|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:34 AM |
|
|
Not to mention Asheera, that you didn't have half the world looking over your shoulder while you tried to fake said photos. Also, if you did..don't you think it you would be MUCH more through especially with an unlimited bankroll? That is my whole problem with this said hoax theory. You'd figure if they did a hoax it would be a bit more through. Pay for me a trip to Nasa, let me see the original photos and compair them, then I will decide  .
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 07:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, the burden of proof is on the person saying they are.
And the burden of proof is also on NASA showing that they are not fake and that they are true pictures. After all, it's them who showed us the pictures in the first place 
How can you prove that something is not fake 
Besides they have proved that the moon rocks are fake. So many scientists from different nations and no reason to be in on the hoax have not been able to come up with the slightest reason to doubt that the rocks came from the moon...
You can prove that pictures are fake because sometimes you can show that they have been edited.
The only way to prove that there has been no tampering is to show that there is no evidence of it. How can you show that something (the evidence of tampering) does not exist?
It is impossible.
You can do it the other way. You show me a photo of you at some place.
I say no the picture is fake you've never been there.
You prove that you have been there to me, and I say ok but still the picture is fake. Prove that it isn't.
It's impossible.
If I want to claim that they are fake I need a reason and thus the burden of proof is on me.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 08:49 AM |
|
|
NASA screwed it up anyway, throwing those ridiculous photos without a tiny bit of explanation.
So you say guys that the C rock is altered not by NASA.. hmm.. source? Maybe those are indeed NOT the true ones.
It's very confusing then what is true and what is not >_>
Oh well. Btw, TA, please don't say those stupid things about the crosshairs, such a smart guy as you can't possibly believe that crap.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 11:23 AM |
|
|
It is altered after the recoloured and enhanced the image.
The original images can be found, this one taken from the collection at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory:
"The original image (AS16-107-17446) as well as all of the color images from Apollo 16, have a purplish cast to them, indicating some problem with the entire batch of film, either in the source, the developing or in the environment they were exposed to during flight. At first, I thought it was just fading of the prints themselves after 20+ years in a notebook on a shelf, but I also examined the transparencies, and they also have the purplish cast to them. The prints and transparencies I am looking at are probably 3rd or 4th generation from the original image (the first generation was copied once after processing and have since been stored away, untouched with the 2nd or 3rd generation being used for subsequent reproduction). The "C" likely was introduced when the image was copied to be processed to color correct it and the color corrected image which included this artifact has been propagated to a number of different publications. The artifact was likely due to some dust or lint introduced during the scanning or color correction processing. "
Quote:
NASA screwed it up anyway, throwing those ridiculous photos without a tiny bit of explanation.
please don't say those stupid things about the crosshairs, such a smart guy as you can't possibly believe that crap.
What ridiculous photos?
As for the crosshairs, this is nothing to do with the moon landing. This happens on earth too. Notice that the only times that the crosshairs screw up is when it is very bright white?
Would you rather believe that NASA added in crosshairs to their images later and somehow managed to screw it up?
Why would they add in cross hairs later when cameras come equipped with them?
It's a weak argument that can be explained with simple photography and overexposure due to the luminosity of the sun.
With no atmosphere the sunlight is stronger.
Take a look at this picture closely: http://web.archive.org/web/20021002041652/http://archives.gov/media_desk/press_kits/picturing_the_century_photo_gallery/space_shuttle_challenger.jpg
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 12:13 PM |
|
|
Well, I must admit you got me there, TA. Well done. That's what I call a good counter-argument.. not the "you are wrong" BS
Ok the reason I was sure about the camera stuff: As I said I have one of those cameras myself (not the exact model ofc. But an old model with crosshairs available). And the photos never lose those crosshairs. No matter what they have been pointed to.
I'll upload a photo or two to show you perhaps.
Anyways, what kind of crap camera is that, then? 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 12:19 PM |
|
|
|
Actually that's what the website says as well I linked you to.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 12:33 PM |
|
|
they supplied no photos to prove it (different from the photos of moonlanding). I never accept things as a given because I read something, especially when my own camera proves otherwise..
But well, it seems you were right after all.
<puts the sucker hat on his head>
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:12 PM |
|
|
Take nothing at face value, question everything. That is my motto. So, yeah I still am not 100% sure. However, since it requires a 'resonable doubt' and I don't have that..I would have to give the Verdict to the Defendant (Nasa) until further evidence is supplied.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You prove that you have been there to me, and I say ok but still the picture is fake. Prove that it isn't.
It's impossible.
If I want to claim that they are fake I need a reason and thus the burden of proof is on me.
Ok then I tell you that Jesus came and handed down the Bible, and everything written on it is from Him. I can't prove to you that the Bible is not fake (I mean an ordinary book), that's impossible, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it's fake.
Oh and btw, forget the crosshair stuff, the most interesting one is that one in the "fake video" I linked (of course that's fake, and the photos are not, what would I have expected, it isn't an offical NASA video, dumb me  ) where the position of the crosshair is too low for the shot to have been taken from the chest, while on the reflection it is shown as taking the picture from the chest rather than above the head.
