Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-09-2009, 04:37 PM   #1041
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
My point has NOTHING to do with shadows length - check it
Not directly no. However, perspective lines will only work on flat and level terrain. By my pointing out that the ground is not flat and level and that shadow lengths can change with terrain, it shows that using perspective lines to determine the point source is invalid. As for the brightness of the lighting on the ground, that can also be affected by terrain.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 04:39 PM   #1042
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exuberant1 View Post
...Some very interesting anomalies in that photograph.

It looks as if a beam of light is visible in the lunar atmosphere, but as we all know the lunar atmosphere is so tenuous as to negate such a happening (excepting crepuscular rays during a specific time of lunar day).

Perhaps this could a be attributed to a hole in the black tarp covering the stage...
Perhaps. Perhaps the film was damaged in some way. Perhaps it is a lens flare. Perhaps there was a reflection on the scanner when the pic was scanned to digital. I don't know.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 05:04 PM   #1043
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
Perhaps. Perhaps the film was damaged in some way. Perhaps it is a lens flare. Perhaps there was a reflection on the scanner when the pic was scanned to digital. I don't know.
Or - and since we are speculating - perhaps what we are seeing is the dusty environment of the stage whereon the moonwalk portion of the Apollo missions were filmed. Perhaps this is a hole in the tarp covering the stage.

But then again, perhaps this could be the electrostatically levitated dust which the moon is so famous. The most notable example of this would be the storm which perpetually rages along the terminator on the moon.

Thank you for binging this image to my attention (I am collecting such examples). It is quite interesting, although it could be used to make both sides of the argument.

I have read an Apollo hoax debunker attribute the fine dust to being that which was kicked up during landing and which took several hours to land. That could also be the case.
__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium

Last edited by exuberant1; 12-09-2009 at 05:05 PM.
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 05:47 PM   #1044
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

[QUOTE=exuberant1;1265193]Or - and since we are speculating - perhaps what we are seeing is the dusty environment of the stage whereon the moonwalk portion of the Apollo missions were filmed. Perhaps this is a hole in the tarp covering the stage.

But then again, perhaps this could be the electrostatically levitated dust which the moon is so famous. The most notable example of this would be the storm which perpetually rages along the terminator on the moon.[\quote]
I'm not familiar with that. Sounds interesting.

Quote:
Thank you for binging this image to my attention (I am collecting such examples). It is quite interesting, although it could be used to make both sides of the argument.

I have read an Apollo hoax debunker attribute the fine dust to being that which was kicked up during landing and which took several hours to land. That could also be the case.
I would have to disagree with that. I don't see what would cause it to take several hours to land (except for the electrostatic phenomenon you mentioned, do you have any more info on that?). There is no atmosphere on the Moon to cause a suspension like on Earth.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 05:47 PM   #1045
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
Not directly no. However, perspective lines will only work on flat and level terrain. By my pointing out that the ground is not flat and level and that shadow lengths can change with terrain, it shows that using perspective lines to determine the point source is invalid. As for the brightness of the lighting on the ground, that can also be affected by terrain.
Here's a similar effect this time from Apollo 12



Looks like spotlight again - I will see how many of these I can find

Would you actually get this effect from natural light? Obviously looking into the sun you would get strong reflections under the sun, as you can see on water, or when driving into the sun low on the horizon. But looking away from it?

Last edited by rodin; 12-09-2009 at 05:50 PM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 05:54 PM   #1046
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

[QUOTE=frenat;1265288]
Quote:
Originally Posted by exuberant1 View Post
(except for the electrostatic phenomenon you mentioned, do you have any more info on that?).
Indeed I do.

The director of the Pegasus Research Consortium has published some material over on the ATS site - it is important to get it all in place:

'Sunset and Sunrise Crepuscular Rays on the MOON'

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread498076/pg1
__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 05:57 PM   #1047
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

[QUOTE=exuberant1;1265309]
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenat View Post

Indeed I do.

The director of the Pegasus Research Consortium has published some material over on the ATS site - it is important to get it all in place:

'Sunset and Sunrise Crepuscular Rays on the MOON'

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread498076/pg1
Thank you. I'll check it out.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 06:01 PM   #1048
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Here's a similar effect this time from Apollo 12



Looks like spotlight again - I will see how many of these I can find

Would you actually get this effect from natural light? Obviously looking into the sun you would get strong reflections under the sun, as you can see on water, or when driving into the sun low on the horizon. But looking away from it?
I've seen this explained as Heiligenschein.
http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Retro...tion+phenomena
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 06:18 PM   #1049
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
OK. It'll be sunny tomorrow I will check for the effect on terra firma in the morning
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 08:26 AM   #1050
francis
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 194
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
How can data compression or any degradation account for the massive luminosity gradient? Sorry, this is a spot lit image.

Why apologise?


May i ask you stop using shitty versions of pictures and start using some of the hi res versions that are avalible. Catalog numbers would also help.

Last edited by francis; 13-09-2009 at 08:35 AM.
francis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 09:44 AM   #1051
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by francis View Post
Why apologise?


May i ask you stop using shitty versions of pictures and start using some of the hi res versions that are avalible.
Poor form Francis.

Rodin has done an excellent job thus far, and his thoughtful selection of images has saved a great deal of bandwidth and loading time. I would like him to provide the pertinents with each image, but that is not always possible (depending on where one locates the images).
__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium

Last edited by exuberant1; 13-09-2009 at 09:45 AM.
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 10:31 AM   #1052
francis
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 194
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exuberant1 View Post
Poor form Francis.

Rodin has done an excellent job thus far, and his thoughtful selection of images has saved a great deal of bandwidth and loading time. I would like him to provide the pertinents with each image, but that is not always possible (depending on where one locates the images).
Plz don't get me wrong and allow myself to explain my point.

