So the whole Moon-business is now a matter of faith then??
And if not...To this date nobody has explained (see also post under "we choose the moon") why oh why is Neil Armstrong transparent most of the time in the original footage...and the moving shadows under and beyond the LEM when Neil takes his first steps from the ladder, away from the LEM and back....Busy Buzzie is still in the LEM...so it can't be him....so who or what is creating the moving shadows under and beyond the LEM during Neil's first steps...?????
If the Apollo 11 mission was faked (to cover up the real stuff and landings on the moon par example) then why bother to defend it...??
I think one would have to invalidate Jay's contention about the uniform focus in the lunar surface photos, similar to the landscapes of the ape scenes in Kubrick's "2001." That's a real problem for Hoagland's theory I think.
Okay. The uniform focus, then I would say that the surface texture shift (which I can definitely see) beyond his imaginary lines would be the next problem for Hoagland's theory. If that can also be explained without a Kubrick stage, then I'm satisfied in being skeptical of Jay's theory.
Furthermore, as an aside, I think Jay is reaching a bit by comparing the artifacts in the sky above the astronauts to the patterns visible above the apes. However, I was a little taken aback when the patterns above the apes reminded me of some of the patterns painted into the lunar sky by Alan Bean. Everybody look at his paintings again before running with that comparison though! The similarity is not perfect!
I can understand where the "moon landing was a hoax" crowd gets their juice from some of these photos.
Unfortunately those folks are afraid to look at the bigger picture. If they could accept that we did indeed go to the moon, they're still left holding a bag of tampered photos and a big WHY. Then they would have no choice but to order up a copy of Dark Mission.
I guess this comment would explain the documentary:
"Opération Lune as it's called originaly aired as a mockumentary. This is a a comedy by director William Karel. I saw this doc on dutch tv some years ago and it fooled me at the moment :D. But it's fake, and it's a very good example to show how easily it is to make people think something is true with good editing. more info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)"
How'd the producer get all these folks to participate in this, or was it just very clever editing!?
At first I said to myself...wow...interesting stuff...but after I read it and examined every photo....nah.... 1. Not one photo from 2001 presented in that article DO NOT match with any photo's of Hoagland.
The sky did not match on 2001 vs Hoagland's processed Apollo shots
The whole 'yes we went there/no we didn't' thing is a distraction-ploy-- a cat's-paw-- and a perfect example of how disinfo is used to play a kind of shell-game with everyone's attention. When people start noticing lunar anomalies, the ready-made 'it was all a fake' argument can be trotted out to bog everybody down. The fake lunar landing position doesn't have to be 100 percent fool-proof as an argument, either. In fact, it is very useful if it seems almost-but-not-quite true. The (built in) slippage will cause a lot of back-and-forth argument, as well as a mountain of wasted time digging for (nonexistent) evidence and/or engaging in convoluted extrapolation (i.e., jumping to unwarranted conclusions just because they are attractive), with vehemently-held opinions neatly distracting everyone from the real issue-- lunar anomalies.
Lunar anomalies *do* exist, and *that* is the big problem for the folks who want to keep a lid on things. To this day, 'anomalous lunar lights' are still observed by both professional and amateur astronomers alike, though one doesn't hear anything about this in the mainstream media sources.
It is also very interesting to me that serious lunar observation gets buried in astronomy club newsletters and not-widely-read astronomy journals, while mostly-supposition 'Oh Yeah Kubrick Did It' rumor-mongering abounds in media and on the Internet. While media talking heads and publications apparently dis the idea that the lunar landings were faked, they are in fact planting that very meme in people's heads, and I think this is the primary intention of the 'apparently backhand' coverage. The story is given just enough of a flesh-out to be semi-plausible and nicely seeded, and then the squabbling starts, which is the whole purpose of the exercise.
I will say it again-- people need to not allow themselves to be distracted from the fact that there's a lot of anomalous stuff that's been observed on/in/around our Moon...
I was thinking about the lunar light phenomenon just the other day.
One wonders where those people go when all this bru-haha gets going.
As for myself, I've merely been playing the smarty-kat (...just read my posts...)....
