you stupid butt knocker they proved the lighting is real on myth busters with actual experiments not just sitting there like you old fart with your finger up your nose and your other hand on your dick looking at pictures they went to the moon and you are a stupid @#$%
1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1.95 langleys = 81587.9 joules/m2. 1.361 kw/m2 = 1361 joules/second/m2. My mistake. A dose of 1 gray means the absorption of 1 joule of radiation energy per kilogram of absorbing material. The apollo craft clearly couldn't even handle the solar constant.
if these morons where so sure about what they say...they would not need to run all over youtube attacking users who comment on videos they dont like........
So you're saying that Percy himself deliberately manipulated this image just so he could bluff? Do your homework. This "manipulated" image is in fact available in NASA's database and secondly, this manipulated version IS in fact in many old history books while the original can hardly be found. In fact, "manipulated" edition was much more publicised than the original. Which makes me wonder? Why would such non-sense image, be much more suitable for history books compared to original?
@Prasulja You're right. The bad image can be found in NASA archives, but it's not as bad as Percy's. I know of only 3 pictures which show this "vignetting" effect, and they were all among the first releases after the astronauts returned, done in a hurry to hit the presses.
What hoax nuts seem to avoid are the thousands of pictures which do NOT show fall-off. And video. This is just a poor quality print.
Use to be this guy called spreadingthemuse who would try and blind people with pointless science data to try and debunk the non believers, but his whole idea is thrown out the window when you read his page..
i quote "worked at helping disturbed kids"
Read his comments and put downs, name calling and arguing the toss with everyone and anyone that does not agree with him, and think to yourself, could this guy be any good at helping disturbed children???
Let's fake landing 14 tons in 1/6 G because that's way harder than launching a few thousand tons into orbit from Earth G, 13 times with no losses.
We should maybe put all the fake landings on the Earth facing side, as well. Then, when the optical technology arrives and they see the empty landing sites, we jump out and shout "Gotcha!"
UFOs are real, WWE is real, you CAN build a real lightsabre. Apollo was faked.
Moon hoaxers: Proof vegetables can talk to eachother.
If they can take hi Rez photos of Mars with 1 meter per pixel (or better), then why don't they just take a photo of the landing site on the moon and put an end to the argument?
@protelboy Look up the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter pictures of all six landing sites. The pictures are at .5 m/pixel, show the landing sites and equipment very clearly, but the hoax folks insist it's all photoshop.
Ah, but the hoaxtards will tell you that LRO was a NASA satellite, so of course its images cannot be trusted.
Quite how they explain the independent images gathered of the Apollo landing sites by the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission, still remains to be seen, two years after it was done.
@GlowWorm1962 The Indians were paid off, you see. Or maybe they also needed U.S. wheat. Who knows.
Unfortunately, the hoax folks, who often insist that only a small number of people needed to know about the facts of the Apollo hoax, need to keep expanding their conspiracy to more and more people, including people at ISRO and ASU, in order for the conspiracy to be sustained. And yet they can't see how absurd that is.
rofl yeh - they're like the anti-Copernican astronomers of yore, desperately trying to add epicycle after epicycle, to prove that everything revolves around the Earth.
In the end their bullshit collapsed under its own weight, just like the Apollo Hoax Conspiracy is doing now.
@GlowWorm1962 There's a difference, though. Those astronomers were trying to explain what they saw using what was, after all, the best model they had available to them at the time. It's like the increasingly convoluted attempts to explain the atom using classical mechanics. But for both, when the weight of the evidence indicated their whole notion of the Universe was wrong, they learned/invented the new physics.
The hoaxers stick to their convoluted explanations and will never change.
@kipperwacker LOOK OUT! Here comes the NWO with FEMA death trains to take you to the FEMA death camps run by the Aliens who are really shaved BigFoot who where the ones on the grassy knoll that shot JFK!
Yeah, I think you need to come back to reality, that fear-monger bubble YOUR in can't be healthy.
The hair helmet over heated is brain, Percy didn't think anyone would noticed that he darkened the photo. Percy's a smug little waste of food and air.
Please explain how the two men's shadows are pointing towards each other? Well, also, if anyone answers, throw in one also on WHY anyone would want to call the ML "hoax" if it wasn't?
This proves nada. lol Moon hoax definitely, the US never ever in a million years go to the Moon...well maybe in a million years actually, but in no way shape of form did they perform it in in 1969. NASA: total fakers and liers.
im honestly looking at all these hoax vids and i'm trying to find some concrete evidence for hoax. i naturally ask and question everything, im a conspiracy theorist or whatever but i yet have to be presented with proof of hoax haha, i just cunt find it captain
As idiotic as the CTs claims may be, and as dishonest as they often are, I don't think they deliberately altered anything here. They are simply confused by the fact that the published versions of this photo (Nat Geo, Life, etc) are all multi-generation analog copies with clipped dynamic range and extreme contrast, while the ALSJ version comes from a new digital scan that retains much more of the original information.
Conspiracy theorists hate and despise the thought that humanity could reach the moon, because they don't seem the slightest disappointed when they believe something was faked - they get this cheerful happy-looking face and totally smile their mouth off everytime they get the chance to present "faked footage".
I have to ask you something:
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE GREAT POSSIBILITY THAT MAN DID GO TO THE MOON?
Would you commit suicide if the moonlanding is true?
If you take a picture of yourself standing in the middle of a field lit by the sun it will be the same brightness all over if you over expose the picture darker areas will washed out, under expose the picture it gets darker the last areas to be dark will be the brightest if there is such an area which there can't be in a field or moon lit by the sun, this picture plainly shows a brighter area behind the astronaut over his left shoulder & ground behind him, your analysis shows & proves this fact.
All areas receive the same amount of light from the sun but the camera won't show this because the reflection angle is most efficient in the area of the subject. The background has a shallower reflection angle to the camera so it will appear slightly dimmer.
Good video. Just like others here I find it difficult to listen to that nutcase Percy, He's talking awful nonsense in such a way that my volume goes from 5 to 1 within seconds.
im a Hoaxer as you claim the undesputed proof that we landed on the moon would have to be the stars it would be pretty much impossable to get every star perfect in a fake studio landing as astronomers could tell this to be fake
isnt it strange tis key proof is missing from all vids and pics including the flying to the moon pics. we have sent many unmaned probes to the moon and there pics contain clear stars due to no atmosphere on the moon strange huh?
Getting the stars right would be easy.Ever heard of a planetarium?
Besides Apollo 16 DID take pictures of stars, but in ultraviolet with a special camera.
You say that unmanned probes show stars. Examples please?
The real reason stars aren't shown is because the Apollo Hasselblad exposures are too low to show them. I have looked at day-side earth orbital shots, high altatude balloons and even newsreels of film from V2. None with similar exposure times to Apollo lunar photos show stars.
Look, its this simple: If you believe they faked the moon landings then either A: You don't really think things through. Or B: You have a short attention span, probably dont finish what you start, will believe anything, and think you know a lot more than you actually do.
Yep, Percy has about as much brains as Lord Chamberlain. When the bombs started falling on London at the beginning of WWII, I'm sure that Chamberlain was saying, "But, but I've got this piece of paper with Hitler's signature on it which says that there will be peace in our time!" Percy indeed is a charlatan.
Thank fuck! A video that shows that the moon hoax exponents are hoaxers themselves, I've alawys believed that they put men up there simply because the 'evidence'(facts) to support the landings so hugely outways the 'evidence'(bullshit) that says they didn't, a few photgraphic anomalies compared with e.g the over 40,000 people involved with Apollo and not one witness to say it was a hoax, or the independent observations of lunar approaches made by observatories around the world etc.
@madbuzz90 i dont know if they went to the moon or not, but i know the images taken were faked. watch dark side of the moon documentary on google video. and how can u just dismiss photographic anomalies, lol. whens theres more then one "anomaly" its not a coincidence any more. heres some quick evidence, the cameras they used were not protected in any way, u can see that in thier pictures, the heat flashes from the sun would melt the film, where the coldness of the moon would crack the film.
The film was in proteceted containers in the camera. If you use your line of "reasoning", you would have to claim that all photographs taken in space are faked (Soviet, American, lander, orbiter, etc).
You see, the people who actually engineered the moon landings are far smarter than you give them credit for.
@Boy75402 actually the photos show the camera not protected by anything, and for the film to be protected inside the camera i dont think so. have you watched the doc that i suggested. the ppl who engineer fake events are far smarter then u give them credit for.
