward a little bit more on the second jump. The video in post 4 shows this very clearly. Just another of his "mistakes"

Quote:
So now if you would be so kind to explain why the flap was chosen at the "design and application" phase of the suit, even "designed and manufactured" with a button to keep it fastened.
I really am not sure about what the flap does, but in any system there is built in redundancy. Their pre-eva process had to be cut a little short to save lost time.

http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html
"Apollo 16 was given an abbreviated suit donning procedure in order to make up for their late landing. Some checks were likely omitted or done hastily. The astronauts themselves would know which steps were strictly crucial and related to life-threatening systems, and which were redundant or relatively unimportant."

Please try and think this through logically. The flap is visible not just in the jump salute, but in other pictures. It would hardly have gone unnoticed had these pictures been faked.

Quote:
Yet you claim it is just more unnecessary over design of equipment which is able to malfunction with no impact on its primary function.
I claim and know that there is built in redundancy in every engineered system. Having a flap closed, seems to be such an example. If you can think of anything significant about this, please do so. To me, the subject matter was that there was an anomaly between the video and stills, that has been shown to be false.

Don't move the goalposts. The film maker lied and I can show many more clearer examples of his deception should you wish.

Quote:
Seems very strange and fortunate.
Neither. I am guessing its primary use was to stop regolith getting into the emergency backup OPS system. Unlikely given its position, wouldn't you say?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Debunk: To expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 11:22 PM   #32
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Apollo Happened. Snap out of your dreamworld.
Posts: 15,202
Likes: 904 (707 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
we have all seen the extremely fuzzy early NA$A weather satellite images.
Images that a fellow denier says could be used to construct moving colour pictures. Thanks for indirectly refuting that.

Quote:
However matching A11 pics with satellite images requirers suspended disbelief and a sprinkling of religious fanaticism.
No. It requires you view the massive research and documentation, then provide detailed rebuttal, before you simply wave it away with the jedi mind trick.

Quote:
We have established NASA "alters and manipulates" its images to please the public and advertisers.
We have established that, as any photograph, they are presented in as much quality detail as possible. We have established that the raw scans are all available, completely unaltered.....

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm

Here is an example:



Enhanced ALSJ version here.

Please find one image that has been "manipulated" deceptively, then your claim may have some merit.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Debunk: To expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 06:41 AM   #33
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
OK, so the film maker was "mistaken", when he blatantly lied. That admission is good enough. It's proof that your proof they didn't go was deceptive.
That is exactly the point. The stills DO match, because HE got the wrong flap. He also deliberately compared jump 2, with still 1, because Young pitches forward a little bit more on the second jump. The video in post 4 shows this very clearly. Just another of his "mistakes"
I really am not sure about what the flap does, but in any system there is built in redundancy. Their pre-eva process had to be cut a little short to save lost time.
http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html
Please try and think this through logically. The flap is visible not just in the jump salute, but in other pictures. It would hardly have gone unnoticed had these pictures been faked.
I claim and know that there is built in redundancy in every engineered system. Having a flap closed, seems to be such an example. If you can think of anything significant about this, please do so. To me, the subject matter was that there was an anomaly between the video and stills, that has been shown to be false.
Don't move the goalposts. The film maker lied and I can show many more clearer examples of his deception should you wish.
Neither. I am guessing its primary use was to stop regolith getting into the emergency backup OPS system. Unlikely given its position, wouldn't you say?
how much time was saved by not fastening a flap on top of the life support system ?
Seems like a bit of a reach.

While you are pondering the above question allow me to freestyle regarding the film makers motives.
You say all his work is dishonest and easily refuted.
Is it possible he is a NASA shill paid to produce ammunition for the pro camp ?
If i were to make a pro landing film full of factual "mistakes" and false claims would this prove men never landed ?
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 07:15 AM   #34
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Images that a fellow denier says could be used to construct moving colour pictures. Thanks for indirectly refuting that.
No. It requires you view the massive research and documentation, then provide detailed rebuttal, before you simply wave it away with the jedi mind trick.
We have established that, as any photograph, they are presented in as much quality detail as possible. We have established that the raw scans are all available, completely unaltered.....
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm
Here is an example:

Enhanced ALSJ version here.
Please find one image that has been "manipulated" deceptively, then your claim may have some merit.
if a "fellow denier" claims the satellite image could be used to imitate the apollo shot/video then he would be right. It is entirely possible.

