The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Pythagoras on February 16, 2013, 10:29:18 AM
-
this is one of the more famous pictures of the Apollo 11 landings. now most FErs seem to be experts in spotting Photoshoped photos, edited or just plane faked.
so hear is your chance.
please for the moment don't debate bash or argue about each others answers. i would just like you to simply put yes or no you think something is wrong and what about the photo is photoshoped edited or wrong etc. we will debate each others answers tomorrow after we get a few answers in.
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9486/news121310j.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/507/news121310j.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/as1140586369.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/as1140586369.jpg/)
this is a much bigger photo for you to have a close up proper look at in more detail.
P.S RErs join in as well
-
Where is this headed? We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.
-
Where is this headed? We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.
Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.
-
im just trying to gauge people perceptions of what they think is fake and what isnt its only one photo dont take part if you dont want to.
-
First of all, the Sun has a halo.
-
Where is this headed? We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.
Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.
I don't see any reason to believe that there would be detectable flaws in every single picture NASA fakes.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I don't think I can pinpoint any specific flaws in that picture.
-
Secondly, the lunar lander looks like it's collapsing due to the dummy or real person in a suit laid on it.
-
How can a camera with no filter on it, take a picture of direct sun and also get in a crisp shot of the lander and it's surroundings that should be in shadow.
The dummy or astronaut should be in dark shadow, yet explain the camera and direct sun?
-
First of all, the Sun has a halo.
Yes, yes it does.
Secondly, the lunar lander looks like it's collapsing due to the dummy or real person in a suit laid on it.
Not really.
How can a camera with no filter on it
What? Oh YEAH I forgot you were there on the moon with them and saw the camera they used.
-
First of all, the Sun has a halo.
Yes, yes it does.
Secondly, the lunar lander looks like it's collapsing due to the dummy or real person in a suit laid on it.
Not really.
How can a camera with no filter on it
What? Oh YEAH I forgot you were there on the moon with them and saw the camera they used.
Clearly stumped for answers. ...verdict. Bullshit. :)
-
I can't hear "is your chance" >:.
-
I can't hear "is your chance" >:.
Come now Genius, you should have noticed by now that Pythagoras' spelling and choice of word forms based on grammatical context is poor. Generally its still clear enough that you know what he meant. I don't think poking at grammatical errors has anything to do with a flat or round earth.
-
I can't hear "is your chance" >:.
Come now Genius, you should have noticed by now that Pythagoras' spelling and choice of word forms based on grammatical context is poor. Generally its still clear enough that you know what he meant. I don't think poking at grammatical errors has anything to do with a flat or round earth.
Sorry, it usually doesn't bother me but this did, considerably more than it should have, perhaps.
-
Skepti, here is a picture I took with a cheap camera.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/320256_207175666010895_1724460_n.jpg)
Notice how you are able to see the trees? the rock? Notice how they are not in "dark shadow"? (Blurry because focus was on trees)
All your points are moot. Please try to reply to content you are educated on. It clutters up the threads to correct your lack of understanding. As Saddam Hussein posted earlier, there is no apparent flaw/tampering with this picture.
-
I can't tell if this image is altered or not. That's the thing with advanced photo editing software. It looks like an unaltered image of a lander in a Nevada studio to me, but I can't tell how or if NASA or their ilk may have edited it.
-
You make a good point, Pongo. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't this picture taken during the first moon landing? If so, I don't think they had editing software back then.
-
I can't tell if this image is altered or not. That's the thing with advanced photo editing software. It looks like an unaltered image of a lander in a Nevada studio to me, but I can't tell how or if NASA or their ilk may have edited it.
Also on earth the air diffuses the light.
-
You make a good point, Pongo. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't this picture taken during the first moon landing? If so, I don't think they had editing software back then.
The public certainly didn't.
-
Skepti, here is a picture I took with a cheap camera.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/320256_207175666010895_1724460_n.jpg)
Notice how you are able to see the trees? the rock? Notice how they are not in "dark shadow"? (Blurry because focus was on trees)
All your points are moot. Please try to reply to content you are educated on. It clutters up the threads to correct your lack of understanding. As Saddam Hussein posted earlier, there is no apparent flaw/tampering with this picture.
