Lunarcy: Kodachrome (The many faces of A11-40-5903)

[NASANAZIRACE]

Wow, a cropped, edited and enhanced photo is your "smoking gun". Not to mention all the different types of scanning devices and papers used. It's obvious, one thing, you hate to be wrong. You even build delusions, "you" are right and "everybody" else is wrong. Did it ever cross your mind, that you are off key and normalcy is your true enemy. In other words, you never fit in, and now dream of being lord of the flies.

[un4g1v3n1]

@NASANAZIRACE Wow...You are a new type of psycho eh?

[fundiebasher]

This is almost frightening. We have people out there who are allowed to drive cars, vote, raise children, and yet they're stupid enough to believe that the Moon landings were faked. Does someone remind them to breathe every few seconds?

[un4g1v3n1]

The most frightening of all, is that people like you still believe in fictional gods like Apollo and the guy on the throne making sure you aren't touching your pee pee!

[EGMAG]

@fundiebasher

bigoted narrowmind fluted whipensnaphead fake fake fake fake

[LunarTuner]

Perhaps the question has nothing to do with Hasselblad cameras at all.

Whatever your persuasion, we can all agree that this photo is among the most powerful of the 20th Century. So, it has been copied, printed, re-printed, cropped, enhanced, tweaked & manipulation countless times. Typically, "vignetting" (the darkening around the edges of a film or photo) reflects the limits of copy lens optics. EVERY lens has some level of vignetting. Many copies only accentuates the issue. Copies = vignette.

[un4g1v3n1]

Stop bullshitting us Liarnar. They didn't vignette shit. The original was very dark, with the hot spots. The lighter versions are NASA retouch jobs to try and fool, well, you, and anyone who didn't see the original years ago, before you were born.

Your vignette fabrication is an insult, and lame NASA shill Apollogizing!

[LunarTuner]

Ok, Sherlock, show us "the orginal" and prove that it is so. You can't.

[un4g1v3n1]

Wow, your debate style just took on a NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, BOO, BOO, style, my 3 year old daughter has risen above.

Congratulations, I didn't think you could sink any lower, but again, you have under-exceeded my expectations. You know damn well which one was the original. That, or you are a complete liar. I feel it's the latter. As a matter-of-fact, I'm sure of it! And by-the-way Svector, it's time to switch to another false persona, this one has lost all it's credibility. Blame the bowls.

[michaelstmark]

You're mistaking background fall-off for vignetting, "LT".

And fall-off manifests during localised lighting applications.

Looks as if they didn't perfect the black art of even illumination on the live set until about A15.

[un4g1v3n1]

Your clap-trap video, is the worse form of propaganda rubbish I have ever seen. NASA has taken the original image, which outed them, and done their own hanky-panky to it. Each of the pictures that I used in this vid was referenced, unlike your lying assertions. And Jan Lundberg would know if he was being showed something tampered with or a Hasselblad original. Much more than you can with your lack of any hasselblad knowledge. Or again, I suppose you have more than him eh? No? I thought not!

[amontaiyagala]

Jan Lundberg was the Hasselblad engineer responsible for modifying the company's 500/EL Data Camera for use on the moon. He is NOT an expert on the film and post-processing procedures used and he is simply too kind to call David Percy a liar manipulating the original photographs. Take a look at my reply to your stupid claims (watch?v=dejJmkYrynE).

[butlincat]

man did not go to the moon in 69....see "the dark side of the moon" 3 vid series by GREATHUNS on yutube...KUBRICK DID IT ALL

[un4g1v3n1]

Wasn't that a mockumentary?

[butlincat]

i havent heard that...yet

[un4g1v3n1]

Watch it to the end...

[straydog02]

"Watch it to the end..."

It's true that it was a mockumentary, but why would those big wigs go to all that time and trouble to mock a subject that suppossedly is only believed by a few "nut jobs" wearing "tin foil hats"?