< o || (= o-)p < o ||
I ran the lunar-orbit-rendezvouz calculations myself many years ago, and I *KNOW* we went to the Moon. (But, naturally, you tell that to people, and they don't listen.)
I've been appalled at the emergence of this "We never went" mantra. I mean, what ever happened to education in this country?
:-)
Hathor -- Applauding The Tigress!
;-))
P.S.: I'll say one thing---a good squabble gets the Big Kat juices flowing! :-))
Jay wasn't talking about atmospheric distortion. He was talking about the depth of field of the camera lens. If he is correct about the lenses used in the Apollo cameras, then he is right in that they cannot resolve nearby objects and far away objects in sharp focus simultaneously.
At first, I thought Jay had discovered the first serious evidence of a hoaxed Apollo.
However, if one actually looks at the high res scans of the Apollo EVA photography available on various archive sites, one will see his claim is false. There is plenty of blurriness in the images.
I think the guy is on to something. But the question is : What exactly IS in room 237 ? I say room 237 a metaphor for what the astronauts really found : The remains of a once beautiful but now dead civilization. Judging by what happenes to Danny afterwards, it must have really screwed them up.
WOWOW!
ReplyDeleteVery plausible & extremely compelling.
Does this mean the glass ruins have never been photographed? Or even that thy do not exist?
ReplyDeletePut not thy faith in men, thy trust in princes...
Only if you believe Jay is right. I don't.
ReplyDeleteYo Mike...
ReplyDeleteSo the whole Moon-business is now a matter of faith then??
And if not...To this date nobody has explained (see also post under "we choose the moon") why oh why is Neil Armstrong transparent most of the time in the original footage...and the moving shadows under and beyond the LEM when Neil takes his first steps from the ladder, away from the LEM and back....Busy Buzzie is still in the LEM...so it can't be him....so who or what is creating the moving shadows under and beyond the LEM during Neil's first steps...?????
If the Apollo 11 mission was faked (to cover up the real stuff and landings on the moon par example) then why bother to defend it...??
Right now, I'm betting on a mixture/fusion of sorts between Jay's and RCH's theories.
ReplyDeleteGonna be interesting to see how this all plays out... :-)
I don't think we're going to have to 'believe' much longer.
Soon, we'll know.
I think one would have to invalidate Jay's contention about the uniform focus in the lunar surface photos, similar to the landscapes of the ape scenes in Kubrick's "2001." That's a real problem for Hoagland's theory I think.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually the easy part.
ReplyDeleteTHAT DOES IT!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to the Moon
to see for myself!!!!!
I'll let you know what I found
when I get back!!!!!
:-)
Hathor -- Fed up with it all!!!!!
;-)
P.S.: Aw hell. I have to hitch a ride with an
Alien.
Never a darned Zeta Scout around when you
need one....
:-))))
Okay. The uniform focus, then I would say that the surface texture shift (which I can definitely see) beyond his imaginary lines would be the next problem for Hoagland's theory. If that can also be explained without a Kubrick stage, then I'm satisfied in being skeptical of Jay's theory.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, as an aside, I think Jay is reaching a bit by comparing the artifacts in the sky above the astronauts to the patterns visible above the apes. However, I was a little taken aback when the patterns above the apes reminded me of some of the patterns painted into the lunar sky by Alan Bean. Everybody look at his paintings again before running with that comparison though! The similarity is not perfect!
I can understand where the "moon landing was a hoax" crowd gets their juice from some of these photos.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately those folks are afraid to look at the bigger picture. If they could accept that we did indeed go to the moon, they're still left holding a bag of tampered photos and a big WHY. Then they would have no choice but to order up a copy of Dark Mission.
Mike Bara said:
ReplyDeleteThat's actually the easy part.
I am curious. How can you do it?
I guess this comment would explain the documentary:
ReplyDelete"Opération Lune as it's called originaly aired as a mockumentary. This is a a comedy by director William Karel. I saw this doc on dutch tv some years ago and it fooled me at the moment :D. But it's fake, and it's a very good example to show how easily it is to make people think something is true with good editing. more info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)"
How'd the producer get all these folks to participate in this, or was it just very clever editing!?
Hi Mike!