Dear, when only uninformed and/or nutty people claim the Apollo landings were faked, it's very clear who isn't giving who credit. You're arguing based on wishful thinking and speculation. I build my argument on documented evidence from a variety of sources involving the efforts of hundreds of thousands. You may as well argue the Pyramids were made by aliens or that the Cold War was a lie.
@Boy75402 im saying the pictures are faked, your argument is flawed, because if the pics are faked which i believe they are, then your believing something that is fake(the documented evidence). flags dont wavein space, theres really no argument for that, and i seen docs on why it was waving, explanation: he was wiggling it into the ground. almost believed that, until i saw the flag waving b4 being stuck into the ground.
@Boy75402 um, didnt really understand what u just wrote, maybe if you elaborate in a better sentance,that is my argument( flags should not wave on the moon), what was your reasoning for it being able to wave, was it "it was being moved before it was stuck into the ground.... lol." didnt quite understand your broken sentances. or better yet just reply with a reason for a flag waving, try to come up with good reasons, maybe theres something i dont know about flags.
@Boy75402 i dont know, or pretend to know the whole story, i just look at the evidence i can see, and see that it is not possible. so therefore i should not believe it, or pretend that its just some weird anomaly.
@jumppack1 ...of course there is no wind, and that's because there's almost no atmosphere. That's why the flag keeps moving a long time after the astronaut touches it...there is no air friction ...and little gravity for that matter, to make it stop.
I can think of several reasons in 8th grade science alone why a flimsy piece of cloth would move in a FRICTIONLESS environment. You cant think of even one? The question isnt why its moving, its since there's no friction, how would you stop it? Vibrations from the footsteps through the rigid flagpole. Residual torque from twisting it into the ground. Etc etc Without friction even the slightest touch would set it off moving for a long time.
@SpreadingtheMuse The flag would continue to move and I wouldn't doubt it, but explain why the sand didn't clear out of the way really easily when the Module landed or took off and left a sizable blast crater? If you look at the videos, it didn't, not even one on any of the so-called missions... Explain that? What about the stationary crosshairs on the pictures behind objects, do that supposed to happen? Or Obama not showing the pictures of Bin Laden, and throwing his body in the ocean?! Lmao!
When you see big "WHOOSHES" when rockets blast off, you're seeing two things: The thrust push against the air, and the air pushing out. Its the pressure of the moved air that makes the big billowing clouds. But on the moon there is no air. So no air = no pressure = no push = no big whooshes of dust and sand.
Crosshairs? Skinny dark lines against bright white? Its chemical film, not digital, remember? Chemicals bleed. Ever mess with developing film? Its a royal hassle.
@SpeakerForBoskone So I guess when a meteor hit the moon no craters form. Or the footprint they left were fake too. How do we know that the entire universe is a complete vacuum, perhaps just outside of our planet just to help hold in our life support. Whatever they say we have to believe it, because we can't go and check, right? But there are ways of checking, you just have to get pass them first. No the lines didn't bleed, close ups shows that clearly. The government making mistakes? WOW...
@SpeakerForBoskone Try using Chemical film in space and wonder why you cannot even get a picture that has not already been badly degraded by radiation particles entering the lens.
You cannot take a photo without opening the lens, thus exposing the film to radiation and destroying it.
Think the experts said a lot of these photos were taken using long exposure times..
Choosing facts that you no-about to try and get people on your side is what is called being bias.
@kevinturvy If chemical film didn't work in space, there would be no point to spy satellites. The radiation the film is exposed to when you open the lens, is called "light", and it is what the film is meant to record. There are other forms of radiation in space, but nearly all of it can be stopped by the spacecraft hull, the space suits, or even the epidermis of the astronauts. For some bizarre reason people think outer space is like sitting in the core of a reactor. It just isn't so.
"You cannot take a photo without opening the lens, thus exposing the film to radiation and destroying it."
The implications of this reach far beyond Apollo. At what point, would you say, do the images start becomming "real"? Post-Apollo? Mid-Shuttle? Or are *all* the images ever produced in space fake?
@Boy75402 Early space photos were taken with a chemical film via a telescope, digital cameras have been available to the public for around 30 years now... even back in 1986 you could buy a 1.3 megapixel digital camera if you could afford it.
Nasa space probes in the late 1960s were using digital imaging to map the moon, these images were then enhanced once they had been received back on earth.
Any photo taken on the moon was supposedly taken with a chemical film camera.. How did they do it
@kevinturvy .NASA used a special camera and special film designed for use on the Moon. They were Hasselblad 500EL camera's that were insulated to keep them temperature controlled and sprayed with sliver paint for radiation protection. The film was designed for use on the Moon. It was a polyester film base topped with photosensitive emulsions layers made by Eastman Kodak. The film had a melting point of 490oF. The only part they brought back was the film case, all 12 camera's remain in the Moon.
They aimed the camera and took a picture. After they were done with the camera, they took the film out and left the camera on the surface. You seem to be grosely overestimating the amount of radiation present in space.
@Boy75402 Amazing technological achievement, one could say a miracle.
i can see how it would be possible to transmit live images back from the moon, but i do not think those Photos were taken on the moon, i do not think any photographic images could have been taken on the moon.
I Am not overestimating the radiation levels, it has been proved that they underestimated the radiation levels by 30-40 percent, we now have a more accurate picture of the moons radiation than we had 40 years ago
"Amazing technological achievement, one could say a miracle."
You know what they say about advanced technologies and micracles ; ).
"I Am not overestimating the radiation levels, it has been proved that they underestimated the radiation levels by 30-40 percent"
They measured the radiation before they ventured out into it, you know. Do you believe the Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, Zond, Luna, Surveyor, etc, etc images are all faked, too? Some of them used technology that was even worse.
@kevinturvy >"Think the experts said a lot of these photos were taken using long exposure times."<
_________________
Absolutely wrong, where did you get that information from? The intense brightness of the Moons surface meant extremely short exposure times. That's why you don't see stars in any of the pictures. The aperture was only open for about .002 seconds and the aperture cover was painted silver. Your insistence that radiation would have destroyed the film is simply misguided.
Give him a grave? Becomes a shrine for terrorists, and makes him a martyr to inspire more violence. Show the pics? Then they pop up on posters all over the arab world to inspire more violence. Bury him so fast? Thats islamic LAW. Have to bury within 24 hours. If we didnt do that, inspire more violence.
You just cant yell CONSPIRACY! and pretend to be clever. There's a million things you're not thinking of.
@SpeakerForBoskone Bin Laden was dead in 2001 and he wasn't killed, DECLASSIFIED 8 times. The Ocean is his shrine, his home is his shrine, his country is his shrine. Revenge doesn't need a shrine, but no evidence will not wave off the skeptic, only blind fools... Don't show a picture and you won't have people saying it's doesn't match. They shot him? But they were trained to capture him not kill him. You actually think they would've got the guy that easily after nearly 10 years?! LMAO!!!!!!
Look below for answers to your questions, but did you really believe they had no answers? All 3 of your claims were old worn out cut and pastes from dork webpages that were laughed at 20 years ago or more. You could have answered all of them yourself with rudimentary googling. But you didnt, you read a dufus webpage and believed every word no questions asked. Was that the smartest thing you've ever done?
@SpeakerForBoskone You look below if you want to evade the questions, I'm asking YOU not them. All those so-called answers from 20+ years ago are bogus enough to ask again and again until someone can give a reasonable answer and not NASA/government/google answers. Use your common sense and answer it without riding that pig. I don't deal with internet bullshit. Just because I agree with some views of Alex Jones doesn't make me a follower, it makes me a skeptic and aware of the bullshit around me.
Even if you take "original" apollo photos of the Apollo lunar surface journal, there still are incoherences.
For the picture AS15-82-11057, the NASA has put in line two different pictures; one of them has been recorded on Wikimedia; the link which is given in the article has been destroyed by the NASA, because the NASA has put in line another version of this photo.
This latter contains a hidden proof much more embarrassing than the bad luminosity of the first version of this picture.
NASA: "Surprisingly, the Moon is a moderately bright gamma-ray source. The only part of the electromagnetic spectrum where the Moon is brighter than the Sun is gamma rays." "The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares. When cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet, and trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!" HA!
The lighter areas are where the LM exhaust has blown smooth the surface. Check the high resolution image for yourself; the brighter areas have a different texture. Remember they were 'drifting to the right a little' prior to the landing. The position of the landing probe indicates that the LM must have hovered over that area prior to landing.
Yes, take a look at JW's response and ask yourself: "Why did he dismissed the JSC file (2:33 min) which is the only one available as unprocessed high-resolution scan".