Ok, then. Explain the halo in the fake lander picture Thaggy put up.
-
well im going to jump in hear and put you all out of your misery.
It isnt a single photo. its a mosaic of photos taken from a few different photos. how did no one see this? its quite obvious once you look closely at the photo. but no one noticed this? ??? also the sun isnt the sun at all its completely painted into the photo. a photo of the sun was never taken in the original mosaic. the dish on top of the lander is also photo shopped in yet no one noticed this either? ??? the photo has been reshaped and some parts are from completely different missions. yet no one noticed any of this. wow :o
(http://)
this video explains it all in more detail and more tactfully than i can. in fact all his videos are all quite revealing. he unlike a conspiricy nuts has actually done some quite deep research to counter stupid arguments put forward by the conspiracy nuts. i encorage you to watch all his videos to get both sides of the argument but in regards to this photo jump to 2.34.
strange seeing as you FErs are experts at finding photohsoped items in photos that no one saw any of this. very reviling realy.
-
well im going to jump in hear and put you all out of your misery.
It isnt a single photo. its a mosaic of photos taken from a few different photos. how did no one see this? its quite obvious once you look closely at the photo. but no one noticed this? ??? also the sun isnt the sun at all its completely painted into the photo. a photo of the sun was never taken in the original mosaic. the dish on top of the lander is also photo shopped in yet no one noticed this either? ??? the photo has been reshaped and some parts are from completely different missions. yet no one noticed any of this. wow :o
(http://)
this video explains it all in more detail and more tactfully than i can. in fact all his videos are all quite revealing. he unlike a conspiricy nuts has actually done some quite deep research to counter stupid arguments put forward by the conspiracy nuts. i encorage you to watch all his videos to get both sides of the argument but in regards to this photo jump to 2.34.
strange seeing as you FErs are experts at finding photohsoped items in photos that no one saw any of this. very reviling realy.
So you just proved it is photoshopped.
And therefore just added more evidence to the FE side, that even when we can't find that something is shopped ourselves, it doesn't matter. If it conflicts with a flat earth, something is wrong, even if we can't immediately spot what it is.
We shall have to use this thread in future as an example that Flat Earth Theory is sound and even when we can't immediately say why something is wrong, it will always turn out to be that way because the earth is not a ball.
-
no this photo is edited for publication as all photos are by publishers. if you go to the actual source ALSJ and not a third party you will see it is said to be a edited composite. but all the originals are available on the AlSJ official archive website. if people used this as their source instead of 3rd party websites we wouldn't have half the problems you people bring up.
also how did no FEre see any of the actual edited parts of the photo I.E all of it but find things wrong that are actually right?
so nice try thork but no cookie for you
i realy to insist people go to the ALSJ site it relay is fascinating the amount of detail their record keeping went. its astounding it relay is. not just photos but technical data flight paths schematics and voice data transcripts.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html)
they hide nothing about the editing done to photos they publish and always provide original scans of the negatives. does this seam like deception to you?
-
So what was the point of this thread again?
-
That FErs can't spot photoshop. Quite evident as I have shown. And they realy need to stop using 3rd party pictures or ones thst can clearly be found to be edited if you actualy get the picture from the source to try and prove the moon landings were a hoax .You are quite slow aren't you sadam.
-
well im going to jump in hear and put you all out of your misery.
It isnt a single photo. its a mosaic of photos taken from a few different photos. how did no one see this? its quite obvious once you look closely at the photo. but no one noticed this? ??? also the sun isnt the sun at all its completely painted into the photo. a photo of the sun was never taken in the original mosaic. the dish on top of the lander is also photo shopped in yet no one noticed this either? ??? the photo has been reshaped and some parts are from completely different missions. yet no one noticed any of this. wow :o
(http://)
this video explains it all in more detail and more tactfully than i can. in fact all his videos are all quite revealing. he unlike a conspiricy nuts has actually done some quite deep research to counter stupid arguments put forward by the conspiracy nuts. i encorage you to watch all his videos to get both sides of the argument but in regards to this photo jump to 2.34.
strange seeing as you FErs are experts at finding photohsoped items in photos that no one saw any of this. very reviling realy.