ReplyDeleteAt first I said to myself...wow...interesting stuff...but after I read it and examined every photo....nah....
1. Not one photo from 2001 presented in that article DO NOT match with any photo's of Hoagland.
The sky did not match on 2001 vs Hoagland's processed Apollo shots
The patterns are different!!!
Not even close!
Good going, Sphinx!
ReplyDelete"The Devil's in the details!"
:-)
Hathor -- picking the nits
;-)
P.S.: Uh-oh...maybe it was just a different
stitch-up???
:-))))
Hello Mike,
ReplyDeleteLove the "new" cover to the revised edition ;)
Does Richard know Bob Dean? Apparently he's got some pretty interesting original photos from the Apollo 11 mission... just sayin'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UvWGZMMINE (last couple of minutes)
The whole 'yes we went there/no we didn't' thing is a distraction-ploy-- a cat's-paw-- and a perfect example of how disinfo is used to play a kind of shell-game with everyone's attention. When people start noticing lunar anomalies, the ready-made 'it was all a fake' argument can be trotted out to bog everybody down. The fake lunar landing position doesn't have to be 100 percent fool-proof as an argument, either. In fact, it is very useful if it seems almost-but-not-quite true. The (built in) slippage will cause a lot of back-and-forth argument, as well as a mountain of wasted time digging for (nonexistent) evidence and/or engaging in convoluted extrapolation (i.e., jumping to unwarranted conclusions just because they are attractive), with vehemently-held opinions neatly distracting everyone from the real issue-- lunar anomalies.
ReplyDeleteLunar anomalies *do* exist, and *that* is the big problem for the folks who want to keep a lid on things. To this day, 'anomalous lunar lights' are still observed by both professional and amateur astronomers alike, though one doesn't hear anything about this in the mainstream media sources.
It is also very interesting to me that serious lunar observation gets buried in astronomy club newsletters and not-widely-read astronomy journals, while mostly-supposition 'Oh Yeah Kubrick Did It' rumor-mongering abounds in media and on the Internet. While media talking heads and publications apparently dis the idea that the lunar landings were faked, they are in fact planting that very meme in people's heads, and I think this is the primary intention of the 'apparently backhand' coverage. The story is given just enough of a flesh-out to be semi-plausible and nicely seeded, and then the squabbling starts, which is the whole purpose of the exercise.
I will say it again-- people need to not allow themselves to be distracted from the fact that there's a lot of anomalous stuff that's been observed on/in/around our Moon...
Peace,
T'Zairis
Richard and I both know Bob, one of the sweetest, most generous men on the planet.
ReplyDeleteWell said, T'Zairis!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about the
lunar light phenomenon just the other day.
One wonders where those people go when all
this bru-haha gets going.
As for myself, I've merely been playing the
smarty-kat (...just read my posts...)....
< o ||
(= o-)p
< o ||
I ran the lunar-orbit-rendezvouz calculations
myself many years ago, and I *KNOW* we went
to the Moon. (But, naturally, you tell that to
people, and they don't listen.)
I've been appalled at the emergence of this
"We never went" mantra. I mean, what ever
happened to education in this country?
:-)
Hathor -- Applauding The Tigress!
;-))
P.S.: I'll say one thing---a good squabble
gets the Big Kat juices flowing! :-))
:-))))
Jay wasn't talking about atmospheric distortion. He was talking about the depth of field of the camera lens. If he is correct about the lenses used in the Apollo cameras, then he is right in that they cannot resolve nearby objects and far away objects in sharp focus simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I thought Jay had discovered the first serious evidence of a hoaxed Apollo.
However, if one actually looks at the high res scans of the Apollo EVA photography available on various archive sites, one will see his claim is false. There is plenty of blurriness in the images.
Here are a couple examples:
AS17-146-22401
AS17-134-20471
His claim of everything being in sharp focus simply isn't true. The images he used to support his hypothesis were too small to judge.
RE : Jay Weidner
ReplyDeleteI think the guy is on to something. But the question is : What exactly IS in room 237 ? I say room 237 a metaphor for what the astronauts really found : The remains of a once beautiful but now dead civilization. Judging by what happenes to Danny afterwards, it must have really screwed them up.