No, you are not honest. Otherwise you would acknowledge the deception that JSC is attempting to thrust upon the public. I am old enough to remember the original in newspapers and magazines prior to Percy and others pointing out the fraud revealed by the fall off and hot spots of light. It wasn't until after that time that NASA began shuffling the file numbers of photos to make in hard for one to obtain the right photo. And then later the JSC scanning horse crap. NASA deceptions abound!
Jarrah never said that the surface of the moon is "non" reflective you moron... He's stated that the reflectivity of the moon is is "low".. From all the public data available the surface of the moon is about 7% reflective.., (about the same as a bitumen road)... Get your facts right Mr Basic Physicist .. !!! duhhh .. mmm you can see the moon easily, you sound like Palin taking about Russia...lol
you and Mr Einstein-on-a-road tell me how the moon can reflect 244,000 miles with just 7% reflectivity, but apparently not illuminate an astronaut standing on it's surface DUMBASS!
hmmm.. 1) Because the moon has no atmoshere more light reflects back .2) The moon has quite a large surface area (relative to us) and all of this total "combined light reflect's back in a greater quantity.. 3) The moon is very close to the earth. Astrontomy wise it's about as close as your dick is to your balls .(sorry for the vulgarity) . .4) Every vertically standing object on the moon had a distictive dark shadow behind it yet all the astronuats and Lem's didnt....Please explain Dumbass ???
I never once refererred to Jarrah's experiment . You really need to read the comment section more thoughly... What i said was that this is basic science mate.. The moon is big , the moon is close, thats why it appears bright to us on earth?? What more can I say... From your wimpery response you have still not provided an answer to my very simple question.. Feel free to make another huffed response and then dodge around the question again.. .. :-)
You agree then, that the moon still appears bright to us on earth, 244,000 miles away AND filtered through our polluted atmosphere.
Yet you refuse to believe there is enough ambiant and reflected light during lunar day on the moon's surface to add light to a photo taken there.
You rather believe the word of Dave Percy, because he points to anomolies that are seen in a few of the 'thousands' of photos taken on the Apollo missions.
I will never convince the 911 flat earth fake moon milli vanilli crowd otherwise but thank God you live in a country where such ignorance is tolerated. They would put you in jail in other places p.s. you will never convince me either except for the milli vanilli I always knew they were phonies. ashley simpson too OJ simpson too for that matter, and don't forget Lisa simpson she can't be that smart at age eight and how about Mona lisa she can't be so wise oh I m ramblim gotta go now
you conspiracy guys use technology today that would have been considered "magic" by serious scientists early in the last century yet you accuse great men of staging one of mankinds greatest acheivments.
is space shuttle fake? are cell phones fake? are antibiotics fake? how about the atom bomb, LEDs superalloys, ultrasound imagery. Just cause you couldn't build this stuff doesn't mean nobody could. tsk tsk tsk
Oh some guy with a british accent has a couple of beers then talks about something he obviously is uneducated about and unqualified to criticize...but he got some uneducated yanks to buy his tale tsk tsk tsk....study my friends and face it man has walked on the moon
yer right it is an awesome acheivement just like the atom bomb, digital communications cell phones modern medicine etc etc. we stand on the shoulders of giants!
Did you know that the space shuttle is more complex than apollo by a factor of around 10...or is the space shuttle fake? the ISS fake? are cell phones fake? lasers? teflon? Hubble (built in the 1980s) conceived in the 1950s eh?
911 was definitely fake and a huge Govt cover up, so its not so difficult to believe that the Moon Landings were staged also.
Way back in 1969 sending men 260,000 miles up into space, having them land on the Moon, and return safely and the entire mission is executed with near perfect precision and success on the 1st attempt ?
HORSESHIT i dont believe it and neither do Millions of other Americans
I know what you mean. I have this big metal box on my desk that this spinning thing that kinda looks like a record player. "Scientists" tell me that this thing you can get for 50 bucks at best buy was this teeny tiny little laser that can scan these microscopic holes on a plastic disk, the disks supposedly have 30 billion of these little holes and a 50$ machine can scan them all with perfectly accuracy? HORSESHIT.
having a British Accent but no science degree does not make you a space authority. The moon effort was monumental...so was the atomic bomb, or was that also fake? and 25 years earlier I might add, maybe the US had some talent? Hard to accept? eh?
The reason the moon landing project went on, was so the government could syphon off $40 billion to vietnam and south america for the CIA's little corporate interests, while only spending a few million at a Disney studio to pull off the moon stunt. The reason why people are trying to wake the sheep up is because they are planning to do the same thing with Mars - but with better technology so you won't know.
What about the fact that the photographer is either on a step-ladder, or the camera is on a face level tripod, and NOT strapped to the chest of the guy taking the picture? Honestly you hoax-debunker disinfo guys are getting tedious, isn't the government paying you enough.
Hahaha.......you're insane, this is old news now. The moon landing pictures and videos we're thoroughly proved fake in the early 90's, nasa even admitted they staged the actual landing. The evidence is all out there, I'm not gathering it for you, it's a closed case long ago for me. But if you're interested in the truth start with a book 'NASA Mooned America' by Ralph Rene. 100% of the evidence you need.
Ralph Rene was not a reliable source but an old guy that didn't understood what he was talking about. Any (comparably stupid) source for your claim that "in the early 90's, nasa even admitted they staged the actual landing."?
Hahaha, you're persistent, you must be getting payed or you wouldn't engage in this. When a leaf-blower which puts out 0.5 p.s.i. is put against the ground (dry soil/gravel), it blasts out a 12inch hole. The LEM (landing module) weighed 17 tons and required 10.5 THOUSAND POUNDS of thrust, which blew out of the engine shroud, why do you suppose in the landing picture there is not even a sign of blown away dust under it? That is why nasa had to admit the landing pictures we're faked, SCIENCE.
So if you are gonna engage seriously do your history, they had to admit it at the time, they had no choice, but like in Orwell's 1984 they re-write the past to suit the future. And don't just try and undermine sources without your evidence. Rene, was a highly regarded author, a Mensa member, an inventer with at least two patents and he designed experiments.
So you agree on R.R.'s claims that: 1. Einstein's Theory of relativity is not valid, 2. That the Earth has no Equatorial bulge, 3. That Newton's law of universal gravitation is erroneous, 4. That Pi does not equal 3.1415926. BTW., R.R. was NEVER a Mensa member but tried to publish a book called "MENSA Lectures" (The Last Skeptic Of Science) resulting in a lawsuit against him by MENSA who felt he was misappropriating their name and using it to suggest they backed his stupid beliefs.
Go on then, go on blindly believing that your government is spending an awful lot of money trying to send you to space, while they syphon off all the federal reserve bailouts to offshore, and send all the industry to China, and while they turn your country into a concentration camp,(YOUTUBE - FEMA coffins and fema camps). What do you think they'll release? Nerve agent or virus? UNITED NATIONS agenda 21- global population reduction of 95%. timeline imminent.
By the way I'm not a conspiracy theorist, that is a term introduced by the establishment as a flash-word. Which means as soon as it is said, all information pertaining to it is instantly dismissed. I studied mind-control techniques, as developed and perfected at the Tavistock Institute for ten years in naval intelligence.
CT's are watching the world around them unfold exactly as they expect because they study what is written. You are what we refer to as the walking dead, and you won't know what's happening until it's too late. We on the other hand will be miles away.
I'm afraid it not am (and you know that) and you should be paying particular attention to point the larger Sun? becomes obscured by the Apollo helmet visor viewpoint door for undeniable proof that they are two seperate light sources.
Plus also the obvious change in angle when the actor-not turns to face the 16 mm camera. The smaller reflection would have shifted behind (from the fov of the camera) the larger reflection if it was caused by multiple layers.
Please compare the public, free, open to all, heavily processed 46k file we both agree to be present on ALSJ in 1997 (Wayback machine) to Percys source and tell me you would choose his to make your research? - Only if you don't understand anything about photography or are extremley keen on spotting spotlights.
I checked that again and you are right: The oldest HR file of AS11-40-5903 is linked from the Dec 06, 1998 ALSJ archive but relates to a file from 2000 and the link is added to the info (but I gues you knew this one).
Almost every copy of AS11-40-5903 is better than Percys ridiculous source (1998 < 2000). If a researcher (of course he is not!) has bad quality data he won't expect anything other than stupid results from their analysis. Only a con-man would try to convince you otherwise.