Please state who owned and maintained the weather satellite which supported the A11 "evidence"

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

Insider whistle blowers also state they have witnessed the manipulation and alteration of images relating to the apollo "programme".

Dare you ask ?
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 09:25 AM   #35
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Apollo Happened. Snap out of your dreamworld.
Posts: 15,202
Likes: 904 (707 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
if a "fellow denier" claims the satellite image could be used to imitate the apollo shot/video then he would be right. It is entirely possible.
It is not. The satellite that takes the weather patterns is in a geosynchronous orbit. It is a physical impossibility for an object to orbit at that distance without the speed that keeps it in a fixed position relative to the Earth.

The Apollo footage and pictures which match the weather patterns, show a craft heading away from Earth. They show a static terminator and a rotating Earth INTO that terminator. A satellite in geosynchronous orbit would show a static Earth and the terminator moving across the globe.

Quote:
Please state who owned and maintained the weather satellite which supported the A11 "evidence"
Maybe Moving Finger can address this in better detail than I can. This thread is about the hoax films in post 1, and that is all I am debating about for the moment.

Quote:
Clavius state themselves that NASA "manipulates" and "alters" apollo images to please advertisers or to show the public what they would expect to see.
You are misrepresenting what is being stated on that site.

http://www.clavius.org/photoidx.html
"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."

As I showed you, the unaltered photos ARE available....

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm

If you are aware of any original rawscans that show anomalies or inconsistencies, please present them. Otherwise all you are saying is photographs are made better for the public and I don't dispute this. Personally, I am not aware of any airbrushed "odd shadows". If you are, please present them.

Here is an Apollo supporter, showing how this is done with examples...

http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html

Quote:
Insider whistle blowers also state they have witnessed the manipulation and alteration of images relating to the apollo "programme".
That is bare assertion and hearsay. If you refer to Donna Hare, this has been discussed before and is side tracking.

Quote:
Dare you ask ?
I would rather keep to the thread premise, open a new one if you wish to discuss this
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Debunk: To expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 09:34 AM   #36
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Apollo Happened. Snap out of your dreamworld.
Posts: 15,202
Likes: 904 (707 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
how much time was saved by not fastening a flap on top of the life support system ?
Seems like a bit of a reach.
I'm not even sure he left it unfastened deliberately to save time. It is a bit of a reach to suggest it is part of the critical operation of the PLSS. Do you have any evidence to back up this implied suggestion?

Quote:
While you are pondering the above question allow me to freestyle regarding the film makers motives.
You say all his work is dishonest and easily refuted.
No. I say some of his work is dishonest, some is bad research, some is bare assertion, some is very poor logic and a lot of it is padding.

Quote:
Is it possible he is a NASA shill paid to produce ammunition for the pro camp ?
If i were to make a pro landing film full of factual "mistakes" and false claims would this prove men never landed ?
It is possible that he was a paid NASA operative. I use the word "possible" in the loosest terms, it makes zero sense at all for them to ask for a film released, that is essentially taken as read by many landing deniers.

It appears that only pro-Apollo people are capable of looking at this film and seeing how awful it is and they aren't the ones who need convincing.

Making a film showing there are no anomalies that can't be easily debunked, kind of negates the fact that the whole record is available already showing this.

Now, you said this....

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
Thanks for posting OP, some may not have seen the vids.

Evidence for the "big lie" is overwhelming.
Do you care to revise that statement Because there is certainly no evidence in that film for the "big lie" you refer to, rather, there is provable evidence that the film maker himself is the big lie.

