View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 24 Dec 2012, 03:07

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Misha wrote:When you finally come to terms that what has been fed to the masses on this planet is about control then your world will truly open up.

I totally agree with this statement.


Thanks, NinjaPuppy. I have wrestled with this for years and obviously still do. As a specie we are incredibly dangerous when confronted with adversity. We fragment, blame, dissociate, lash out, and all the litany of human maladies when we don't understand things. However, I think in the long term we will be far more dangerous when we don't know the truth. It is the lies which creates cynicism and destruction. I think it is this entropic state which is confronting the human specie at this point.

OK, sorry for redirecting the thread. Back to Syd and ProfWag after the commercial break.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqq4BX_x4_k

Syd, Syd, Syd, wake up. You know better than to sleep in the land down under. And someone go get the Wag. I think he is outside on the park bench.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42






Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 24 Dec 2012, 05:00

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Where's the reticules on this one?

I guess I;m not understanding your question, Syd. First, only a casual look shows the LM was taken at a different angle which would obviously produce a different background.
Also, your post was plagiarised from this forum:
http://alienanomalies.activeboard.com/t ... generated/

I'm sorry, but the credibility of your post is zero. If you are wanting to have an accurate discussion without bias, then the posts we make should be our own thoughts based on what we consider credible. If you really think your sources are credible, then there really isn't anything else to discuss. Wasting our time by making us examine forged photos and unresearched posts is rather rude, wouldn't you say?

Every pic taken by a Hasselblad 'on the surface of the moon' must have reticule stamps on it, as they were scribed on the lens plate, and should be over the top of everything else consequently. Any shots released without reticules have either been altered, or taken with some other camera somehow, and may or may not be on the moon. Then there is the problem of scale as another issue as already pointed out twice -- they want the LM to be next to a sheer wall of mountain in one set of shots, and well away from the mountains in another. You don't seem to struggle with this problem of scale at all for some reason, but then, you're not only one of the deluded masses who swallowed it the first time, you're holding out as the last great pseudosceptic.

The pic is all over the place and can be obtained from a large number of websites. It is apparently the same as released by NASA and is apparently also the one that was published in National Geographic in the early 70s at the time of the last mission. So it should be easy to verify. Also, it has the NASA ref no stamped on it. Still a bit research-shy, are we, ProfWag? Old habits die hard, I suppose.

Any comments on all the other problems listed earlier from official footage? Wire flashes, impossible falls and recoveries, flags waving in the breeze, alleged hand damage that magically repaired itself in 2 hours, and so on?
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 24 Dec 2012, 08:01, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 24 Dec 2012, 05:24

OK, here's some interesting photographic studies from some real professors that demonstrate fraud in preparing Apollo photos.

The method involves finding any two Apollo photos taken by the 'astronauts' close together, e.g. within about 2 metres, then processing them to determine if what is supposed to be the distant background shifts or not. A close object masquerading as a distant object, such as a back projection screen, will shift noticeably, whereas a genuinely distant object will appear to be still.

The author concludes

In general, given that in the true lunar background remote objects should be located many kms away, it is impossible to achieve a zero stereoscopic parallax using only previously-mentioned image transformations – confirmed by converging dozens of pairs of Apollo lunar surface images (as well as numerous efforts by other researchers). This strongly suggests that the distance to remote objects in the Apollo photographs which should be many miles/kms is indeed not so.

These images are a simulation of being on the Moon.

A precise, curved concave transformation applied to the megabit pixels image confirms the fact that a ‘lunar’ scape was projected onto a forward-tilted, slightly convex panorama background screen. Any other technique fails to replicate the nature of the remote 'land'scape simultaneously for a million pixels of the image.


The author notes that NASA has gone on to manipulate some panoramas subsequently to hide this effect in certain newly released shots -- however, the effect of doing this is that no parallax shift is observable in the foreground either, demonstrating that a manipulation has taken place. Each time the author points this out on the NASA wiki page dedicated to the release, the objections is removed by the wiki moderator.