Sure, sorry for the approval stuff... that was not intended (have changed it). You're free to respond whatever you want (I may delete afterwards...), Greetings, AY.
Nice idea, but did you even care to take a look yourself? HR files comparable to the current file were present on ALSJ since 1998.
BTW, if an "expert" receives low quality data he does not promote his "analysis" to reveal anything but low quality data... I see only two possibilities: a total nut or plain lie.
'I see only two possibilities: a total nut or plain lie.
Whats's your choice?'
No actually. The only possibiltiy is a spotlight creating a hot spot and a fall off. Please see the video I just responded with from Apollo 14 where this effect can be clearly seen.
Do you see a hotspot or fall-off area in the unprocessed JSC AS11-40-5903 file?
Your AS14 reply? the visor reflection is due to multple layers (and you know that!) and the difference in light intensities is caused by the lack of surface shadows in the distant areas...
Always the same game: Once the visor reflections have been inserted later (by evil NASA demons of course) but then they proof multiple light sources (don't talk about shadows)... CT's choose whatever pleases their ideology.
The ALSJ pictures are not "originals". They are (a) histogram-corrected and in some instances (b) Photoshopped. GRIN pictures are even worse, with blatant cases of (bad) Photoshopping.
Fiddling with gamma or constrast values won't make a fall-off appear where there is none.
The average albedo of lunar regolith is around 10±2% plus specular and zero phase angle retroreflection.
It appears much whiter on NASA photos because those have been curve-pushed to conceal non-uniform lighting.
What the heck are you talking about ? What do you mean you can't create falloff by "fiddling" with the contrast ?
I verified what amontaiyagala did, using a different software, and I only increased the contrast by a 100 percent, getting a very convincing result. If you don't believe me, then I suggest you do the same.
I even went a step further and adjusted the hue settings:
Well, well, look what I found. Increasing the contrast seems to be a destructive process. In other words, once you have created a falloff by increasing the contrast, you cannot reverse the process.
If you lower the contrast of the edited image back, then it will look nothing like the JSC original. Thus you can create an artificial falloff, but you can't get rid of an existing one.
Which means that the original NASA photos could not have had a falloff. And Percy is a fraud once again.
"It means that a global function that depends only on pixel values won't create non-uniformities where there are none."
Well, that's what I did, I created a falloff where there was none. But I couldn't reverse the process. Have you seen my image ?
I would appreciate it if you confirmed what I did with the JSC image. If you think I'm wrong, then could you curve-push Percy's image and make it look like NASA's ?
Interestingly, Percy's wikipedia entry seems to have vanished. I find hard it to believe he was lying about deliberately manipulating his material though. I think its more likley he as lying about his credentials and was using copies of the pics he simply didn't understand.
I mean, how many photo experts don't understand the principal of indirect lighting?
proof of faked photos is not proof of not going, and debunking 2 particularly weak arguments
doesn't exactly settle the discussion the other way either.
how about some common sense:
you take state of the art technology to a place where humans have never been during the hight of the cold war...
and you invite the world, including the russians to look over your shoulder?
remember NASA is partly controlled by the DOD.
it is entirely possibly that they went to the moon AND faked it.
Whisper6911 2 months ago
you stupid butt knocker they proved the lighting is real on myth busters with actual experiments not just sitting there like you old fart with your finger up your nose and your other hand on your dick looking at pictures they went to the moon and you are a stupid @#$%
MrStrongarms 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1.95 langleys = 81587.9 joules/m2. 1.361 kw/m2 = 1361 joules/second/m2. My mistake. A dose of 1 gray means the absorption of 1 joule of radiation energy per kilogram of absorbing material. The apollo craft clearly couldn't even handle the solar constant.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
David Percy a liar? I suppose next you will tell me that the Pope is a Catholic.
friendofangie 5 months ago
this guy is a total cunt..
whoarethebrainpigs 6 months ago
if these morons where so sure about what they say...they would not need to run all over youtube attacking users who comment on videos they dont like........
MrPoliticaltoons 6 months ago
Now, Mr. Percy, let's see the other several thousand pictures. And hours of videos.
LOL...what a quack!
AstroSock1 6 months ago
A lot of these 'researchers' couldn't make it in real science.
granddad2002 7 months ago
So you're saying that Percy himself deliberately manipulated this image just so he could bluff? Do your homework. This "manipulated" image is in fact available in NASA's database and secondly, this manipulated version IS in fact in many old history books while the original can hardly be found. In fact, "manipulated" edition was much more publicised than the original. Which makes me wonder? Why would such non-sense image, be much more suitable for history books compared to original?
Prasulja 7 months ago
@Prasulja You're right. The bad image can be found in NASA archives, but it's not as bad as Percy's. I know of only 3 pictures which show this "vignetting" effect, and they were all among the first releases after the astronauts returned, done in a hurry to hit the presses.
What hoax nuts seem to avoid are the thousands of pictures which do NOT show fall-off. And video. This is just a poor quality print.
AstroSock1 6 months ago
@FractalDimensions At least Percy is endurable.
Try listening to David Groves, he's the most disgusting excuse of a human I have ever seen or listened to.
Laurelindo 7 months ago
I find it sad that some people are pathetic enough to embrace the nonsense that the moon landings were faked. WhiteJarrah is a liar.
edmfw 8 months ago 6
Moon Hoax Conspiracy Terrorists.
Laurelindo 10 months ago
Use to be this guy called spreadingthemuse who would try and blind people with pointless science data to try and debunk the non believers, but his whole idea is thrown out the window when you read his page..
i quote "worked at helping disturbed kids"
Read his comments and put downs, name calling and arguing the toss with everyone and anyone that does not agree with him, and think to yourself, could this guy be any good at helping disturbed children???
Scared of the truth so resort to ridicule
kevinturvy 10 months ago
Let's fake landing 14 tons in 1/6 G because that's way harder than launching a few thousand tons into orbit from Earth G, 13 times with no losses.
We should maybe put all the fake landings on the Earth facing side, as well. Then, when the optical technology arrives and they see the empty landing sites, we jump out and shout "Gotcha!"
UFOs are real, WWE is real, you CAN build a real lightsabre. Apollo was faked.
Moon hoaxers: Proof vegetables can talk to eachother.
timpovikings 11 months ago
What a bullshit video! the fall-off version IS how the original pic looked like
xismxist 11 months ago
If they can take hi Rez photos of Mars with 1 meter per pixel (or better), then why don't they just take a photo of the landing site on the moon and put an end to the argument?
protelboy 11 months ago
@protelboy Look up the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter pictures of all six landing sites. The pictures are at .5 m/pixel, show the landing sites and equipment very clearly, but the hoax folks insist it's all photoshop.
roamingcroat 11 months ago
@roamingcroat
Ah, but the hoaxtards will tell you that LRO was a NASA satellite, so of course its images cannot be trusted.
Quite how they explain the independent images gathered of the Apollo landing sites by the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission, still remains to be seen, two years after it was done.
GlowWorm1962 11 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 The Indians were paid off, you see. Or maybe they also needed U.S. wheat. Who knows.
Unfortunately, the hoax folks, who often insist that only a small number of people needed to know about the facts of the Apollo hoax, need to keep expanding their conspiracy to more and more people, including people at ISRO and ASU, in order for the conspiracy to be sustained. And yet they can't see how absurd that is.
roamingcroat 11 months ago
@roamingcroat
rofl yeh - they're like the anti-Copernican astronomers of yore, desperately trying to add epicycle after epicycle, to prove that everything revolves around the Earth.
In the end their bullshit collapsed under its own weight, just like the Apollo Hoax Conspiracy is doing now.
GlowWorm1962 11 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 There's a difference, though. Those astronomers were trying to explain what they saw using what was, after all, the best model they had available to them at the time. It's like the increasingly convoluted attempts to explain the atom using classical mechanics. But for both, when the weight of the evidence indicated their whole notion of the Universe was wrong, they learned/invented the new physics.
The hoaxers stick to their convoluted explanations and will never change.
roamingcroat 11 months ago
@protelboy
I see several people have answered... but I will add.
The LRO has imaged the moon to a 0.5 meter per pixel accuracy, several times over now.
watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
That video (best seen in 720p) shows several images of the Apollo 11 lander at different times of lunar day.
Will it end the argument, no. Conspiracy theories do not rely on evidence, or reason.
ytmoog 11 months ago
fuck nasa!
thedarkallies 1 year ago
@kipperwacker LOOK OUT! Here comes the NWO with FEMA death trains to take you to the FEMA death camps run by the Aliens who are really shaved BigFoot who where the ones on the grassy knoll that shot JFK!
Yeah, I think you need to come back to reality, that fear-monger bubble YOUR in can't be healthy.
BadBunnyRides 1 year ago
oh wow now moon hoax believers are trorist lol
mireltek 1 year ago
David Percy believe they landed on the Moon, so say Bad Astronomy ?.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
The hair helmet over heated is brain, Percy didn't think anyone would noticed that he darkened the photo. Percy's a smug little waste of food and air.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Liar!!!. The NASA official pics show the fall-out dimming light...like the "sun" concentrated on the astronauts and the LEM.
lonenut740 1 year ago
Please explain how the two men's shadows are pointing towards each other? Well, also, if anyone answers, throw in one also on WHY anyone would want to call the ML "hoax" if it wasn't?
nameofthepen 1 year ago
A very welcome video...but do try get your possessives right. It's "Percy's source", not "Percys source", etc.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
This proves nada. lol Moon hoax definitely, the US never ever in a million years go to the Moon...well maybe in a million years actually, but in no way shape of form did they perform it in in 1969. NASA: total fakers and liers.
komodoman 1 year ago
@komodoman
My grandfather shouted "fake!" too, when I showed him my first cellphone some years ago. I told him about GSM and stuff and he was anxious to know.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@komodoman You should definitely go watch the original photos and videos. You will be impressed as was I.
FrekeOne 1 year ago
im honestly looking at all these hoax vids and i'm trying to find some concrete evidence for hoax. i naturally ask and question everything, im a conspiracy theorist or whatever but i yet have to be presented with proof of hoax haha, i just cunt find it captain
envisionstar 1 year ago
The brighter surface is where the soil was flattened by the LM exhaust as it came in to land. A smoother surface is more reflective than a rough one.
davewatcher 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE I gladly say NO to delusion.
That's why I openly point out the flaws in the various Apollo hoax theories.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE sez:
"you are so in deniial.... god forgive you... hopefully."
Buahahaha! Going to hell because you believe man landed on the Moon and Gods a hoaxer.........okaaaay NASAvsPete, okaaaaay!....buahahaha!
teddysalad65 1 year ago
As idiotic as the CTs claims may be, and as dishonest as they often are, I don't think they deliberately altered anything here. They are simply confused by the fact that the published versions of this photo (Nat Geo, Life, etc) are all multi-generation analog copies with clipped dynamic range and extreme contrast, while the ALSJ version comes from a new digital scan that retains much more of the original information.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
That makes a lot of sense actually. The high contrast version does seem to be the one we see most often circulating around.
Boy75402 1 year ago
Conspiracy theorists hate and despise the thought that humanity could reach the moon, because they don't seem the slightest disappointed when they believe something was faked - they get this cheerful happy-looking face and totally smile their mouth off everytime they get the chance to present "faked footage".
I have to ask you something:
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE GREAT POSSIBILITY THAT MAN DID GO TO THE MOON?
Would you commit suicide if the moonlanding is true?
Is it that horrible?
Laurelindo 1 year ago 3
Dirty Dirty David:P
PandoraBox66 2 years ago
If you take a picture of yourself standing in the middle of a field lit by the sun it will be the same brightness all over if you over expose the picture darker areas will washed out, under expose the picture it gets darker the last areas to be dark will be the brightest if there is such an area which there can't be in a field or moon lit by the sun, this picture plainly shows a brighter area behind the astronaut over his left shoulder & ground behind him, your analysis shows & proves this fact.
jenleex 2 years ago
this is fricking terrible, its like people who make fake ufo vids, to prove that aliend dont exist!
excellent vid 5/5
TheeBaker 2 years ago 3
great video!
Decebal825 2 years ago 3
percey..wat a cunt that man is,just like sibrel,maipulating evidance to fit there warped goals i cant undertand there stupidity
cripplewoox 2 years ago
Great video. Music is somewhat annoying (IMHO) :-P
pjwarez 2 years ago
There should be a degree of falloff anyway.
All areas receive the same amount of light from the sun but the camera won't show this because the reflection angle is most efficient in the area of the subject. The background has a shallower reflection angle to the camera so it will appear slightly dimmer.
JMRAW11 2 years ago
Good video. Clear as daylight. But you know the conspiracists will still reject it.
WalterWabbit 2 years ago 3
Nice video 5 stars
good to see an educated video :)
Percy is a dick.
DavoPhillips 2 years ago 2
Good video. Just like others here I find it difficult to listen to that nutcase Percy, He's talking awful nonsense in such a way that my volume goes from 5 to 1 within seconds.
What a shame for the United Kingdom, this man.
Rob260259 2 years ago 3
Why would they fake the moon mission six times (and add a mission failure in Apollo 13?) Why not just fake Apollo 11, and be done with it?
toaadallo 2 years ago 3
im a Hoaxer as you claim the undesputed proof that we landed on the moon would have to be the stars it would be pretty much impossable to get every star perfect in a fake studio landing as astronomers could tell this to be fake
isnt it strange tis key proof is missing from all vids and pics including the flying to the moon pics. we have sent many unmaned probes to the moon and there pics contain clear stars due to no atmosphere on the moon strange huh?
xq914 2 years ago
Getting the stars right would be easy.Ever heard of a planetarium?
Besides Apollo 16 DID take pictures of stars, but in ultraviolet with a special camera.
You say that unmanned probes show stars. Examples please?
The real reason stars aren't shown is because the Apollo Hasselblad exposures are too low to show them. I have looked at day-side earth orbital shots, high altatude balloons and even newsreels of film from V2. None with similar exposure times to Apollo lunar photos show stars.
loperspest 2 years ago
Look, its this simple: If you believe they faked the moon landings then either A: You don't really think things through. Or B: You have a short attention span, probably dont finish what you start, will believe anything, and think you know a lot more than you actually do.
madbuzz90 2 years ago
ha haaa, i like it PMSL xD am gonna use this nxt time a hoaxer posts on any of my moon vids!!!
TheeBaker 2 years ago
Yep, 'ol percy was trying to make a few bucks, that's for sure. He's a liar and a charlatan.
stok3d99 2 years ago
Yep, Percy has about as much brains as Lord Chamberlain. When the bombs started falling on London at the beginning of WWII, I'm sure that Chamberlain was saying, "But, but I've got this piece of paper with Hitler's signature on it which says that there will be peace in our time!" Percy indeed is a charlatan.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
For some reason I feel stupid after seeing this... Just me? =/
HanSollo 2 years ago 3
I expected nothing less from another ct supporter!
Thanks
jmjmartin 2 years ago
Thank fuck! A video that shows that the moon hoax exponents are hoaxers themselves, I've alawys believed that they put men up there simply because the 'evidence'(facts) to support the landings so hugely outways the 'evidence'(bullshit) that says they didn't, a few photgraphic anomalies compared with e.g the over 40,000 people involved with Apollo and not one witness to say it was a hoax, or the independent observations of lunar approaches made by observatories around the world etc.
madbuzz90 2 years ago 7
@madbuzz90 i dont know if they went to the moon or not, but i know the images taken were faked. watch dark side of the moon documentary on google video. and how can u just dismiss photographic anomalies, lol. whens theres more then one "anomaly" its not a coincidence any more. heres some quick evidence, the cameras they used were not protected in any way, u can see that in thier pictures, the heat flashes from the sun would melt the film, where the coldness of the moon would crack the film.
jumppack1 1 year ago
@jumppack1
"...watch dark side of the moon documentary..."
Did you actually watch it?
I suggest you go back and look closer, especially at the end credits and bloopers.
You could also think on the initial date it was shown... April the 1st :)
ytmoog 1 year ago
@jumppack1
The film was in proteceted containers in the camera. If you use your line of "reasoning", you would have to claim that all photographs taken in space are faked (Soviet, American, lander, orbiter, etc).
You see, the people who actually engineered the moon landings are far smarter than you give them credit for.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402 actually the photos show the camera not protected by anything, and for the film to be protected inside the camera i dont think so. have you watched the doc that i suggested. the ppl who engineer fake events are far smarter then u give them credit for.
jumppack1 1 year ago
@jumppack1
Dear, when only uninformed and/or nutty people claim the Apollo landings were faked, it's very clear who isn't giving who credit. You're arguing based on wishful thinking and speculation. I build my argument on documented evidence from a variety of sources involving the efforts of hundreds of thousands. You may as well argue the Pyramids were made by aliens or that the Cold War was a lie.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402 im saying the pictures are faked, your argument is flawed, because if the pics are faked which i believe they are, then your believing something that is fake(the documented evidence). flags dont wavein space, theres really no argument for that, and i seen docs on why it was waving, explanation: he was wiggling it into the ground. almost believed that, until i saw the flag waving b4 being stuck into the ground.
jumppack1 11 months ago
@jumppack1
Well you know... it was being moved before it was stuck into the ground.... lol. It's not like it just popped into place without human intervention.
