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.
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
Tell me these were not taken in a studio set. Look, see, no stars.
Here's one photo
A few more can be seen here.
Nice. Do you see the size of the earth in that pic? Several times the diameter of the moon seen from earth, as you'd expect, unlike the Apollo pics. (Presumably taken without magnification.)
At the very least, NASA seem guilty of compositing photos -- the question is whether it was artistic license from a series of shots actually taken from the moon and they just didn't tell anyone that they were compositing and faking pics, or whether in fact they were not taken by humans on the moon at all. Although there is no way the earth could be that small in a pic taken from the moon without using negative magnification -- a feature not available on the Hasselblad cameras supposedly taken to the moon. (Although the Kodak film would have been baked and become like brittle toffee in the 200 deg F surface temperatures on the moon anyhow.)
So there's a few pieces of physics, optics, properties of materials and computing to counter your stars dilemma -- signs of faking and touching up when contrast is brought up in an Apollo pic, wrong sized earth, impossibility of Kodak film surviving and being useful, no zoom, etc etc.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 30 Jan 2014, 08:22, edited 1 time in total.
There are 9 places where probes have landed whether softly or crashed into.(other than earth)
http://astronomy.wikia.com/wiki/Spacecr ... er_planets
With daylight present, Venus,' Mars', and Jupiter's atmospheres block out the stars in photos because of either cloud cover or just their gases manipulating the sunlight.
no stars seen
http://www.jaxa.jp/article/special/haya ... dex_e.html
no stars seen
Comet 9P/ Tempel 1
no stars seen
Take away the presence of sunlight and its reflection and you will see your stars.
But then we won't see the purpose of the photos.
Thanks for that pwil.
Incidentally, there's a very real question why NASA have been 'touching up' 'Mars lander' photos to redden them right up. As per the following video. JW has also shown that if you take the 'warmth' back out of the many-coloured Mars pics that have been returned they revert to a blue sky and a desert scene and look much more natural -- on Earth, of course. That might go a long way towards explaining 'rats on Mars' and other artifacts in the various photos. Then you have to wonder what your US tax dollars are actually being spent on??????????
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/ho ... olors.html
Here is a possible explanation
yes, quite possibly. why didn't they pack an extra normal visible light spectrum camera then? for the purpose of returning true colour shots that people on earth can actually appreciate and as a selling point for the mission and to justify the massive expenditure of taxpayers money. especially given that a camera now is the size of a fingernail as per mobile phones etc, hardly too big a payload. very thoughtless of them on the PR side, and yet I thought of the positive PR angle right away, and apparently half of NASA is actually bureaucratic PR foosterers and boondogglers, so you would have thought they would have asked for a visible light camera to be included in the kit as well for PR reasons -- apparently they're all so 'techo' they just didn't think of including a single human readable camera to sell the missions to the public. tsk, tsk, quite an oversight given the billions of someone else's money they've just spent going to an arid, desert-like planet with few useful prospects for us on earth bar idle curiosity, while we busily keep going about destroying our one habitable biosphere as fast as possible.
And, why do they struggle to colour-correct the IR images etc they're apparently receiving, given that they've set up the 4 colour tabs on the equipment for reference with the same colours back on earth?
For those reasons, the filter story smacks of BS to me. But maybe NASA really is so stupid as to spend billions of other people's money, then claim 'scientific privilege' in their 'experiments' and 'data gathering' efforts and not think to pack even one standard tiny visible light camera that can be found in tens of millions of standard mobiles today and for several years in the past.
After all, we were treated to fabulous full colour spreads on the Apollo missions in the late 60s and early 70s, weren't we? I mean, weren't we? Shots where the earth is seemingly too small in the sky superimposed on a US flag and an astronaut, impossible shots of moon landers right next to huge imposing mountains in Time-Life when other shots show the same lander very far from those mountains, full colour US flags everywhere and so on and so forth. NASA seemed to have their eye on the patriotic PR victory then, why have they dropped the ball with the Mars missions? They suddenly turned from being half PR to fully scientific?
And ditto for low earth orbit space shuttle missions and the ISS?
I can't actually see any problems with the idea of a successful unmanned probe mission to Mars working out, it has none of the problems of the 1960s manned moon missions in terms of safety, and shouldn't need to be faked unless every single attempted mission crash-landed and the probes were destroyed or something, but I was certainly surprised to see what happens when you simply slide the 'warmth' slider of the Mars pics across in Photoshop and the sky turns from red to blue and the landscape suddenly looks more natural. Further, one of JW's videos shows 4 or 5 different coloured pics of Mars in red, orange, yellow, brown and grey (presumably due to NASA using different 'filters' and not being able to colour-correct accurately as per the explanation above) and adjusts them all back to an earth-like oxygenated atmospheric blue.
Also, JW compares shots of Mars' atmosphere colour and thickness from earlier fly-by probes etc with the claims of the dense red clouds on Mars from the lander pics -- he argues that there is no evidence of such a thick atmosphere, and simply points to the Wikipedia entry for Mars that states that the measured density of Mars' atmosphere is 0.6% of that of Earth, so the prospect of these wild red dust-storms in the tiny, thin Martian 'atmosphere', or what passes for it, is extremely -- well, thin -- at best.
Those videos are currently not available on youtube due to scurrilous and unethical DCMA attacks on JW. I would like to link to the particular video though. JW may have recanted from his 'Mars Faker' claims from 2008 or so, who knows.
Well, I hope India's MOM launch can answer some questions and doubts when it reaches Mars in August/September of this year without any influence from the US. Not too sure of their technical capabilities although they did produce some decent pics of our moon. If NASA's evidence is a bunch of lies, we should find out within the next 25 years unless other countries want to join in on the supposed hoaxes by covering NASA's ass for some reason or another. But I'm willing to bet that someone would really love to stick it to the US.
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests