revisiting Apollo

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Where do you get the idea that you didn't say that the pictures taken on
| the Moon are hoaxed?
|
| Explain the picture of the moon rock with the letter C on it please?

Easy. The mark is not to be found on either of the duplication masters used
to make research copies. It's not to be found on the original. And it's
not to be found on *any* version of the *other* photograph of the same
rock -- which no conspiracy theorist seems yet to have seen. The mark is
found on exactly one physical copy of one photo -- a print at LPI. That
this print was subsequently scanned and widely distributed as a JPEG is
irrelevant.

The conspiracy theorists never went farther than the JPEG. They never tried
to trace it back to any authoritative source. Had they done so, they would
have been led to LPI's photo file and that one print. And had they found
that print and put it under a microscope, they would have seen that it was a
hair that found its way into the optical path during printing, since it
quite clearly lies *atop* the photo and is not in it.

Had they looked at either of the duplication masters, they would have failed
to see the mark. The "anomaly" here is the reliance of self-proclaimed
photo analysts on downloaded JPEGs as substitutes for doing real
investigation.

| That is a lie. I never named the camera in question. And when I said
| "camera", I was talking about video camera being used on the moon...like
| as in the moon walk.

No. The comment was made in the context of photography and stars. We were
talking about still photos and you brought up the alleged poor quality of
the cameras.

| Well the quality of the some of those moon pics are downright
| laughable.

Such as?

And are they the fault of the camera, or the carelessness of the
photographer? I guarantee you that if I hand a Hasselblad to a novice
photographer, the quality of the pictures that come out of it will suffer.

EvolBob wrote:

...and one image of an astronaught on the moon and in the

viser what can clearly be seen is a studio lighting boom

The fake moon pictures really doesn't bother me. I work in marketing
and I managed to get a client who makes and designs molds for sneakers
and shoes. They are solely interested in the sole of the footwear and
not the overall design, so their major clientele are footwear
manufacturers. They needed some marketing proposals and I proposed the
'first footprint on the Moon' for their backdrop. If I really believed
that all the pictures were faked including the footprint, I would never
have recommended it. I merely like to take the opposite view and see
where that leads. And obviously it brings out the morons, idiots and
trolls like you who think they have found a new victim to put down.
Well your insults do not bother me one wit, not one. I am laughing my
ass off over all of this. I know that isn't very scientific of me, but
who cares, no one on this newsgroup has anything realistic to say other
than "you're wrong", or "you're a kook"....hahahhahahahhahah

Usenet is a joke.


I think you are confused.
That was a movie called 'Capricorn One'.

That movie sucks. Never seen it and have no intention of watching it ever.




"Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com...

Tim listen, I have watched the documentary with interest along with my
wife.

I watched it with interest, but at the same time...the tone of the whole
documentary sounded too 'happy'...

She is not really interested though in space stuff. The
documentary says in very specific terms without 'hints' as you put it,
that the moon footage shown to the world as real was in fact hoaxed on
order by President Nixon and his aides, through the studios operated by
Stanley Kubrick. They also specifically zero in on the fluttering flag,
the footprint, and one image of an astronaught on the moon and in the
viser what can clearly be seen is a studio lighting boom. These are the
only images they describe as part of the hoax, including one other video
which was supposedly Neil Armstrong getting off the lander to make his
now famous remark.




They didnt once say there were no moon landings, or missions. It was
all about the Nixon-Kubrick affair.

Besides it really doesn't matter either way. It was done for political
reasons, nothing more and nothing less. If you and others can't simply
see that, then you doom the rest of the world along with you to remain
buffoons.


Tim Auton wrote:


Yoda wrote:


Tim Auton wrote:

[snip]

If anyone reads my responses all I did was quote the documentary.
Nothing more and nothing less.






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 06/07/2004

Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Where do you get the idea that you didn't say that the pictures taken on
| the Moon are hoaxed?
|
| Explain the picture of the moon rock with the letter C on it please?

Easy. The mark is not to be found on either of the duplication masters used
to make research copies. It's not to be found on the original. And it's
not to be found on *any* version of the *other* photograph of the same
rock -- which no conspiracy theorist seems yet to have seen. The mark is
found on exactly one physical copy of one photo -- a print at LPI. That
this print was subsequently scanned and widely distributed as a JPEG is
irrelevant.

The conspiracy theorists never went farther than the JPEG. They never tried
to trace it back to any authoritative source. Had they done so, they would
have been led to LPI's photo file and that one print. And had they found
that print and put it under a microscope, they would have seen that it was a
hair that found its way into the optical path during printing, since it
quite clearly lies *atop* the photo and is not in it.