Do you have a better thought out argument?
Boy75402 11 months ago
@Boy75402 um, didnt really understand what u just wrote, maybe if you elaborate in a better sentance,that is my argument( flags should not wave on the moon), what was your reasoning for it being able to wave, was it "it was being moved before it was stuck into the ground.... lol." didnt quite understand your broken sentances. or better yet just reply with a reason for a flag waving, try to come up with good reasons, maybe theres something i dont know about flags.
jumppack1 10 months ago
@jumppack1
The flag was not waving.
You are misinterpreting, or misunderstanding, what you are seeing.
Boy75402 10 months ago
@Boy75402 if the flag wasnt waving, then what was happening?
jumppack1 9 months ago
@jumppack1
It was being set up by the astronauts?
Boy75402 9 months ago
@Boy75402 i dont know, or pretend to know the whole story, i just look at the evidence i can see, and see that it is not possible. so therefore i should not believe it, or pretend that its just some weird anomaly.
jumppack1 8 months ago
@jumppack1
You misinterpret the evidence, or have drawn the wrong conclusion from it.
Boy75402 8 months ago
@Boy75402 how would you interpret the evidence of video footage of a waving flag? is my conclusion wrong that there isnt wind on the moon?
jumppack1 8 months ago
@jumppack1 ...of course there is no wind, and that's because there's almost no atmosphere. That's why the flag keeps moving a long time after the astronaut touches it...there is no air friction ...and little gravity for that matter, to make it stop.
teddysalad65 8 months ago
@jumppack1
There is no footage of a flag waving in the wind. You're setting up a false dichotomy.
Boy75402 8 months ago
@jumppack1
I can think of several reasons in 8th grade science alone why a flimsy piece of cloth would move in a FRICTIONLESS environment. You cant think of even one? The question isnt why its moving, its since there's no friction, how would you stop it? Vibrations from the footsteps through the rigid flagpole. Residual torque from twisting it into the ground. Etc etc Without friction even the slightest touch would set it off moving for a long time.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse The flag would continue to move and I wouldn't doubt it, but explain why the sand didn't clear out of the way really easily when the Module landed or took off and left a sizable blast crater? If you look at the videos, it didn't, not even one on any of the so-called missions... Explain that? What about the stationary crosshairs on the pictures behind objects, do that supposed to happen? Or Obama not showing the pictures of Bin Laden, and throwing his body in the ocean?! Lmao!
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
When you see big "WHOOSHES" when rockets blast off, you're seeing two things: The thrust push against the air, and the air pushing out. Its the pressure of the moved air that makes the big billowing clouds. But on the moon there is no air. So no air = no pressure = no push = no big whooshes of dust and sand.
Crosshairs? Skinny dark lines against bright white? Its chemical film, not digital, remember? Chemicals bleed. Ever mess with developing film? Its a royal hassle.
SpeakerForBoskone 10 months ago
@SpeakerForBoskone So I guess when a meteor hit the moon no craters form. Or the footprint they left were fake too. How do we know that the entire universe is a complete vacuum, perhaps just outside of our planet just to help hold in our life support. Whatever they say we have to believe it, because we can't go and check, right? But there are ways of checking, you just have to get pass them first. No the lines didn't bleed, close ups shows that clearly. The government making mistakes? WOW...
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@SpeakerForBoskone Try using Chemical film in space and wonder why you cannot even get a picture that has not already been badly degraded by radiation particles entering the lens.
You cannot take a photo without opening the lens, thus exposing the film to radiation and destroying it.
Think the experts said a lot of these photos were taken using long exposure times..
Choosing facts that you no-about to try and get people on your side is what is called being bias.
Name calling is for kids
kevinturvy 10 months ago
@kevinturvy If chemical film didn't work in space, there would be no point to spy satellites. The radiation the film is exposed to when you open the lens, is called "light", and it is what the film is meant to record. There are other forms of radiation in space, but nearly all of it can be stopped by the spacecraft hull, the space suits, or even the epidermis of the astronauts. For some bizarre reason people think outer space is like sitting in the core of a reactor. It just isn't so.
Pygar2 9 months ago
@kevinturvy
"You cannot take a photo without opening the lens, thus exposing the film to radiation and destroying it."
The implications of this reach far beyond Apollo. At what point, would you say, do the images start becomming "real"? Post-Apollo? Mid-Shuttle? Or are *all* the images ever produced in space fake?
Boy75402 9 months ago
@Boy75402 Early space photos were taken with a chemical film via a telescope, digital cameras have been available to the public for around 30 years now... even back in 1986 you could buy a 1.3 megapixel digital camera if you could afford it.
Nasa space probes in the late 1960s were using digital imaging to map the moon, these images were then enhanced once they had been received back on earth.
Any photo taken on the moon was supposedly taken with a chemical film camera.. How did they do it
kevinturvy 9 months ago
@kevinturvy .NASA used a special camera and special film designed for use on the Moon. They were Hasselblad 500EL camera's that were insulated to keep them temperature controlled and sprayed with sliver paint for radiation protection. The film was designed for use on the Moon. It was a polyester film base topped with photosensitive emulsions layers made by Eastman Kodak. The film had a melting point of 490oF. The only part they brought back was the film case, all 12 camera's remain in the Moon.
teddysalad65 9 months ago 3
@kevinturvy
"How did they do it"
They aimed the camera and took a picture. After they were done with the camera, they took the film out and left the camera on the surface. You seem to be grosely overestimating the amount of radiation present in space.
Boy75402 9 months ago
@Boy75402 Amazing technological achievement, one could say a miracle.
i can see how it would be possible to transmit live images back from the moon, but i do not think those Photos were taken on the moon, i do not think any photographic images could have been taken on the moon.
I Am not overestimating the radiation levels, it has been proved that they underestimated the radiation levels by 30-40 percent, we now have a more accurate picture of the moons radiation than we had 40 years ago
kevinturvy 9 months ago
@kevinturvy
"Amazing technological achievement, one could say a miracle."
You know what they say about advanced technologies and micracles ; ).
"I Am not overestimating the radiation levels, it has been proved that they underestimated the radiation levels by 30-40 percent"
They measured the radiation before they ventured out into it, you know. Do you believe the Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, Zond, Luna, Surveyor, etc, etc images are all faked, too? Some of them used technology that was even worse.
Boy75402 9 months ago 3
@kevinturvy Fucking moron.
Go study basic photography and film, you uneducated jackass.
Evilmike42 8 months ago
@kevinturvy >"Think the experts said a lot of these photos were taken using long exposure times."<
_________________
Absolutely wrong, where did you get that information from? The intense brightness of the Moons surface meant extremely short exposure times. That's why you don't see stars in any of the pictures. The aperture was only open for about .002 seconds and the aperture cover was painted silver. Your insistence that radiation would have destroyed the film is simply misguided.
teddysalad65 9 months ago 7
@GUARDIANtrooper
Bin Laden was handled exactly the right way.
Give him a grave? Becomes a shrine for terrorists, and makes him a martyr to inspire more violence. Show the pics? Then they pop up on posters all over the arab world to inspire more violence. Bury him so fast? Thats islamic LAW. Have to bury within 24 hours. If we didnt do that, inspire more violence.
You just cant yell CONSPIRACY! and pretend to be clever. There's a million things you're not thinking of.
SpeakerForBoskone 10 months ago
@SpeakerForBoskone Bin Laden was dead in 2001 and he wasn't killed, DECLASSIFIED 8 times. The Ocean is his shrine, his home is his shrine, his country is his shrine. Revenge doesn't need a shrine, but no evidence will not wave off the skeptic, only blind fools... Don't show a picture and you won't have people saying it's doesn't match. They shot him? But they were trained to capture him not kill him. You actually think they would've got the guy that easily after nearly 10 years?! LMAO!!!!!!
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
Look below for answers to your questions, but did you really believe they had no answers? All 3 of your claims were old worn out cut and pastes from dork webpages that were laughed at 20 years ago or more. You could have answered all of them yourself with rudimentary googling. But you didnt, you read a dufus webpage and believed every word no questions asked. Was that the smartest thing you've ever done?
SpeakerForBoskone 10 months ago
@SpeakerForBoskone You look below if you want to evade the questions, I'm asking YOU not them. All those so-called answers from 20+ years ago are bogus enough to ask again and again until someone can give a reasonable answer and not NASA/government/google answers. Use your common sense and answer it without riding that pig. I don't deal with internet bullshit. Just because I agree with some views of Alex Jones doesn't make me a follower, it makes me a skeptic and aware of the bullshit around me.
GUARDIANtrooper 10 months ago
@jumppack1
Why would a flag not be able to move in a frictionless environment?
ytmoog 10 months ago
Even if you take "original" apollo photos of the Apollo lunar surface journal, there still are incoherences.
For the picture AS15-82-11057, the NASA has put in line two different pictures; one of them has been recorded on Wikimedia; the link which is given in the article has been destroyed by the NASA, because the NASA has put in line another version of this photo.
This latter contains a hidden proof much more embarrassing than the bad luminosity of the first version of this picture.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
NASA: "Surprisingly, the Moon is a moderately bright gamma-ray source. The only part of the electromagnetic spectrum where the Moon is brighter than the Sun is gamma rays." "The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares. When cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet, and trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!" HA!
operationnorthwoodz 2 years ago
The lighter areas are where the LM exhaust has blown smooth the surface. Check the high resolution image for yourself; the brighter areas have a different texture. Remember they were 'drifting to the right a little' prior to the landing. The position of the landing probe indicates that the LM must have hovered over that area prior to landing.
davewatcher 2 years ago
Jarrah has completely proven this video to be the complete rubbish it most certainly is.
See video response to see this users fraud of a video revealed as the horse manure that it certainly is!
un4g1v3n1 2 years ago
Yes, take a look at JW's response and ask yourself: "Why did he dismissed the JSC file (2:33 min) which is the only one available as unprocessed high-resolution scan".
Again, CT's are simply not honest.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago 14
No, you are not honest. Otherwise you would acknowledge the deception that JSC is attempting to thrust upon the public. I am old enough to remember the original in newspapers and magazines prior to Percy and others pointing out the fraud revealed by the fall off and hot spots of light. It wasn't until after that time that NASA began shuffling the file numbers of photos to make in hard for one to obtain the right photo. And then later the JSC scanning horse crap. NASA deceptions abound!
un4g1v3n1 2 years ago
What a refreshing change!
Love your video man.
I think you are wasting your time argueing with JW & his supporters.
jmjmartin 2 years ago
Would that be the same Jarrah that made a video trying to prove the moon's surface is not reflective?
The moon is almost a quarter of a million miles away, right? And with just reflected sunlight we can easily see it, sometimes during the day.
JW may be good at producing videos (Actually they are excellent!!!) but he knows naff all about basic physics.
jmjmartin 2 years ago
Jarrah never said that the surface of the moon is "non" reflective you moron... He's stated that the reflectivity of the moon is is "low".. From all the public data available the surface of the moon is about 7% reflective.., (about the same as a bitumen road)... Get your facts right Mr Basic Physicist .. !!! duhhh .. mmm you can see the moon easily, you sound like Palin taking about Russia...lol
ViperWK 2 years ago
Ok,
you and Mr Einstein-on-a-road tell me how the moon can reflect 244,000 miles with just 7% reflectivity, but apparently not illuminate an astronaut standing on it's surface DUMBASS!
jmjmartin 2 years ago
hmmm.. 1) Because the moon has no atmoshere more light reflects back .2) The moon has quite a large surface area (relative to us) and all of this total "combined light reflect's back in a greater quantity.. 3) The moon is very close to the earth. Astrontomy wise it's about as close as your dick is to your balls .(sorry for the vulgarity) . .4) Every vertically standing object on the moon had a distictive dark shadow behind it yet all the astronuats and Lem's didnt....Please explain Dumbass ???
ViperWK 2 years ago
Brilliantly put!
But you still believe Mr Jarrah's experiment replicates the Moons EXACT conditions with a lego model and a car head light!
Up against that kind of faith...
There isn't a human being alive who could convince you and your fellow worshippers this absurd experiment any validity at all.
I expected the vulgarity.
I'll explain dumbass when you've explained moron.
jmjmartin 2 years ago
I never once refererred to Jarrah's experiment . You really need to read the comment section more thoughly... What i said was that this is basic science mate.. The moon is big , the moon is close, thats why it appears bright to us on earth?? What more can I say... From your wimpery response you have still not provided an answer to my very simple question.. Feel free to make another huffed response and then dodge around the question again.. .. :-)
ViperWK 2 years ago
You agree then, that the moon still appears bright to us on earth, 244,000 miles away AND filtered through our polluted atmosphere.
Yet you refuse to believe there is enough ambiant and reflected light during lunar day on the moon's surface to add light to a photo taken there.
You rather believe the word of Dave Percy, because he points to anomolies that are seen in a few of the 'thousands' of photos taken on the Apollo missions.
Like I said...You've already made up your mind.
jmjmartin 2 years ago
@un4g1v3n1
Are you *still* lying?
Rob260259 1 year ago
"It is the conspiracy people who have the original untouched picture" - You must be joking.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago 5
I will never convince the 911 flat earth fake moon milli vanilli crowd otherwise but thank God you live in a country where such ignorance is tolerated. They would put you in jail in other places p.s. you will never convince me either except for the milli vanilli I always knew they were phonies. ashley simpson too OJ simpson too for that matter, and don't forget Lisa simpson she can't be that smart at age eight and how about Mona lisa she can't be so wise oh I m ramblim gotta go now
charliegoodboy 3 years ago 5
you conspiracy guys use technology today that would have been considered "magic" by serious scientists early in the last century yet you accuse great men of staging one of mankinds greatest acheivments.
is space shuttle fake? are cell phones fake? are antibiotics fake? how about the atom bomb, LEDs superalloys, ultrasound imagery. Just cause you couldn't build this stuff doesn't mean nobody could. tsk tsk tsk
charliegoodboy 3 years ago 2
Oh some guy with a british accent has a couple of beers then talks about something he obviously is uneducated about and unqualified to criticize...but he got some uneducated yanks to buy his tale tsk tsk tsk....study my friends and face it man has walked on the moon
yer right it is an awesome acheivement just like the atom bomb, digital communications cell phones modern medicine etc etc. we stand on the shoulders of giants!
charliegoodboy 3 years ago 2
but do any EDUCATED Americans believe these conspiracy theories? Don't let others do your thinking for you...research!
charliegoodboy 3 years ago 2
Did you know that the space shuttle is more complex than apollo by a factor of around 10...or is the space shuttle fake? the ISS fake? are cell phones fake? lasers? teflon? Hubble (built in the 1980s) conceived in the 1950s eh?
charliegoodboy 3 years ago 3
911 was definitely fake and a huge Govt cover up, so its not so difficult to believe that the Moon Landings were staged also.
Way back in 1969 sending men 260,000 miles up into space, having them land on the Moon, and return safely and the entire mission is executed with near perfect precision and success on the 1st attempt ?
HORSESHIT i dont believe it and neither do Millions of other Americans
AutoYorn1 3 years ago
I know what you mean. I have this big metal box on my desk that this spinning thing that kinda looks like a record player. "Scientists" tell me that this thing you can get for 50 bucks at best buy was this teeny tiny little laser that can scan these microscopic holes on a plastic disk, the disks supposedly have 30 billion of these little holes and a 50$ machine can scan them all with perfectly accuracy? HORSESHIT.
mmysama 3 years ago
You folks are typing on technology descended from the space program
charliegoodboy 3 years ago
having a British Accent but no science degree does not make you a space authority. The moon effort was monumental...so was the atomic bomb, or was that also fake? and 25 years earlier I might add, maybe the US had some talent? Hard to accept? eh?
charliegoodboy 3 years ago
well, that talent was shipped in thanks to president truman ;) Project paperclip !
Milanotjuh 3 years ago
The reason the moon landing project went on, was so the government could syphon off $40 billion to vietnam and south america for the CIA's little corporate interests, while only spending a few million at a Disney studio to pull off the moon stunt. The reason why people are trying to wake the sheep up is because they are planning to do the same thing with Mars - but with better technology so you won't know.
herculese220 3 years ago
What about the fact that the photographer is either on a step-ladder, or the camera is on a face level tripod, and NOT strapped to the chest of the guy taking the picture? Honestly you hoax-debunker disinfo guys are getting tedious, isn't the government paying you enough.
herculese220 3 years ago
Can you provide any reliable source, please, because there is simply ZERO evidence for you claims...