So NASA seem to be keen to keep perpetuating the fraud -- right up until 2026 and beyond?

A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine

The photographic validation method presented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known as stereoscopic parallax.

If any given image was taken inside a pavilion or dome with a panoramic background, i.e. when there are no distant objects with null parallax, then such a 2-dimensional object can be detected among any 3D bodies. In the case of such a finding, reaching the conclusion that there was deception could be stated with confidence.

In general, given that in the true lunar background remote objects should be located many kms away, it is impossible to achieve a zero stereoscopic parallax using only previously-mentioned image transformations – confirmed by converging dozens of pairs of Apollo lunar surface images (as well as numerous efforts by other researchers). This strongly suggests that the distance to remote objects in the Apollo photographs which should be many miles/kms is indeed not so.

These images are a simulation of being on the Moon.

In two panorama frames is the bottom of Rima Hadley, which extends to Apennines Front and the crater St. George. The distance from the camera to Rima edge is about 5 m, to the Apennines and the crater is 4-8 kms. The frames are taken with a shift of no more than a few tens of centimetres. AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179.

Image

A precise, curved concave transformation applied to the megabit pixels image confirms the fact that a ‘lunar’ scape was projected onto a forward-tilted, slightly convex panorama background screen. Any other technique fails to replicate the nature of the remote 'land'scape simultaneously for a million pixels of the image.

Image

The radius of the circular panorama can be roughly estimated by a distortion grid.

The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles are separated by several tens of cms show that:

- the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not tens of kilometres but is no more than a few hundred metres;
- the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of separation;
- there is movement between nearby sections of the panorama relative to other sections.

Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.

Dr Oleg Oleynik

Afterword

Two years have passed since the original publication of this article in Russia. During that time, NASA decided to create a series of stereo photographs for 3D red-cyan glasses (anaglyph images), superimposing overlapping parts of Apollo surface photos. Reports slip out now and then that some of the photos on NASA’s Web sites have been replaced by retouched counterparts.

An article entitled "The method of correlative calculation of parallax and camouflage" was published (in Russian). I criticized the article stating that: "The merging of frames is carried out in the application for creating 360 degrees panoramas PTGui, which erases parallax, and eventually the distance to background objects artificially increases. Please double check the algorithm of the application". More here (In Russian).

There was no answer from NASA. Instead, in the Russian Wikipedia, late 2009, the following paragraph was added (and removed on July 31, 2011) to The Moon Hoax article: "Also, analysis of the lunar surface images, taken during the missions shows that distance to background objects is indeed vast and cannot be achieved in a soundstage with trick photography", referring to "The method of correlative calculation of parallax and camouflage" publication.

Any attempts to change or correct the information in Wikipedia, and to point out the serious errors in the Wikipedia article did not succeed, the moderator continued to erase the link.

Dr Oleg Oleynik

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 24 Dec 2012, 06:11

Thisin 8 Mb PDF report from another professor:

Hadley: A Study in Fakery
by Professor Colin Rourke

Summary
Four images from the official NASA web site for the Apollo 15 moon mission are examined. They contain
incompatible data and the conclusion is that at least two of these images are faked.

http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf


Regarding my own observations about the suspicious apparent weathering of all the lunar surfaces and mountain formations in the Apollo happy snaps, where clearly there can be no weathering effects on the moon -- the mountains in particular look a lot like the 'old' mountain ranges of Australia which have been weathered and rounded for millions of years, unlike the newer ranges in the Himalayas and Alps -- and you would expect the moon ranges to have been pushed up by early tectonic activity and then virtually never altered -- the author makes the following observation from the genuine topographic info from unmanned probes sent to the moon (genuine unmanned pictures included in the PDF):

Postscript

What does Mons Hadley really look like? Figure 10 shows seven photographic images of the mountain from the earth and from lunar orbit. Three are from the same NASA site as Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5. I leave you to decide for yourself, but to my eye, the real photos all show a strikingly angular mountain with a sharp peak and many interesting features quite dissimilar to the bland outline shown in the faked ground photos.