Had they looked at either of the duplication masters, they would have failed
to see the mark. The "anomaly" here is the reliance of self-proclaimed
photo analysts on downloaded JPEGs as substitutes for doing real
investigation.

Fair enough.


| That is a lie. I never named the camera in question. And when I said
| "camera", I was talking about video camera being used on the moon...like
| as in the moon walk.

No. The comment was made in the context of photography and stars. We were
talking about still photos and you brought up the alleged poor quality of
the cameras.

No the comment I made (and I know what I meant and what I said, so don't
be a *******, eh) was concerning video cameras. I guess I should have
spelled that out exactly...v-i-d-e-o... Everyone assumed I was talking
about a "still" camera. That assumption only translated into 'this guy
is a troll and a kook' when in reality the fault is on them for
misreading what I said.


| Well the quality of the some of those moon pics are downright
| laughable.

Such as?

Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the lander.
That glare is a laughable.


And are they the fault of the camera, or the carelessness of the
photographer? I guarantee you that if I hand a Hasselblad to a novice
photographer, the quality of the pictures that come out of it will suffer.


I've owned a Hasselblad, and I really don't care for them. It is just a
name, nothing more.

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Where do you get the idea that you didn't say that the pictures taken
on
| the Moon are hoaxed?
|
| Explain the picture of the moon rock with the letter C on it please?

Easy. The mark is not to be found on either of the duplication masters
used
to make research copies. It's not to be found on the original. And it's
not to be found on *any* version of the *other* photograph of the same
rock -- which no conspiracy theorist seems yet to have seen. The mark is
found on exactly one physical copy of one photo -- a print at LPI. That
this print was subsequently scanned and widely distributed as a JPEG is
irrelevant.

The conspiracy theorists never went farther than the JPEG. They never
tried
to trace it back to any authoritative source. Had they done so, they
would
have been led to LPI's photo file and that one print. And had they found
that print and put it under a microscope, they would have seen that it was
a
hair that found its way into the optical path during printing, since it
quite clearly lies *atop* the photo and is not in it.

Had they looked at either of the duplication masters, they would have
failed
to see the mark. The "anomaly" here is the reliance of self-proclaimed
photo analysts on downloaded JPEGs as substitutes for doing real
investigation.


Tsk. A proper crank *always* prefers a jpeg over the original image, since
many anomalies simply cannot be seen in the originals, and require jpeg
processing to properly reveal them. Where, for instance, is Hoagland's
martian subterranean city, without the power of jpeg to reveal it? )

Seriously, as I was typing this I was reminded of Lowell's self deception
regarding telescopes. He wrote many times that for planetary observations,
smaller rather than larger telescopes are better; since the larger
telescopes fail to show the canals...

Ian

CeeBee wrote:

Yoda wrote in alt.astronomy:



Then I guess you do have brain damage.



Your facts and arguments become more convincing with each post you add
to this thread.


They are just ****in pictures people!!!!!!!! Who cares that some think
they are hoaxed. Does it bother you people that much? Obviously.

We have thousands of pictures of Unidentified Flying Objects...why don't
you apply your "superior critical thinking" to those thousands of
pictures and videos instead of worrying that someone thinks a few Apollo
pics were hoaxed. Sheesh men, get a life!

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Well your insults do not bother me one wit, not one. I am laughing my
| ass off over all of this.

As am I. It's always funny to see people bluster their way into an
argument, calling people names and referring vaguely to evidence, only to
have people more familiar with that evidence completely deconstruct the
argument. It's even more funny to see the original provacateurs try to
backpedal their way out of embarrassing gaffes by saying it was all just a
prank.

If all conspiracy theories were as ineptly argued as this one, there
wouldn't be any.

| no one on this newsgroup has anything realistic to say other
| than "you're wrong", or "you're a kook"....hahahhahahahhahah

Not true. You've been given a number of scientifically valid explanations
for why your arguments -- provocation or not -- do not stand. You have
consistently ignored them, preferring instead to follow the ad hominem
threads.

| Usenet is a joke.

Thanks in large measure to contributions such as yours.

| If anyone reads my responses all I did was quote the documentary.
| Nothing more and nothing less.

False. You asserted that the "documentary" was proof that the U.S.
government had recanted on its claim to have landed on the moon, and you
berated all of us for not believing its conclusions. You held this position
until it was conclusively demonstrated to you that *you* are the one who was
fooled. Now you're trying to backpedal and claim it was all just a
provocateur's prank and that you never put any stock in it in the first
place.

Trust me, you're quite transparent. You got burned, and now you're trying
to make it seem like we're the "real" victims here.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Well your insults do not bother me one wit, not one. I am laughing my
| ass off over all of this.