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
Hahaha.......you're insane, this is old news now. The moon landing pictures and videos we're thoroughly proved fake in the early 90's, nasa even admitted they staged the actual landing. The evidence is all out there, I'm not gathering it for you, it's a closed case long ago for me. But if you're interested in the truth start with a book 'NASA Mooned America' by Ralph Rene. 100% of the evidence you need.
herculese220 3 years ago
Ralph Rene was not a reliable source but an old guy that didn't understood what he was talking about. Any (comparably stupid) source for your claim that "in the early 90's, nasa even admitted they staged the actual landing."?
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
Hahaha, you're persistent, you must be getting payed or you wouldn't engage in this. When a leaf-blower which puts out 0.5 p.s.i. is put against the ground (dry soil/gravel), it blasts out a 12inch hole. The LEM (landing module) weighed 17 tons and required 10.5 THOUSAND POUNDS of thrust, which blew out of the engine shroud, why do you suppose in the landing picture there is not even a sign of blown away dust under it? That is why nasa had to admit the landing pictures we're faked, SCIENCE.
herculese220 3 years ago
You are spreading BS without being able to provide any references, just like Mr. D.P. in the above video...
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
So if you are gonna engage seriously do your history, they had to admit it at the time, they had no choice, but like in Orwell's 1984 they re-write the past to suit the future. And don't just try and undermine sources without your evidence. Rene, was a highly regarded author, a Mensa member, an inventer with at least two patents and he designed experiments.
herculese220 3 years ago
So you agree on R.R.'s claims that: 1. Einstein's Theory of relativity is not valid, 2. That the Earth has no Equatorial bulge, 3. That Newton's law of universal gravitation is erroneous, 4. That Pi does not equal 3.1415926. BTW., R.R. was NEVER a Mensa member but tried to publish a book called "MENSA Lectures" (The Last Skeptic Of Science) resulting in a lawsuit against him by MENSA who felt he was misappropriating their name and using it to suggest they backed his stupid beliefs.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
If you understood the scale of the agenda, you would see why, 'they' will go to any and all lengths to ridicule anyone who dissents.
herculese220 3 years ago
As usually I only see that moon hoax CT's go to any and all length to ridicule themselves.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
Go on then, go on blindly believing that your government is spending an awful lot of money trying to send you to space, while they syphon off all the federal reserve bailouts to offshore, and send all the industry to China, and while they turn your country into a concentration camp,(YOUTUBE - FEMA coffins and fema camps). What do you think they'll release? Nerve agent or virus? UNITED NATIONS agenda 21- global population reduction of 95%. timeline imminent.
herculese220 3 years ago
By the way I'm not a conspiracy theorist, that is a term introduced by the establishment as a flash-word. Which means as soon as it is said, all information pertaining to it is instantly dismissed. I studied mind-control techniques, as developed and perfected at the Tavistock Institute for ten years in naval intelligence.
herculese220 3 years ago
No they're not crazy .....
obergsson 3 years ago
CT's are liars.
TheObjectiveObserver 3 years ago
CT's are watching the world around them unfold exactly as they expect because they study what is written. You are what we refer to as the walking dead, and you won't know what's happening until it's too late. We on the other hand will be miles away.
herculese220 3 years ago
'and the difference in light intensities is caused by the lack of surface shadows in the distant areas...'
Is it?
Thats a new one to me because according to *official* debunker Phil Plaits Bad Astronomy site its meant to be
"heiligenschein (the German word for halo)"
Would you care to elaborate please and thank you for accepting my response.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
I'm afraid it not am (and you know that) and you should be paying particular attention to point the larger Sun? becomes obscured by the Apollo helmet visor viewpoint door for undeniable proof that they are two seperate light sources.
Plus also the obvious change in angle when the actor-not turns to face the 16 mm camera. The smaller reflection would have shifted behind (from the fov of the camera) the larger reflection if it was caused by multiple layers.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Good!
Can you say, "vignetting?" :))
LunarTuner 3 years ago
Please compare the public, free, open to all, heavily processed 46k file we both agree to be present on ALSJ in 1997 (Wayback machine) to Percys source and tell me you would choose his to make your research? - Only if you don't understand anything about photography or are extremley keen on spotting spotlights.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
I checked that again and you are right: The oldest HR file of AS11-40-5903 is linked from the Dec 06, 1998 ALSJ archive but relates to a file from 2000 and the link is added to the info (but I gues you knew this one).
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
"he just use what NASA give him back then"?
Almost every copy of AS11-40-5903 is better than Percys ridiculous source (1998 < 2000). If a researcher (of course he is not!) has bad quality data he won't expect anything other than stupid results from their analysis. Only a con-man would try to convince you otherwise.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
amontaiyagala hello.
Did you receive the video I posted as a response to this?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Sure, sorry for the approval stuff... that was not intended (have changed it). You're free to respond whatever you want (I may delete afterwards...), Greetings, AY.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
Nice idea, but did you even care to take a look yourself? HR files comparable to the current file were present on ALSJ since 1998.
BTW, if an "expert" receives low quality data he does not promote his "analysis" to reveal anything but low quality data... I see only two possibilities: a total nut or plain lie.
Whats's your choice?
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
'I see only two possibilities: a total nut or plain lie.
Whats's your choice?'
No actually. The only possibiltiy is a spotlight creating a hot spot and a fall off. Please see the video I just responded with from Apollo 14 where this effect can be clearly seen.
Thank you.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Do you see a hotspot or fall-off area in the unprocessed JSC AS11-40-5903 file?
Your AS14 reply? the visor reflection is due to multple layers (and you know that!) and the difference in light intensities is caused by the lack of surface shadows in the distant areas...
Always the same game: Once the visor reflections have been inserted later (by evil NASA demons of course) but then they proof multiple light sources (don't talk about shadows)... CT's choose whatever pleases their ideology.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
The ALSJ pictures are not "originals". They are (a) histogram-corrected and in some instances (b) Photoshopped. GRIN pictures are even worse, with blatant cases of (bad) Photoshopping.
Fiddling with gamma or constrast values won't make a fall-off appear where there is none.
The average albedo of lunar regolith is around 10±2% plus specular and zero phase angle retroreflection.
It appears much whiter on NASA photos because those have been curve-pushed to conceal non-uniform lighting.
guillaumedock 3 years ago
What the heck are you talking about ? What do you mean you can't create falloff by "fiddling" with the contrast ?
I verified what amontaiyagala did, using a different software, and I only increased the contrast by a 100 percent, getting a very convincing result. If you don't believe me, then I suggest you do the same.
I even went a step further and adjusted the hue settings:
img253(dot)imageshack(dot)us/img253/1558/as11405903editedhj7(dot)jpg
lightningstrike92 3 years ago
> What do you mean you can't create falloff by "fiddling" with the contrast ?
It means that a global function that depends only on pixel values won't create non-uniformities where there are none.
guillaumedock 3 years ago
Well, well, look what I found. Increasing the contrast seems to be a destructive process. In other words, once you have created a falloff by increasing the contrast, you cannot reverse the process.
If you lower the contrast of the edited image back, then it will look nothing like the JSC original. Thus you can create an artificial falloff, but you can't get rid of an existing one.
Which means that the original NASA photos could not have had a falloff. And Percy is a fraud once again.
lightningstrike92 3 years ago
"It means that a global function that depends only on pixel values won't create non-uniformities where there are none."
Well, that's what I did, I created a falloff where there was none. But I couldn't reverse the process. Have you seen my image ?
I would appreciate it if you confirmed what I did with the JSC image. If you think I'm wrong, then could you curve-push Percy's image and make it look like NASA's ?
lightningstrike92 3 years ago
And no one said the ALSJ picture was original. The JSC one is.
"3. unmodified high resolution scans of original film from the Image Science and Analysis Laboratory (JSC):"
Did you even bother watching the whole video ?
Here's the link again, I think it wasn't posted properly. I used the JSC image btw.
img253(dot)imageshack(dot)us/img253/1558/as11405903editedhj7(dot)jpg
lightningstrike92 3 years ago
Thanks for the image. That's very close to Percys source.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
Interestingly, Percy's wikipedia entry seems to have vanished. I find hard it to believe he was lying about deliberately manipulating his material though. I think its more likley he as lying about his credentials and was using copies of the pics he simply didn't understand.
I mean, how many photo experts don't understand the principal of indirect lighting?
Apogee02UK 3 years ago
Excellent work! If David Percy truly knows anything about Photography, he is lying about his alleged analysis.
satweavers 3 years ago