What's your point here?
-
I'm loving how iv proved FErs can actualy tell a photoshopped picture so all of u sudden they are like " uhhhh what u on about" " what's the point of this" lol when you can't anserw act dumbfounded an scratch head lol
-
I'm loving how iv proved FErs can actualy tell a photoshopped picture so all of u sudden they are like " uhhhh what u on about" " what's the point of this" lol when you can't anserw act dumbfounded an scratch head lol
There's millions of photo shopped pictures out there, that are portrayed as legitimate and this particular one you put up, looks not much different than all the other clap trap put up that's supposedly legitimate.
-
Pythagoras, you're missing a subtle but key difference. We, nor anyone, can spot a flawlessly photoshopped image, but it's not the photoshopping that we notice that makes us believe its fake, it's the content. If you saw a flawlessly photoshopped image of a man sitting at his desk in a pool of lava, would assume its real because no one could spot a single photoshop error? Of course not, you would think its photoshopped because of the content.
-
this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.
im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.
il use an example provided by sceptic himself.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRer-vm3K9Jtok2_hj_WXKptvAdjVwZADk7nAsBj8FGHOBJhj-Y8A)
This.
real unedited photo
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg)
he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is not even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.
-
this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.
im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.
il use an example provided by sceptic himself.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRer-vm3K9Jtok2_hj_WXKptvAdjVwZADk7nAsBj8FGHOBJhj-Y8A)
This.
real unedited photo
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg)
he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is noe even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.
The unedited photo does have lighting from below due to reflected sunlight so some upward cast shadows are visible.
-
yes indeed it does. it is where sunlight reflects of the surface and back up. this is also why when in shadows they can still be seen and not in total blackens like the conspiracy nuts claim.
-
Where is this headed? We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.
Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.
You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.
To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.
-
Where is this headed? We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.
Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.
You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.
To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.
Isn't all proof against the moon landing confined to Apollo 11? What about the other missions to the moon? Three other Apollo missions, 4 Luna Missions the surveyor missions. All these must be refuted as well.
As a side note, to say that an accurate measurement of a neutrino traveling FTL would "disprove Einstein" is a bit dramatic. It -may- show flaws in -some- of Einstein's work but remember, he did not even win his Nobel Proze for his work on relativistic models. His contributions to physics are substantial.
-
Where is this headed? We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.
Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.
You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.
To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.
Isn't all proof against the moon landing confined to Apollo 11? What about the other missions to the moon? Three other Apollo missions, 4 Luna Missions the surveyor missions. All these must be refuted as well.
As a side note, to say that an accurate measurement of a neutrino traveling FTL would "disprove Einstein" is a bit dramatic. It -may- show flaws in -some- of Einstein's work but remember, he did not even win his Nobel Proze for his work on relativistic models. His contributions to physics are substantial.
Oh, you know what I mean. It wouldn't disprove Einstein's contributions to Atomic Theory, for instance. That would be silly. I'm referring to relativity, as it rather relies on the cosmic speed limit. I didn't feel the need to clarify that, as it seemed rather obvious.
Anyway, Apollo 11 is the most well documented moon landing, and also when NASA was least experienced at faking them. Therefore, we're more likely to find issues. And let's be honest here. If they faked one mission, why would they not have faked the others?
-
but everything you find wrong with it can be easily explained mostly by the claimer not knowing what they are talking about. e.g why are their not any stars in the pictures.
this is easily explainable by the fact that their should not be any because of the exposure settings.
-
Thaggy:
You say that N.A.S.A stitched various images together from different missions and added some stuff in, I have one question, plus an observation.
Question:
Why would N.A.S.A stitch together photos into one? For what reason?
Observation:
I cannot see any stitching in that photo and I've magnified it. It simply looks like the fake image it is, which is an image that's taken in a studio with a big silly spot light in the background that's supposed to be the Sun.
Normally it's easy to see stitched images but you cannot see any at all in this.
-
watch the video i posted it shows where the stitching is. also look at the crosses embedded in the photo they help.its is done because using this method not a single photo can get the whole thing in the shot from where he was standing. but if he moved back then he would have got less detail in the shot i would have assumed quite simple relay. go on the ALSJ website and you can see the original photos used to create the mosaic.