As am I. It's always funny to see people bluster their way into an
argument, calling people names and referring vaguely to evidence, only to
have people more familiar with that evidence completely deconstruct the
argument. It's even more funny to see the original provacateurs try to
backpedal their way out of embarrassing gaffes by saying it was all just a
prank.

Well if you really knew me, you would know that I am fooling around
anyway. But who cares eh.


If all conspiracy theories were as ineptly argued as this one, there
wouldn't be any.

Ineptly? Yeah right. Thats why so many people are responding? Cuz
they feel so superior...



| no one on this newsgroup has anything realistic to say other
| than "you're wrong", or "you're a kook"....hahahhahahahhahah

Not true.

Yeah right.

You've been given a number of scientifically valid explanations
for why your arguments -- provocation or not -- do not stand.

Not really. I talked about camera pictures..should I have said
footage...where no stars appear...and I was given a low down on how
still cameras work..that was a good "scientific" rebuttal...NOT!

You have
consistently ignored them, preferring instead to follow the ad hominem
threads.

| Usenet is a joke.

Thanks in large measure to contributions such as yours.

Hardly, in large its a joke because the majority of people here on
usenet are ****in asswipes.


| If anyone reads my responses all I did was quote the documentary.
| Nothing more and nothing less.

False.

And you're a damn ****in idiot if you can't see that.

You asserted that the "documentary" was proof that the U.S.
government had recanted on its claim to have landed on the moon, and you
berated all of us for not believing its conclusions.

No I didn't. When I was asked for proof I quoted the film. I was
quoting the film from the beginning. So you all got sucked into a hoax.

You held this position
until it was conclusively demonstrated to you that *you* are the one who was
fooled.

I wasn't fooled on anything. There is still alot of discrepancies
regarding the Moon landings. You people are so ****in superior though,
it isn't worth bringing up by such a kook as myself.

Now you're trying to backpedal

Hardly. It was some idiot who thought I said, there was no moon
landing, and that had to be answered...oh...a few times. In fact some
idiot implied that that is my position even today. What a joke!

and claim it was all just a
provocateur's prank

It is, you have figured me out!

and that you never put any stock in it in the first
place.

LOL, well believe what you wish. You all got sucked in and now aren't
so superior after all I guess.


Trust me, you're quite transparent.

Not really there mr. superiority. Had you fooled.

You got burned, and now you're trying
to make it seem like we're the "real" victims here.


In fact you guys are. Why go to such lengths to talk about still
cameras? When I was talking about video cameras taking pictures of
stars? Because you all assume...making yourselves out to be true
assholes of me and you.

"Yoda" wrote in message
gers.com...
|
| No the comment I made (and I know what I meant and what I said, so don't
| be a *******, eh) was concerning video cameras.

Well, since you never actually mentioned the word "video", and had spoken up
to that point about still photography, I can't see why this was an unnatural
misperception. You shifted gears and forgot to tell your audience. Don't
blame them for it. Just apologize and move on.

| I guess I should have spelled that out exactly...v-i-d-e-o...

Yes, you should have. Then -- and only then -- can you take people to task
for mistaking your meaning.

The television camera used on Apollo 11 was certainly poor by today's
standards, but it was state-of-the-art back then. Keep in mind that this
was a very tiny, battery-powered camera that had to capture images in a wide
dynamic range. The art is making it small enough and light enough, and the
signal small enough to fit the uplink constraints. Don't judge technology
until you realize *all* of the elements of the problem.

| Everyone assumed I was talking about a "still" camera.

Here's a hint: if *everyone* mistakes your meaning, the problem is not with
everyone.

| | Well the quality of the some of those moon pics are downright
| | laughable.
|
| Such as?
|
| Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the lander.
| That glare is a laughable.

Please identify the photo you're describing.

If it is a Hasselblad 70mm photo, use the following as a reference
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...m/magazine/?40

| I've owned a Hasselblad...

I don't believe you. I find it hard to believe that someone would invest
thousands of dollars in a professional camera system and not have learned
the basics of exposure and dynamic range.

The question is not whether a Hasselblad is better than a Mamiya or anything
else. The question is about how the astronauts responded to using a camera
that was meant to be used only by professional photographers. It required
them to manually set focus, shutter, and aperture, and to aim without the
aid of a viewfinder. They were also using film not known for its wide
dynamic range. Nor were they solely concerned with photography.

The Hasselblad cameras are not toys. They are not Kodak Instamatics. They
do require a fair amount of skill to operate. I know; I've operated one.
There are examples of poor photography in the Apollo record. It's what I
would expect under the circumstances.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
gers.com...
|
| No the comment I made (and I know what I meant and what I said, so don't
| be a *******, eh) was concerning video cameras.

Well, since you never actually mentioned the word "video", and had spoken up
to that point about still photography, I can't see why this was an unnatural
misperception.