What the protectors of Apollo did in that farce of a documentary, is called "hiding in plain sight" .. It's an old school disinformation tactic, used by those who are desperately trying to keep the lid on something that has already been exposed as a fraud.

[timefilm]

the simple fact is that the surface of the moon wouldn't be unlike a photograph taken on the earth.

[realitylicker]

to coin a most common phrase - BUSTED.

[amontaiyagala]

Funny that this video accuses NASA of fakery but uses footage from moonmovies showing J.Lundberg in a manipulated scene. Did you really believe they would play this stupid "A funny thing..." stuff on his screen (compare: watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc at 1.40 min). That's what I would call fakery...

[Artifalia]

Cool, nice music,...you don't stop giving us videos to enjoy watching. Thank you, another point for Hoax knowers! And the tally goes on, :)

[un4g1v3n1]

Thanks Art! So how much longer you think we'll be able to see an original A11-40-5903, before NASA pulls it too? I love NASA's editing of Neils near-death experimental flight video on their site. Cut out the entire crash. Trying to instill the false belief in the LEM.

Not Another Sleazy Astrolie....More fitting.

Thanks for watching and commenting bro!

[Artifalia]

Well, today I was trying to find something about the apollo 13 press conference...and there's nothing on youtube! Only the movie, of course.

Neils experimental flight video, hahahahaah.

In the article Majestytwelve, william cooper explains that nasa was created to make interestelar travel believable. So the moon hoaxs would prepare the population for a fake alien invasion when needed.

Well, good luck answering these whole lot of comments! good luck bro!

[amontaiyagala]

Furthermore, regarding hotspots seen in downsun footage please reply to my old question: "what is so difficult to understand about retro-reflectivity of lunar regolith, well documented even in the metric photos taken in lunar orbit?"

[un4g1v3n1]

Ok! So, you say you want to believe the reflectivity of the moon is so immense it will light up shadow sides of objects, and anots/objects completely awash in the shadow of the LEM. Fine! But then you can't have it both ways and try to explain away A11 and A14's spotlit appearing moonsets. You see, if you're going to preach retro-reflectivity, then please explain receding darkness away from a central point. You see, the two do not fit! POOR REASONING SKILLS. LACK OF LOGICAL DEDUCTION!

[amontaiyagala]

"So, you say you want to believe the reflectivity of the moon is so immense it will light up shadow sides of objects, and anots/objects completely awash in the shadow of the LEM." Well, that's whats happening here on earth as well. Ever walked a street taking a look at the shadow side of a house...? where does that light comes from?

[un4g1v3n1]

You don't know where that light comes from? Well, it's obvious you can't be counted on to enLIGHTen anyone. You go off now, have your buddy sadwiener take a picture of you standing in the shadow side of a house, and see how many details you can make out. Wear a nice, mind-numbing flag, and perhaps even a commemorative plaque on your forehead! Then make a nice video for us. Perhaps you could consult with the other PAN moron Luner Tuner. He might share his bowls with you, or lend you a shade.

[amontaiyagala]

Yes, well done - fairly stupid. You didn't even manage to dig up the high-quality scan (but prefer to show book covers instead), again: POOR RESEARCH.

//eol*jsc*nasa*gov/sseop/image­s/ISD/lowres/AS11/AS11-40-5903­*JPG

Take a look and tell me if you still believe their is an artificial spotlight or simply many bad copies of a briliant picture.

[straydog02]

"Take a look and tell me if you still believe their is an artificial spotlight or simply many bad copies of a briliant picture."

Spotlight .. After that piccy was exposed for the fraud it really is, NASA decided to clean up the next batch of "Buzz on the Moon" postcard specials.

Say, your comment to un4g doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you prefer to believe that NASA faked the Apollo photography to cover up their encounters with aliens on the moon, does it?

[amontaiyagala]

Of course the higher quality scans showing the complete original Hasselblad files have to be faked because they expose all those ridiciulous CT claims...

You cannot quote something which has never been said. Why do you try to pretend... ?