-
this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.
im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.
il use an example provided by sceptic himself.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRer-vm3K9Jtok2_hj_WXKptvAdjVwZADk7nAsBj8FGHOBJhj-Y8A)
This.
real unedited photo
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg)
he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is not even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.
What are are you talking about? Did you even read my first post?
-
watch the video i posted it shows where the stitching is. also look at the crosses embedded in the photo they help.its is done because using this method not a single photo can get the whole thing in the shot from where he was standing. but if he moved back then he would have got less detail in the shot i would have assumed quite simple relay. go on the ALSJ website and you can see the original photos used to create the mosaic.
It's no big deal. It just goes to show that any pictures N.A.S.A put up that get shot down, they can pretend they stitched them together and job done eh? ;)
-
Not really. They can't invent new photos when they need to. It's all their on the website for oh to scrutinise. They haven't suddenly claimed this is mosaic. They have always said it was.
-
this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.
im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.
il use an example provided by sceptic himself.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRer-vm3K9Jtok2_hj_WXKptvAdjVwZADk7nAsBj8FGHOBJhj-Y8A)
This.
real unedited photo
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg)
he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is not even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.
What are are you talking about? Did you even read my first post?
Yes and?
-
I didn't say it looked different, I said I couldn't tell and that it looked like a picture of a lander in a Nevada studio. Then you asked why I didn't say it looked different before your anticlimactic reveal implying that I thought it looked different now. See the incongruity?
When I have to explain obvious things to you in painfully plain terms it really makes me wonder why I even reply. I never link this, but damn, www.rif.com (http://www.rif.com). Don't come back until you can follow a simple dialog.
-
no the comment about now saying it looks different was directed at sceptic sory for your confusion. it also appears i may have in my haste miss read his post above yours or he deleted a post. either way sory for the confusion
-
Where is this headed? We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.
Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.
You have it backwards. One must only find a single irrecoverable flaw. For example, a while back a faulty measurement found neutrinos to move faster than lightspeed. Had that finding been corroborated, despite the fact that it was a single error against mountains of proof, it would have completely disproven Einstein. A theory must work universally.
To put it another way, let's look at the burden of proof. First it falls upon NASA and requires them to demonstrate that they have landed on the moon. This being fulfilled, it falls upon those claiming that NASA's proof was falsified. That's where we come into the picture. Having demonstrated that some of NASA's evidence appears to have been falsified, the burden of proof no longer is upon us. We don't have to continue proving it ad infinitum, and couldn't. Some of their fakes will be near perfect. Instead, the burden of proof now falls upon those claiming us to be wrong. That's where you come in. So go ahead, prove us wrong.
Isn't all proof against the moon landing confined to Apollo 11? What about the other missions to the moon? Three other Apollo missions, 4 Luna Missions the surveyor missions. All these must be refuted as well.
As a side note, to say that an accurate measurement of a neutrino traveling FTL would "disprove Einstein" is a bit dramatic. It -may- show flaws in -some- of Einstein's work but remember, he did not even win his Nobel Proze for his work on relativistic models. His contributions to physics are substantial.
Oh, you know what I mean. It wouldn't disprove Einstein's contributions to Atomic Theory, for instance. That would be silly. I'm referring to relativity, as it rather relies on the cosmic speed limit. I didn't feel the need to clarify that, as it seemed rather obvious.
Anyway, Apollo 11 is the most well documented moon landing, and also when NASA was least experienced at faking them. Therefore, we're more likely to find issues. And let's be honest here. If they faked one mission, why would they not have faked the others?
I did know what you mean, but a lot of superlatives get thrown around here and he is one of my heroes :)
I won't speculate about faking other missions and in the absence of proof to the contrary no one else should either. The respectable thing to do would be to find the one shred of evidence to falsify for each mission. That would be much more convincing than blind speculation.
Until that evidence is falsified, I believe that we have at some point stepped on the moon.
-
Pythagoras I notice you occasionally insult FE'ers when you believe you have proved a point against them. I would humbly request you stop that behavior. I understand you're elated and wish to gloat, and gloat away as you must, but please refrain from personally insulting any of them.