So the Apollo happy snaps aren't even consistent with the topography photos. As noted, the 'South Massive' profile looks uncannily like the heavily weathered hills at Mauna Kea in Hawaii in outline.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 24 Dec 2012, 06:37

Boy, tough audience. I can't get you guys to laugh. Ok, on a more serious note I went and found "the" astronaut with the credentials and experience to put this debate to rest. And, "I approve this message."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncBSOyte6lA

Misha

P.S. Happy Holidays to you all.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 24 Dec 2012, 12:48

Holy Moly! For a talkative bunch I must of hit you guys below the radiation belt? The sage brush is piling outside my cabin door (LOL). "Houston, we have a problem...."
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 24 Dec 2012, 14:31

Misha wrote:Boy, tough audience. I can't get you guys to laugh. Ok, on a more serious note I went and found "the" astronaut with the credentials and experience to put this debate to rest. And, "I approve this message."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncBSOyte6lA

Misha

P.S. Happy Holidays to you all.

I enjoyed that one!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 24 Dec 2012, 22:55

Misha wrote:
ProfWag wrote:"Can you handle it." Are you prepared to handle your world being turned upside down?

I hope to put you on a park bench for hours at a time in consideration of this.

Unfortunately I rarely turn a good line from a fictional movie into a hours of contemplation. Give me something serious, factual, and full of wisdom. "Go ahead, make my day."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 24 Dec 2012, 23:07

SydneyPSIder wrote: Still a bit research-shy, are we, ProfWag? Old habits die hard, I suppose.

Syd, when you posted that stupid picture of the "3rd astronaut" reflected in the visor, I researched all of 2 minutes and with one arm in a cast to find that your picture was a fake. That, coupled with your plagiarised post shortly thereafter to know that the only "research" you do is hunt conspiracy websites and post anything that agrees with your thought process. Because of these obvious attempts to defraud the subject, I see no reason to discuss this subject with you any longer.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 24 Dec 2012, 23:13

Misha wrote:
Thanks, NinjaPuppy. I have wrestled with this for years and obviously still do. As a specie we are incredibly dangerous when confronted with adversity. We fragment, blame, dissociate, lash out, and all the litany of human maladies when we don't understand things. However, I think in the long term we will be far more dangerous when we don't know the truth. It is the lies which creates cynicism and destruction. I think it is this entropic state which is confronting the human specie at this point.

Misha, not everything is a lie and many, many things actually "are" as they seem. If you look hard enough and listen to everyone with an opinion, one can find potential lies in most any subject. I think you need to get out of the city and take a nice walk through the woods or a wildflower field. The world really IS a beautiful place with many, many, many honest and decent people.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby really? » 24 Dec 2012, 23:56

[quote="Misha]Thanks, NinjaPuppy. I have wrestled with this for years and obviously still do. As a specie we are incredibly dangerous when confronted with adversity. We fragment, blame, dissociate, lash out, and all the litany of human maladies when we don't understand things. However, I think in the long term we will be far more dangerous when we don't know the truth. It is the lies which creates cynicism and destruction. I think it is this entropic state which is confronting the human specie at this point.
[/quote]
The distrust you have does not start from without. As I said before, sometimes, the truth is staring you right in the face.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Arouet » 25 Dec 2012, 02:20

ProfWag wrote:Unfortunately I rarely turn a good line from a fictional movie into a hours of contemplation. Give me something serious, factual, and full of wisdom. "Go ahead, make my day."


C'mon Prof! That line is awesome enough to warrant a couple of bench hours! Here it is for everyone:



(EDIT: Just watching that clip again makes me want to go back and watch that movie again!)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Dec 2012, 04:57

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: Still a bit research-shy, are we, ProfWag? Old habits die hard, I suppose.