[straydog02]

"Of course the higher quality scans showing the complete original Hasselblad files have to be faked because they expose all those ridiciulous CT claims..."

News flash pal.. Believing that aliens and their "UFO's" were waiting for the Apollo astronots when they pretended to land on the moon, IS "one of those ridiculous conspiracy theories"!

If you don't believe me, just ask any of the Apollo moonfakers and see if they agree with your silly beliefs.

Your vidoes are a hoot!

[un4g1v3n1]

Don't tell me amon is another one of those, we had to go to the moon, so I can believe in UFO guys? You know the worst thing stray, the assholes even have the new version on another part of NASA's archive areas. You can still find the original there, but for how much longer. And that creep Jay W puposely lit the background up more than any other version I've ever seen. I suppose he couldn't keep selling the retro-reflectivity dog without major photo-enhancements! Dirty, sneaky bastards!

[straydog02]

"Don't tell me amon is another one of those, we had to go to the moon, so I can believe in UFO guys?"

Yep.

"You know the worst thing stray, the assholes even have the new version on another part of NASA's archive areas. You can still find the original there, but for how much longer."

NASA alters their phony Apollo piccys every time they get caught. They also switch the ID #'s on the obvious fakes and then remove them from their silly web sites.

Rene' encountered that little problem.

[amontaiyagala]

NASA is not responsible for CT's failure to track documents... Just present one well documented case of shifting NASA ID's.

Stray: please make it clear wheter the above accusation is based on any statement done by me that you are able to quote...

[straydog02]

"NASA is not responsible for CT's failure to track documents... Just present one well documented case of shifting NASA ID's."

Ralph Rene's case is pretty well documented.. Why don't you go ask him what happened when he asked NASA to mail him a few of their phony Apollo piccys, including the "C" rock photo.. It took forever for him to receive any pictures in the mail, and then when they finally arrived, NASA had deliberately sent him the wrong photos by SWITCHING THE ID NUMBERS.

[un4g1v3n1]

Yes stray, that's what I heard as well. But the ID change was to make anyone who read Rene's book and tried to acquire the photos, fail to get the right one's, and make Rene look as if he didn't know what he was talking about. A shrewd move on the part of NASA and the NAZI's running it! PAPERCLIP anyone?

[amontaiyagala]

There is a difference between "well documented" and "hearsay".

The "C-rock" pictures have been / are / will be AS16-107-17445 and 17446 in every NASA database. Take a look and point out something else if you could.

[straydog02]

"Yes stray, that's what I heard as well. But the ID change was to make anyone who read Rene's book and tried to acquire the photos, fail to get the right one's, and make Rene look as if he didn't know what he was talking about."

The protectors of Apollo screwed over Rene' in more ways than just switching the photo ID numbers. They've attempted to discredit him on every level possible.. and what's so sad about that is how many gullible, blind fools have fallen for their disingenuous tactics.

[amontaiyagala]

stray: Your friend "un4g1v3n1" has posted this on my video:

"Following the PAN bible of debate ethics.

1 Don't debate the topic which proves you wrong, instead use subterfuge.

2 Bash the character of your debate opponent with unproven, outlandishj [sic] comments.

3 Bastardize the research or personal knowledge, especially if YOU lack any."

Can you point out the difference between your accusation (still waiting for your quotation reference) and above tactics...

[EGMAG]

fitting SONG. high SCHOOL WE HAD TO COLLECT ALL John Glenn SCRAPBOOK MATERIALS. that WAS REAL. cool DUDE THAT Glenn!

[straydog02]

I've read that when NASA realized they had forgotten to take any kewl piccys of "Neil" (the first man to step onto the A11 moonset) they tossed around the idea of passing off this now famous photo of "Buzz" (the second man to set foot on the A11 moonset) as being Neil.. but then thought better of it, in case someone ever caught them in the lie! .. LOL

Glad to see that NASA finally corrected the lighting in the retouched version of that one.