I'm not knocking Rodin in any way shape or form but we must all be aware that unless it is a NASA backed photograph it could have been tampered with to try and prove a point. I say we all stick to the rule that only approved NASA photographs are used and we try to get the best resolution version we can. If bandwidth is the issue then provide the image being discussed and then a link to a descent version for people to click on if they wish and compare the 2.

For example you can see on David percy's site the famous picture of man on the moon (buzz). They use the picture to prop up their case that the fiducials are out of place. However when we compare the version on percys site to the one shown by NASA we can clearly see the Percy version has been tampered with to try and prop up their story.

Quote:
Bennett and Percy maintain that the "classic" shot of Buzz Aldrin (AS11-40-5903, which we discuss here in detail) has a misaligned fiducial on the original transparency. Photo 20, page 68 of Dark Moon attempts to show that the distance from the top and bottom borders to the center fiducial is not equal, as it should be.

The authors' reproduction of the photo claims to be the "full area" of the photograph. Indeed we verify that the image in Dark Moon is indeed square (69 millimeters on each side). But a curious feature catches our eye. The authors have added a little "headroom" above Aldrin. Photo analysts have known for years that a sliver of the top edge of Aldrin's PLSS backpack is actually cut off by the top of the frame. But Bennett and Percy place the top of the frame 4 mm above the PLSS.

How were they able to to that? The original transparency roll puts a 2 cm margin between the top of one frame and the bottom of the adjacent frame. The transparency is normally dark, so it becomes very difficult to distinguish between the blackness of the margin and the blackness of the lunar sky. The authors here have invaded the margin to provide Aldrin some headroom.

But in order to keep the photo square, they would have to cut off 4 mm from the bottom. And indeed Fig. 4, which was scanned from the original transparency (not a duplication or print), shows that there is more to the bottom of the photo than Bennett and Percy provide in their book.

Sure enough, if we find the geometrical center of the photo in Dark Moon, it is exactly 4 mm above the fiducial as they have emphasized it. The fiducial is off by exactly the amount the authors have shifted the photograph's borders in order to create their "anomaly".
www.clavius.org/photoret.html


They created an anomaly by messing with the photograph and providing their readers with a fake to try to bolster their point.
francis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 10:52 AM   #1053
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by francis View Post
Plz don't get me wrong and allow myself to explain I say we all stick to the rule that only approved NASA photographs are used and we try to get the best resolution version we can.

For example you can see on David percy's site the famous picture of man on the moon (buzz). They use the picture to prop up their case that the fiducials are out of place. However when we compare the version on percys site to the one shown by NASA we can clearly see the Percy version has been tampered with to try and prop up their story.

Ah yes, let us rely on the images that NASA has manipulated - Sort of like only relying on evidence provided by the suspect under investigation. Idiot.

Here is an example of NASA being caught lying about their 'original' images:


__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 10:59 AM   #1054
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

This image clearly shows fiducial manipulation as can also be seen in some other images.

The apparent secondary fiducials at the upper-left have been determined to be the result of an improperly placed overlay on top of an image which was then photographed, giving us this version of AS14-66-9306.





But what does this mean for Apollo....

These images could be the results of attempts to fool the public by filming some of the mission in a studio. Perhaps the filmmakers neglected to use a camera with the appropriate fiducials which result in them being added after-the-fact using an overlay...

Imagine the implications.
__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium

Last edited by exuberant1; 13-09-2009 at 11:00 AM.
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 11:02 AM   #1055
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The Apollo Missions used Fibre Optics.

I know... You guys weren't told.


Now who doesn't believe me when I say that fibre optics were used on Apollo?

Some of the mission transcripts weren't declassified until 1975 - who doesn't believe that either?
__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 11:24 AM   #1056
asha loka
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Land of the White Horses
Posts: 344
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exuberant1 View Post
These images could be the results of attempts to fool the public by filming some of the mission in a studio. Perhaps the filmmakers neglected to use a camera with the appropriate fiducials which result in them being added after-the-fact using an overlay...

Imagine the implications.
Or they could be internal reflections created by the optics inside the camera.

Imagine the implications.
__________________
~ Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from reality ~
asha loka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:27 PM   #1057
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asha loka View Post
Or they could be internal reflections created by the optics inside the camera.
Then you shouldn't have any problem locating some other examples for comparative analysis.

__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:45 PM   #1058
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asha loka View Post
Or they could be internal reflections created by the optics inside the camera.

Imagine the implications.
Especially when one notices their placement around the sun/bright light source (take your pick). They seem to "point" toward that source (very unlkely for an overlay added later) adding weight to the internal reflection of the camera theory. Why use an overlay anyway? Even if the pics were fake they were taken with a modified Hasselblad right? It is known that the camera had the fiducials added permanently to the camera right?
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 03:05 PM   #1059
exuberant1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 100
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
Why use an overlay anyway?
And that is how I know you didn't read the relevant posts before replying.

It is a sure giveaway when you ask a question that has already been answered.
__________________
Pegasus Research Consortium
exuberant1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 07:12 PM   #1060
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exuberant1 View Post
And that is how I know you didn't read the relevant posts before replying.

It is a sure giveaway when you ask a question that has already been answered.
The idea of using a different camera when the Hasselblads were so readily available and their format would be recognized, fake or not, is absurd, especially as internal reflection is so much more likely given the placement and "pointing" of the double overlay so I ignored it.

What kind of process of adding an overlay after the fact would create the double image and then only in the vicinity of the bright light source? Once it did happen why wouldn't it be done over?

Last edited by frenat; 13-09-2009 at 08:21 PM.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
moon landing hoax, nasa apollo fakes

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 08:11 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.