Evidence that Apollo images are manipulated

[Unified Serenity]

I did a quick search and did not see this video posted that shows unique filters that once applied to NASA pics shows some interesting buildings and maybe an alien on the moon...

EXvphh2jxE4

[Davidallany]

The level of deceit is unprecedented. This is a great find.

[Precog]

Yes it is. I will believe we went to the moon as soon as I see a picture of the lander with the blast crater under it. That will never be presented becuase it can't be if it does not exist.

"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."

H. L. Mencken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&NR=1
I could not locate the other video so I will put it try again Friday.

[Unified Serenity]

It's amazing how this footage comes out as if we were on the moon and covered it up and used that crap canister to land on the moon. I think this is where some of the confusion comes from. People will logically say, We either went to the moon and doctored the photos from there or we did not go, but you can't have it both ways. Did we go to the moon in something else? Are these photos of some place on earth they are blocking out the backgrounds or things in the pic wanting us to pick up on it and then say it's proof they were on the moon?

[Providence]

It's amazing how this footage comes out as if we were on the moon and covered it up and used that crap canister to land on the moon. I think this is where some of the confusion comes from. People will logically say, We either went to the moon and doctored the photos from there or we did not go, but you can't have it both ways. Did we go to the moon in something else? Are these photos of some place on earth they are blocking out the backgrounds or things in the pic wanting us to pick up on it and then say it's proof they were on the moon?

Interesting viewpoint, of which I agree. I tend to believe that we have not been to the moon, that the photos, videos, etc... were all manufactured, and I haven't seen any evidence that has convinced me otherwise as yet. In fact, most of the evidence tends to support the theory that we were all duped.

[conk]

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Spend some time here and find yet more deceit.

[noprophet]

Currently my most 'encompassing' theory relies on the fact that the nazi research into vortex physics and gravity research (bell project, etc) was extremely successful.

Operation Paperclip brought all the research and scientists into the United states where they quickly gathered intelligence of Nazi operations in Newschwabenland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newschwabenland) (antarctic) and sent a military force to remove the nazis and take over any and all research/research stations. (operation highjump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump))

I believe this mission was successful.

They then spent about ten years very quietly developing this technology by integrating all newly discovered research. In the early to mid 50s they suddenly started shipping mass researchers and scientists to the newly erected antarctic research stations where they could continue and expand their research.

To ensure this research would be undisturbed the instituted the antarctic treaty of 1961 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System) under the pretense of environmental protection.


The Antarctic Treaty was conceived in the aftermath of the very successful International Geophysical Year (1957) which involved scientists from 67 countries. The Treaty governs human activities in Antarctica (south of latitude 60° S) retaining it for peaceful purposes and preserving the environment. It was originally signed in 1959 by 12 participating countries and became effective in 1961. The Antarctic Treaty was a significant step forward in the recognition of international responsibility for the environment, and yet it was conceived at the height of the Cold War. Since 1961 the Treaty has been supplemented by further agreements on conservation and environmental protection. An excellent summary of the Antarctic Treaty is provided in May (1988).

In order to fund all this research they created NASA. A big reason for this was to keep the energy industry stable since this research was intimately related to free energy systems. They saw it not as an act of defiance of the general public; but as an act of mercy to prevent mass economic destabilization - or so the justification goes.

Over the next ten years they perfected a design that would allow them to travel in and out of the atmosphere at will using all information aquired through twenty years of research into these advanced technologies. To get an idea of the type of things they had to develop in order to control this new advanced systems you only have to look at the technology progression of the time.


1955
Optic fiber invented.

1956
The first computer hard disk used.

1957
Fortran (computer language) invented.

1958
The computer modem invented.
Gordon Gould invents the laser.
The integrated circuit invented by Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce.

1959
Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce both invent the microchip.

You get the idea.


By 1969 we were good to go with space travel and just had to make some cheese ball props to show the american public. So we went up to the moon with full intentions of playing the entire thing off as a great american conquest using the most rudimentary of technology and a justification for massive NASA expenditures. However upon arrival we realized there was tons of crazy *(^% going on up there - mass ruins, technology, etc.