Here is another counter video, showing more deception, please watch it....

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Debunk: To expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea or belief.

Last edited by truegroup; 29-11-2012 at 09:36 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 10:28 AM   #37
petermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sweden but born in England
Posts: 290
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
sure, the film maker may have been mistaken, but thats no proof man landed on the moon.
I thought the issue was that the stills and video of the same event did not match (i may be mixing my films though).

So now if you would be so kind to explain why the flap was chosen at the "design and application" phase of the suit, even "designed and manufactured" with a button to keep it fastened.

Yet you claim it is just more unnecessary over design of equipment which is able to malfunction with no impact on its primary function.

Seems very strange and fortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
if a "fellow denier" claims the satellite image could be used to imitate the apollo shot/video then he would be right. It is entirely possible.

Please state who owned and maintained the weather satellite which supported the A11 "evidence"

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

Insider whistle blowers also state they have witnessed the manipulation and alteration of images relating to the apollo "programme".

Dare you ask ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
how much time was saved by not fastening a flap on top of the life support system ?
Seems like a bit of a reach.

While you are pondering the above question allow me to freestyle regarding the film makers motives.
You say all his work is dishonest and easily refuted.
Is it possible he is a NASA shill paid to produce ammunition for the pro camp ?
If i were to make a pro landing film full of factual "mistakes" and false claims would this prove men never landed ?

Fact. You have not provided a single piece of evidence to support a NASA Apollo hoax which will stand up to scrutiny.
Please show where Clavious states, "manipulates" and "alters" apollo images to please advertisers or to show the public what they would expect to see.
Yes, I have seen illustrations of Apollo hardware used to ”prove” a NASA hoax, which
only proves how desperate the hoax theorists are.
Which NASA “whistle blowers” are you referring to. Names, where, when, how?

How much time they saved is irrelevant, the flap remained open, and was not mission critical.
NASA shills, OK, Names, where, when, how?
You argue from ignorance, you have no evidence whatsoever.
petermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 01:56 PM   #38
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermay View Post
Fact. You have not provided a single piece of evidence to support a NASA Apollo hoax which will stand up to scrutiny.
Please show where Clavious states, "manipulates" and "alters" apollo images to please advertisers or to show the public what they would expect to see.
Yes, I have seen illustrations of Apollo hardware used to ”prove” a NASA hoax, which
only proves how desperate the hoax theorists are.
Which NASA “whistle blowers” are you referring to. Names, where, when, how?

How much time they saved is irrelevant, the flap remained open, and was not mission critical.
NASA shills, OK, Names, where, when, how?
You argue from ignorance, you have no evidence whatsoever.
why so bitter ?
are you really that invested in the "big lie" ?

as you are a noob i shall go easy and just offer you a few links to read and digest regards my position.

you demand the clavius link (strange considering TG already posted the blurb above), you must have missed it, see below, i have highlighted the points of interest.

http://www.clavius.org/photoidx.html
PHOTOGRAPHY
chapter overview

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.

------------------------------------------

so clavius tell us that NASA freely admits that PR people alter images.

I will not assume you dont know what PR is. Let me educate you.
http://pr.wikia.com/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Born in Vienna, Bernays was both a blood nephew and a nephew-in-law to Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, and Bernays's public relations efforts helped popularize Freud's theories in the United States. Bernays also pioneered the PR industry's use of psychology and other social sciences to design its public persuasion campaigns. "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits." (first edition 1928)(Propaganda, 2005 ed., p. 71.)
------------------------------------------------------
when you also know that public relations was a term invented so as the word "propaganda", which had been given a negative slant by the ground breaking work of the NAZIs, was no longer used.

Also we both know a lot of the paper trail has been "destroyed", along with original recordings.
im sure you have seen "some" but not all.

As for NASA whistle blowers this to has also been covered at length, please read some of the monster "apollo hoax" threads right here in this sub forum.