Also, I can request a photo with the Boogeyman from a editing studio, you won't be able to tell it's edited or not -- these days editing capabilities are very convincing -- of course now, whether you BELIEVE that the photo is true or not (based on your BELIEF if it's plausible or not) is a different matter. The landing on the moon sounds so much more "plausible" right?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:25 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:26, 15 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
You prove that you have been there to me, and I say ok but still the picture is fake. Prove that it isn't.
It's impossible.
If I want to claim that they are fake I need a reason and thus the burden of proof is on me.
Ok then I tell you that Jesus came and handed down the Bible, and everything written on it is from Him. I can't prove to you that the Bible is not fake (I mean an ordinary book), that's impossible, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it's fake.
Oh and btw, forget the crosshair stuff, the most interesting one is that one in the "fake video" I linked (of course that's fake, and the photos are not, what would I have expected, it isn't an offical NASA video, dumb me ) where the position of the crosshair is too low for the shot to have been taken from the chest, while on the reflection it is shown as taking the picture from the chest rather than above the head.
Also, I can request a photo with the Boogeyman from a editing studio, you won't be able to tell it's edited or not -- these days editing capabilities are very convincing -- of course now, whether you BELIEVE that the photo is true or not (based on your BELIEF if it's plausible or not) is a different matter. The landing on the moon sounds so much more "plausible" right?
By your logic nothing can ever be real then. Everything is fake. So, since we all exsist in the Matrix..(by that logic) does it matter if virtual people landed on a virtual moon?
Btw..there is NO SPOON.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:46 PM |
|
|
|
Yup. Actually "proving" something is extremely, extremely difficult, and only math has it the easy way. Now before you tell me that such a logic is flawed, look at it from a neutral perspective: why would the landing be true and not the conspiracy? The whole point of my "logic" is to eliminate favoritism. Or at least, if people say that NASA landed on the moon, they should admit that their "belief" in that is no better than the belief in a conspiracy. I don't have a problem with people believing in that, but I do have with those that say it's not a belief but a better proof than something else.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:57 PM |
|
|
Moon rocks?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 02:32 PM |
|
|
Nah. Didn't you know that the moon is fake as well? Because that's why the landing was a fake, there was no moon to land on.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted October 15, 2008 03:06 PM |
|
|
Is there any thread in the OSM, where TheDeath does NOT mention the bible?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 03:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is there any thread in the OSM, where TheDeath does NOT mention the bible?
Economics for example?
Also, of course i mention not implying that it is true, but that people use a form of favoritism. Now that is not in itself bad at all, but it is when they say that they are more "justified" or that it is "different". I mean seriously, how are those pictures different than NASA coming up with a Bible saying they found on the Moon for example?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 03:29 PM |
|
|
Because they landed six times on the moon, so there is everything speaking for the pictures being what they are supposed to be.
A claim to have found something out of the ordinary there would have been a different case - let's say a big black monolith, shaped regularly.
Now, THAT would have been something interesting indeed! 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 03:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A claim to have found something out of the ordinary there would have been a different case - let's say a big black monolith, shaped regularly.
That's the key expression
different people think different things are ordinary 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 04:20 PM |
|
|
You sound like you come from some fantasy Earth with lots of lost tech or something.
You can bet, if there HAD BEEN anything out of the ordinary out there, we'd have regular traffic and some station out there for a long time. At the time the moon landing was exactly what was possible, since Luna isn't that far away.
Venus would be pretty exactly 100 times as far away when it's nearest and has the disadvantage of being completely inhospitable with an air temperature of about 450 degrees Celsius and a 900 metres ozean depth pressure on the surface.
Mars is 150 times as far away when it's nearest and the climate would be managable for a landing, so Mars would logically be the next target, but 150 times as far away as the moon is a couple of times too far for the Apollo technology.
One problem is the relatively high gravity on Earth that makes it difficult with rocket technology to transport the weight necessary for a starship to support a crew for more than a year.
So the moon is in range and has been in range, but not more.
The trouble is that Luna is a barren rock, so no one is interested in going there again - there's no revenue in that.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 04:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You sound like you come from some fantasy Earth with lots of lost tech or something.
I know I'm a heretic, what can I say?
Quote:
You can bet, if there HAD BEEN anything out of the ordinary out there, we'd have regular traffic and some station out there for a long time. At the time the moon landing was exactly what was possible, since Luna isn't that far away.
Or a cover up...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 04:51 PM |
|
|
You see, that's hardly possible. On the moon you cannot cover up something and at the same time research it and profit from it, to be specific.
That means a cover-up would have been possible for something unprofitable only, which wouldn't have been worth the while for anyone to cover it up in the first place.
Take Roswell. If there has been something covered up there then it was because the people in charge hoped to gain something: tech, information, an edge against the Russians, whatever.
For the moon, though, they would have had to be able to bring it back with them, since they stopped after the sixth landing, which took place at different locations at that.
So, nope, no cover-up either. Extremly unlikely to the point of impossible.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