So we took a bunch of pictures, edited some, threw out some that were too revealing to edit and replaced them with pictures shot on Earth.

And now were digging through years of speculative information trying to dig out what the hell happened. :P

[noprophet]

About 30 minutes in is Hoagland's view on the 'fake moon landing' idea. Very intriguing.

3Sto4F2vBZg

[muxfolder]

You also might find this episode of Mythbusters interesting
mefEKqzq8cg
RfKItI-cHPM
NOv_zvM-oJQ
oCNV1hiKpLI
0dTATMEJSuQ

Personally I do believe they went to the moon, but it's possible the official footage is faked.

[conk]

There is no question that official NASA photos have been manipulated, censored, and blurred. The evidence is irrefutable and unassailable. Why they did it is the question.

[ajyana]

Kubrick's masterpiece, isn't it?


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef0120a7f7bffc970b-800wi

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[Unified Serenity]

Mythbuster's busted ... great video:

jkdOMdIYxlI

[Unified Serenity]

Here's the latest from MoonFaker's site:

xUNYwb_6U7I

Well, it sure looks like NASA's got some splaining to do.

[Eagle]

Kubrick's masterpiece, isn't it?


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef0120a7f7bffc970b-800wi

If you look at the Technology required to go to the moon in the 60’s as compared to making a film about going to the moon(2001 a Space Odyssey) I would tend to believe the latter. Kubrick was a master far beyond Lucas.

[hardrock]

That is a great video linked by the OP of the faked pictures. I'd like to see more information on some of these graphical filters compared to other photos. This is a lot different that just blowing up blurry lines and changing contrast, etc. If this is true, then this should be picked up by the national media and NASA would be forced to respond.

[Unified Serenity]

That is a great video linked by the OP of the faked pictures. I'd like to see more information on some of these graphical filters compared to other photos. This is a lot different that just blowing up blurry lines and changing contrast, etc. If this is true, then this should be picked up by the national media and NASA would be forced to respond.

Meant in fun, not derision, I know you are sincere, but here was my reaction:

Bahahaaaaaaaaaa, did you hear that? Picked up by the media and force NASA to respond! Whooooo, that's a good one.... I won't be holding my breath, but I do want to thank you for the best laugh so far today.

[hardrock]

I completely understand Unified. What is more important for the national media? Herman Cain's aide smokes cigarettes or we have spent trillions of dollars on a fake space program? Bleh....

[Calz]

Yes proof beyond a shadow ... photos from some of the "landings" were staged.

Evidence abounds.

Yet we have "moon rocks" so there is evidence we have been on the moon as well.

It has been suggested we went there "with help" ... need not say more.

Jay Weidner did some great work on this ... need to take the link for the photos (and rest of story) but worth it if you are interested in this story (and I suspect you just might be since you are reading this???)

______________________


Apollo 17 - Proof it was Kubricked

by Ted Twietmeyer

Please read all of the text before reviewing the photos. This text provides additional information that you probably will not otherwise notice when reviewing the photos. If there is material that others have also discovered, so be it. My research was done using a white room approach. Unless stated otherwise, all ideas, discoveries and facts presented are my own work. It would be appreciated if my inbox is not stuffed with “I found it or so-and-so found it first” nonsense. I will respond to all sensible emails.

I need to admit here that my goal in reviewing Moon walk and rover photos from Apollo 17 was to find possible artifacts. When I found one particular image after many hours of reviewing photos, my research work came to a complete stop.

After reviewing hundreds of Apollo 17 images, I found conclusive proof a stage was definitely used for most, if not all of the Moon surface photos. The entire world has been “Kubricked” for decades. Others in recent years found through image processing that the black sky in Moon walk images is actually a painted backdrop. We shall see that image processing is not even needed to see this.

Over and over in photos taken on the surface of the Moon I continued to find the same irregularities. Keep in mind all these photos were supposedly taken by astronauts who trained and practiced for weeks (their own words) to use a high quality Hasselblad camera.

This camera is completely manual, and requires the astronaut to set the distance to the lens (in feet) before taking each picture. This means the focus of the camera inherently has a limited depth of focus, controlled by the setting in feet. With this is mind, consider the following characteristics this camera will have:

Rocks and objects on the Moon's surface within yards of the rover will be in focus, only if that is what the camera is set for.
Distant objects like a mountain ridges will be in focus, if that is what the camera is set for (such as infinity.)
It is not possible to obtain razor sharp mountain peaks in the distance and sharp focus on rocks only a few yards from the rover at the same time.
And yet, there are more than 100 images that accomplish the impossible with rocks and objects in focus up close, while distant mountain ridges miles away are also razor sharp focus. Forget about the old argument about “stars are not being visible means it's faked.” This argument is invalid because the F-stop setting (iris) had to be set for extremely bright sunlight. Sunlight on the Moon is full brightness like that of outer space and can easily wash out a photo. Starlight is many magnitudes dimmer than sunlight and it makes complete sense stars cannot be seen.

Another question arises ­ are the distant peaks and ridges REALLY that far away? Highly skilled matte painters for Hollywood films have long known how to fool the eye with fake distance, decades before the first Apollo flights were every launched. Old Star Trek TV series and others used this trick all the time to create scenes that could not be filmed in the real world. Matte paintings were often combined with Chroma-key to superimpose backgrounds on small objects.

Chroma-key was commonly used in TV studios to make weather forecasters appear in front of a large map of the country. Any blue color was substituted electronically (or “keyed”) with another image from a different camera or video source. It was long known in the TV news industry that no weatherman or some news reporters should ever wear blue. Today, Chroma-blue has been replaced by green.

I mention all this because in the staged Apollo 17 (and likely other Apollo missions) Chroma-key was not used that we can tell. Keep in mind that in the late 60's and early 70's, Chroma-key was far from perfect.

Older readers may remember early weatherman having parts of their bodies disappear and re-appear in while doing the weather.

I was involved with commercial broadcasting at that time, and Chroma-key was more like a balancing act. When a studio video board operator used Chroma-key, he worked a joystick which was moved around slightly in an attempt to balance the superimposed effect. That was state-of-art 40 years ago ­ at the same time Kubrick did the Apollo work.

If any part of a astronaut disappeared on live video because of a Chroma-key problem, that would have been the end game for NASA. Kubrick wisely crafted his production without using unreliable electronic effects. But to do so requires that everything is constructed life-size, or as big as it can be when crammed into a secret, closed stage housed inside a building.

In reviewing hundreds of Apollo 17 images, I noticed that the same distant mountain peaks appeared in the distance over and over with razor sharpness. Yet at the same time objects on the ground were also quite sharp. The best camera you can buy today cannot do that - almost 40 years later.

What would be most telling of being Kubricked, is to see some part of a studio lighting instrument in a photo. There is a film clip on youtube that shows this in as a rehearsal to make the “One Small Step for Man.” But someone at one time claimed this was shot for a commercial. When I challenged that and asked what commercial, no one came forward to state what company commissioned such a re-enactment.

IMAGE HANDLING Below are a few images of interest I found from Apollo 17. These photos were taken straight from NASA computers, with just one exception - a photo of astronaut gloves in a museum. No image processing has been done to these images unless noted for each one.

Most images were available as low res and high res formats. I show the source image NASA ID number and whether it was in low res or high res. Enlargement are taken from a small clip from a hi-res image of the very same scene to help reduce document size. No sharpening, contrast or color changes, etc... are used since these may introduce unwanted artifacts.

The first group of images shows polygon-shaped craters. What makes these unusual is that scientifically conducted, high speed projectile impact tests of various types and sizes were performed in laboratories to simulate meteor impacts. Results of these tests have shown that impact craters are always round.

http://www.jayweidner.com/Kubricked.html

[muxfolder]

How about this?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772240/

Here's trailer:
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4061109273/