Syd, when you posted that stupid picture of the "3rd astronaut" reflected in the visor, I researched all of 2 minutes and with one arm in a cast to find that your picture was a fake. That, coupled with your plagiarised post shortly thereafter to know that the only "research" you do is hunt conspiracy websites and post anything that agrees with your thought process. Because of these obvious attempts to defraud the subject, I see no reason to discuss this subject with you any longer.

ha, that's pretty hilarious. ProfWag has become a sort of self-parody. You're clearly not a sceptic in the sense avowed even by the Skeptics Association, because you repeatedly and consistently refuse to study clear evidence on frivolous or spurious grounds. You're just written yourself an excuse to avoid studying the totality of the evidence that's out there. It's just laughably transparent to all other participants and readers of the forum, and you do it over and over. Since you've taken the ostrich defence (yet again), at least the CIA won't be knocking on your door, I suppose -- it's much safer for you that way. It's obvious you will never contribute anything of worth to a scientific debate here on the facts, though.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 25 Dec 2012, 05:51, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Misha » 25 Dec 2012, 05:47

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:
Thanks, NinjaPuppy. I have wrestled with this for years and obviously still do. As a specie we are incredibly dangerous when confronted with adversity. We fragment, blame, dissociate, lash out, and all the litany of human maladies when we don't understand things. However, I think in the long term we will be far more dangerous when we don't know the truth. It is the lies which creates cynicism and destruction. I think it is this entropic state which is confronting the human specie at this point.

Misha, not everything is a lie and many, many things actually "are" as they seem. If you look hard enough and listen to everyone with an opinion, one can find potential lies in most any subject. I think you need to get out of the city and take a nice walk through the woods or a wildflower field. The world really IS a beautiful place with many, many, many honest and decent people.


ProfWag, did I ever say that everything is a lie? Absolutely not. Your phrasing is typical of the programmed. And yes, I get out of the city when I can. I often go to my brother's place up north and just walk the beach. In fact, I have spent many years on an Island in the Caribbean contemplating the world. I have walked the woods of Ohio, Florida, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. I have spent time in the Delta of Mississippi and have been on horseback in Texas. I have walked the small towns in Illinois and Maine - minus the lions and tigers - I watch for moose and bears. I have lived in all these places and have come to realize that the world is what we make of it.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby ProfWag » 25 Dec 2012, 05:53

SydneyPSIder wrote:ha, that's pretty hilarious. ProfWag has become a sort of self-parody. You're clearly not a sceptic in the sense avowed even by the Skeptics Association, because you repeatedly and consistently refuse to study clear evidence on frivolous or spurious grounds. You're just written yourself an excuse to avoid studying the totality of the evidence that's out there. It's just laughably transparent to all other participants and readers of the forum, and you do it over and over. Since you've taken the ostrich defence (yet again), at least the CIA won't be knocking on your door, I suppose -- it's much safer for you that way. It's obvious you will never contribute anything of worth to a debate here, though.

And what evidence is that Syd? I have appreciated you giving me the opportunity to re-examine this subject which I enjoyed, but I was not presented with anything new except for fake pictures posted by liars (and regardless, photos don't prove one thing towards whether we went to the moon.). To believe that dozens of astronauts who are among the brightest of people on earth, coupled with the vast number of engineers involved in the design, planning, and building, tripled with the scientists who have examined the physical evidence to all have been in on some elaborate hoax, just to have bragging rights over the Soviets is absolutely ridiculous. There would be no other reason.
Here's an honest question that I would like you and Misha to answer. Would you, yourself, have been willing to keep a hoax of this importance and magnitude quiet? There are some bad apples out there, and if you answered "yes," then you would be one of them, but the highest caliber of people were/are involved in the space program from around the world and the men and women involved in this project could not cover up a mission like that--and I don't give a damn about what you think it would take to keep them quiet.
If/when the time comes that you can present serious evidence that doesn't involve fake pictures or references to conspiracy websites, then I'll be happy to reengage.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron