apollo photos diseceted

[Glaucus]

The black cliff/hole thing, looks like totally wrong conclusion.
Or did they delet stuff out of all the little creators that also go black with white lining.

Really wouldn't surprise me if most of this would be discredited as rubbish from an expert who knows what's actually happening.

Because I have no idea what he's doing or using.

 

[King85]

This forum is literally 50% conspiracy theory, 'they lie to us' rubbish and suggestions of how we should all live in communal mudhuts lately.

Anyone else getting fed up with it?

Lets all talk about something really cool we bought the other day. I had a COCA COLA. It was SATISFYING.

Some people lack any critical thinking, when they hear this conspiracy tosh rather than question the info they're given they just believe it fully. These people make me sad.

I bought THE SUN. It made me remember why I don't normally by it.

 

[deuse]

I bet you've got a mate who faked a moon landing once right?

What a ninja edit..could a mod post what fox put before please

 

[BloodyL]

All I see is him proving how jpegs save so much data over a raw image.
highlighting compression artefacts... yay!

If he had raw files that were scans of the images then I might be interested, but pushing & pulling contrast on a jpeg just doesn't do it for me.

Steps, my arse!

 

[stockhausen]

Any idea what layering software the (Dutch?) guy is talking about?

As with all these theories, it becomes much more interesting if the results can be independently reproduced; until then, he may just as easily have manipulated the photographs himself.

Interesting none the less.

 

[LabR@t]

What a ninja edit..could a mod post what fox put before please

ooh sounds interesting.

 

[[TW]Fox]

What a ninja edit..could a mod post what fox put before please

You make it sound like it was something controversial, it was just me whining about him coming in to have a pop

 

[SexyGreyFox]

What a ninja edit..could a mod post what fox put before please

It was this:

I even find you popping into the thread to have a pop at me more interesting than another moon landing thread so do keep going.

I appear in EVERY CT thread but he obviously realised that and decided not to post it because he would look daft and I also always have a pop at everybody who slags certain threads off or asks them to be deleted.
Don't worry, you're not special.

And now he will keep it going .....


Anyway, that was quite an interesting video.
I'm not convinced about staircases etc but what certain imaging software can do.

 

[PermaBanned]

Is anyone even going to bother watching the video? I know i'm not

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Is anyone even going to bother watching the video? I know i'm not

I watched it.
It's quite interesting from an imaging software perspective but not for what the OP intended.

 

[LabR@t]

Is anyone even going to bother watching the video? I know i'm not

whats new most people here post opinions on most subjects with no knowledge or without bothering to read/watch related material.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

whats new most people here post opinions on most subjects with no knowledge or without bothering to read/watch related material.

You are correct and I did watch it and it was BS.

BloodL said it above that he is manipulating poor quality JPGs and what you need is the originals.

 

[RomanNose]

Can't most of the moon landing ct crap be disproved by simply using a telescope and looking at the moon? I am not sure what power ( probably wrong terminology) you would need to see the crap left on it though.

 

[stockhausen]

I watched it. It's quite interesting from an imaging software perspective but not for what the OP intended.

What did the OP intend

... I did watch it and it was BS

In what way was it BS

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Can't most of the moon landing ct crap be disproved by simply using a telescope and looking at the moon? I am not sure what power ( probably wrong terminology) you would need to see the crap left on it though.

Well the Moon Landing hoax theory can easily be disproved by asking the questions:
Why did America's arch enemy totally accept that America had landed on the moon?
If they had proof they hadn't done it (which they would) why didn't they bring it forward?

Also:
What were 1000s & 1000s of Ham Radio enthusiasts tracking?

 

[Kurisu Makise]

interesting video thanks

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Anyone else getting fed up with it?

I'm pretty sick of it, yes. If it was even slightly credible it might not be so annoying but it is, without exception, garbage posted by the same deluded posters.

 

[mrk]

The only thing interesting about it is how many people believe in what it's trying to say.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

The only thing interesting about it is how many people believe in what it's trying to say.

1 poster which is the OP?

 

[PermaBanned]

Can't most of the moon landing ct crap be disproved by simply using a telescope and looking at the moon? I am not sure what power ( probably wrong terminology) you would need to see the crap left on it though.

Yes, and it's been done, but the only 'people' with a telescope powerful/close (in lunar orbit) enough are NASA themselves, which gives conspiracy theorists an excuse (well, i say 'give', they'll always find one ) to ignore the evidence.

Technically you could use the term 'power' when referring to lenses/mirrors and the like, it's measured in Dioptres. But what really matters is the resolution - to what level it can resolve detail down to. Hubble can resolve down to about 90m, which isn't going to show much detail if anything on any of the Apollo sites. You can't really get much higher from Earth due to the atmosphere, hence why any practical telescope would have to be in lunar orbit.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

I'd be interested to know if any of the 'Lunar Landing Deniers' have anything to say about Luna 9, or any of the rest of the history of space exploration?