"NASA shills, OK, Names, where, when, how?"
i gave an example a few posts back regarding a double bluff and the possibility of constructing false argument.

please read posts and try to keep up.

i am painting in broad brush strokes so as not to overwhelm you.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 02:02 PM   #39
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I'm not even sure he left it unfastened deliberately to save time. It is a bit of a reach to suggest it is part of the critical operation of the PLSS. Do you have any evidence to back up this implied suggestion?



No. I say some of his work is dishonest, some is bad research, some is bare assertion, some is very poor logic and a lot of it is padding.



It is possible that he was a paid NASA operative. I use the word "possible" in the loosest terms, it makes zero sense at all for them to ask for a film released, that is essentially taken as read by many landing deniers.

It appears that only pro-Apollo people are capable of looking at this film and seeing how awful it is and they aren't the ones who need convincing.

Making a film showing there are no anomalies that can't be easily debunked, kind of negates the fact that the whole record is available already showing this.

Now, you said this....



Do you care to revise that statement Because there is certainly no evidence in that film for the "big lie" you refer to, rather, there is provable evidence that the film maker himself is the big lie.

Here is another counter video, showing more deception, please watch it....

Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt - YouTube
"Do you care to revise that statement"
nope.

i was not really refering to the vids as the "big lie", rather the heart warming fable of human achievment commonly known as the "Apollo Missions".

admit it TG, even you have had your doubts.
Its almost toooooooooo obvious.
oooooooooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 04:05 PM   #40
petermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sweden but born in England
Posts: 290
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
why so bitter ?
are you really that invested in the "big lie" ?

as you are a noob i shall go easy and just offer you a few links to read and digest regards my position.

you demand the clavius link (strange considering TG already posted the blurb above), you must have missed it, see below, i have highlighted the points of interest.

http://www.clavius.org/photoidx.html
PHOTOGRAPHY
chapter overview

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.

------------------------------------------

so clavius tell us that NASA freely admits that PR people alter images.

I will not assume you dont know what PR is. Let me educate you.
http://pr.wikia.com/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Born in Vienna, Bernays was both a blood nephew and a nephew-in-law to Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, and Bernays's public relations efforts helped popularize Freud's theories in the United States. Bernays also pioneered the PR industry's use of psychology and other social sciences to design its public persuasion campaigns. "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits." (first edition 1928)(Propaganda, 2005 ed., p. 71.)
------------------------------------------------------
when you also know that public relations was a term invented so as the word "propaganda", which had been given a negative slant by the ground breaking work of the NAZIs, was no longer used.

Also we both know a lot of the paper trail has been "destroyed", along with original recordings.
im sure you have seen "some" but not all.

As for NASA whistle blowers this to has also been covered at length, please read some of the monster "apollo hoax" threads right here in this sub forum.

"NASA shills, OK, Names, where, when, how?"
i gave an example a few posts back regarding a double bluff and the possibility of constructing false argument.

please read posts and try to keep up.

i am painting in broad brush strokes so as not to overwhelm you.

Only NASA can admit to re touching images, (why not ask them I’m sure they will tell you why) however I understand the paragraphs from Clavious. We see exactly what Clavious wrote, and not what you imagined they wrote. NASA certainly do retouch images in terms of PR, i.e. lens flares, shadows. There is nothing wrong here, is there? The original negatives remain untouched,
and unchanged. No conspiracy?
My question remains:
Where did you find this as you state:
”Claviers state themselves that NASA "manipulates" and "alters" apollo images to please advertisers or to show the public what they would expect to see”

Fact. We clearly see you have change the facts, and context of the Clavious information. Your text is both false and misleading to say the least. ”MANIPULATES!

I don’t know anything about a ”paper trail” being ”destroyed” ”along with original recordings”
Names please, where, when, why?
Which Apollo hoax threads are you referring to? Still no names, who, where, when, why?
NASA shills, still no names, who, where, when why?
Might I ask for post numbers?

The Freud, and Nazi propaganda padding are irrelevant.

Last edited by petermay; 29-11-2012 at 04:09 PM.
petermay 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 09:00 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.