Oh ofcourse, pardon your and other dimwits assumptions, while insulting
me all along. Ha, usenet is a joke.

You shifted gears and forgot to tell your audience. Don't
blame them for it. Just apologize and move on.

Pffft..see above.


| I guess I should have spelled that out exactly...v-i-d-e-o...

Yes, you should have.


Really? Maybe you dimwits shouldnt be so presumptuous.

Then -- and only then -- can you take people to task
for mistaking your meaning.

LOL, thats like saying ahh...I should spell out what UFO means every
time I say it online...only to get responses from dimwits like Dr.
Dumbass, and others.


The television camera used on Apollo 11 was certainly poor by today's
standards,


No ****.

but it was state-of-the-art back then. Keep in mind that this
was a very tiny, battery-powered camera that had to capture images in a wide
dynamic range. The art is making it small enough and light enough, and the
signal small enough to fit the uplink constraints. Don't judge technology
until you realize *all* of the elements of the problem.

| Everyone assumed I was talking about a "still" camera.

Here's a hint: if *everyone* mistakes your meaning, the problem is not with
everyone.

Yes it is.


| | Well the quality of the some of those moon pics are downright
| | laughable.
|
| Such as?
|
| Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the lander.
| That glare is a laughable.

Please identify the photo you're describing.

If it is a Hasselblad 70mm photo, use the following as a reference
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...m/magazine/?40

| I've owned a Hasselblad...

I don't believe you.

Who cares what you believe. I have a few friends that are professional
photographers, they all swear by them, but also admit it is just a name.


I find it hard to believe that someone would invest
thousands of dollars in a professional camera system and not have learned
the basics of exposure and dynamic range.

Yeah whatever. There are plenty of used cameras out there you know.



The question is not whether a Hasselblad is better than a Mamiya or anything
else. The question is about how the astronauts responded to using a camera
that was meant to be used only by professional photographers. It required
them to manually set focus, shutter, and aperture, and to aim without the
aid of a viewfinder. They were also using film not known for its wide
dynamic range. Nor were they solely concerned with photography.

The Hasselblad cameras are not toys. They are not Kodak Instamatics. They
do require a fair amount of skill to operate. I know; I've operated one.
There are examples of poor photography in the Apollo record. It's what I
would expect under the circumstances.

Excuses, excuses. For a billion dollar project to have such poor
quality images is a joke.

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Jaxtraw" wrote in message
...
"Paul Lawler" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Yoda" wrote in message

t.cable.rogers.com...
You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon
mud
is
dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints. And what museum has samples
of
this dust so that we can all view it and compare samples? Please
you
have to do better than that.

And you are the person (you may, in fact be a moron, but I don't have
enough
evidence to make the kind of judgements you seem to be able to make
without
evidence) who doesn't seem to realize that very fine lunar dust might
have
different properties from the kind of dust that "doesn't leave
footprints."
In fact, I would posit that most fine dust (e.g. flour) leaves very
clear
footprints.

I performed a simple experiment yesterday evening using flour and a
selection of simple objects, and confirmed that flour does indeed create
very accurate prints of the objects impressed upon it. Sadly at this
point
I
got carried away, added some butter and sugar, and made an extremely
fine
fruit crumble. I have thus eaten the evidence for my claims, but am
prepared
to go on Canadian TV and state what happened.

*gasp* How dare you do an actual experiment? You... you... you scientist
you! Don't you know that you can learn everything you need to know from
the
Internet and the Givers of Light?

I know, I know. I'll get kicked out of Usenet if I carry on like this.

Or provide the recipe.

Now you're talking!


Fine Cherry Crumble (supposedly serves 6. Ha.)

Approx 2lb (950g) cherries.
3oz (75g) caster sugar
8oz (225g) plain flour
3oz (75g) unsalted butter
3-4oz soft (75g-110g) light brown sugar

Method:
Wash and pitt cherries, and place in a baking dish.
In a mixing bowl, place flour and conduct experiments regarding basic
physical properties of particulates. When tired of anti-kookery, continue
cookery by dicing butter and dropping into flour. Rub butter into flour with
fingertips, making sure to get plenty of air into the mixture, until a
fairly fine crumbly texture results. Now mix in soft light brown cane sugar.
Sprinkle caster sugar over fruit; if you have a less sweet tooth or are
trying to pretend to be health conscious while making this delicious
calorie-tastic dessert, reduce the quantity or omit this stage.
Cover fruit with crumble topping.
Place in a pre-heated oven, 180C/350F/453K/British Gas Mark 4, for around 40
minutes or until golden brown and visually reminiscent of the lunar
regolith.

Delicious hot or cold; especially served with cream or custard.

Ian