Doctored Photos

answer police: bump.

bishop made a set of very specific criticisms about nasa photos.  and fortunately, bishop is good about posting links to photos (e.g. rowbotham scans).

so bishop, show us the specific photos to back up your very specific claims of nasa forgery?

answer police: bump.

bishop made a set of very specific criticisms about nasa photos.  and fortunately, bishop is good about posting links to photos (e.g. rowbotham scans).

so bishop, show us the specific photos to back up your very specific claims of nasa forgery?

Item 1:

Watch this video. It's part of a documentary about a leaked video from the Apollo missions which demonstrated how the astronauts faked their earth shots. You will notice several discrepancies; the earth turn oblong to round in different takes; the earth blows up to enormous proportions when the black transparency is removed.

Item 2:

Watch this movie: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movie.html

It's allegedly a shot of the earth as the Messenger spacecreft recedes into space. Notice how there is a persistent and apparent glare upon the earth as if it were a polished billiard ball:



You will need quicktime to view the movie. The persistent glare can be seen passing over clouds, land, and water as the earth spins away.

Now, why do some images of the Round Earth have glares, but not others? If the earth has reflectivity similar to a polished billiard ball then any shot showing the entire earth should in a photograph have this huge glare from the sun.

Lets take these Apollo images for example:
- http://live-support-reviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/5697APH-19%20-%20Earth%20From%20Space%20-%20Photo.jpg
- http://www.jrbassett.com/others/Earth1b.JPG

Where's the glare? Now, one might say that the glare is just on the other side of the earth. But if it's a glare it should be visible in all shots of the earth. As an analogy lets take a polished billiard ball or mountain dew can into a room with a single light source. You will find that the glare from the light will appear upon the ball or can no matter how you tilt or angle your head around the object. The glare follows you in each new position because the area of the glare is the point where the rays of light are most direct.

Unless you obscure the object with your shadow, or look directly behind it at its "night" half, the glare will be visible at every single angle you could imagine. The glare follows your eye as long as the object's "day" side is in view. Two observers in the room would see different glares.

This considered, how is it possible that some full shot images of the earth have glares, but others do not?

Your hilarious Tom. Disproofs of these are many times more abundant and yet you only see what you want to.

I slap you with a link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Someone else found this first but I forget where on this site that was.

Your hilarious Tom. Disproofs of these are many times more abundant and yet you only see what you want to.

I slap you with a link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Someone else found this first but I forget where on this site that was.

How does a later video where NASA uses a different method disprove this particular behind-the-scenes outtake where they are obviously setting up fake Apollo footage? That video does not address the activities in the video I posted at all.

Why don't you address what they are doing in the video I linked?

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says he's half way to the moon, when he's not? When he takes the prop off the window we see a very close and near earth in the background.

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says that the camera is right up against the spacecraft's window, when we see that after the lights are turned on it's clearly not?

Why is the earth mishapen at the beginning of the video?

Who is that guy saying "Talk" over the radio?

Quote

Your hilarious Tom. Disproofs of these are many times more abundant and yet you only see what you want to.

I slap you with a link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Someone else found this first but I forget where on this site that was.

How does a later video where NASA perfects its method disprove this behind-the-scenes outtake where they are obviously setting up fake Apollo footage?

Why don't you address what they are doing in the video I linked?

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says he's half way to the moon, when he's not? When he takes the prop off the window we see a very close and near earth in the background.

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says that the camera is right up against the spacecraft's window, when we see that it's not?

1. Later video? It was taken and available at the same time, just not used in the videos trying to discredit the moon landing. IT ruined their ability to make a profit by tricking gullible people.
2. I slap you again with something that more directly deals with your link.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
3. He doesn't; we don't.
4. He doesn't; we don't.

1. Later video? It was taken and available at the same time, just not used in the videos trying to discredit the moon landing.

NASA is obviously using a different method in that released video.

What does that have to do with these trial runs in the unreleased video I've provided? That "rebuttal" video in no way deals with the events which transpire in the video I've linked.

3. He doesn't; we don't.

Actually, yes, we do see a very close and near earth when the black prop is removed. It's pretty clear at the 4:15 mark that the astronaut is not half way to the moon.

4. He doesn't; we don't.

The astronaut tells us that his window is filled with the camera. However, when the lights turn on we see that the camera is  at the back of the cabin. That's a clear cut lie.

Watch this video. It's part of a documentary about a leaked video from the Apollo missions which demonstrated how the astronauts faked their earth shots. You will notice several discrepancies; the earth turn oblong to round in different takes; the earth blows up to enormous proportions when the black transparency is removed.

seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:

• Bart Winfield Sibrel
• A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
• wikipedia: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
• moon base clavius
• bad astronomy: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

Watch this movie: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movie.html

It's allegedly a shot of the earth as the Messenger spacecreft recedes into space. Notice how there is a persistent and apparent glare upon the earth as if it were a polished billiard ball...The persistent glare can be seen passing over clouds, land, and water as the earth spins away.

i'm not sure what video you watched, but i downloaded that link (seen it before) and watched it.  very pretty isn't it.  and nothing you claimed stands up to even the most *passing* scrutiny.  really pathetic, bishop.  you'll have to try quite a bit harder than that.  here are a few problems with your assertions:

• you said there is a "persistent glare".  yet the truth is, the glare disappears with cloud cover - e.g. frame "2005-08-03t04:35:51.789946".  huh, doesn't so much look like a "polished billiard ball" after all.
  
  
• you can clearly see australia distinctly *not* reflecting the sun, in frame "2005-08-03t06:19:51.788041".  ditto africa, in frame "2005-08-03t14:11:51.779475".
  
  
• you are apparently confusing the fact that we are watching the glare on the southern hemisphere where there is mostly (reflective) water - and by the time we see south america it is too far away and cloud covered to resolve anything - with the fantasy that it is a constantly polished billiard ball.
  

there are three verifiable proofs that you are *flat*wrong*.

Lets take these Apollo images for example:
- http://live-support-reviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/5697APH-19%20-%20Earth%20From%20Space%20-%20Photo.jpg
- http://www.jrbassett.com/others/Earth1b.JPG

Where's the glare? Now, one might say that the glare is just on the other side of the earth.

*you* might say that.  but any reasonably intelligent person with a spatially-minded cell in their brain would not.  do not put words in more intelligent peoples' mouths.

• in the first picture, it is clearly obvious based on how the sphere is lit, that the specular highlight would be right on north africa, if there were ocean there.  i think it's safe to say that a child could figure that one out.
  
  
• in the second picture, it's perfectly obvious that there are high cirrus clouds where the specular highlight would be (if there were even ocean there and not land).  the cloud cover is so prominent that you can't even tell if there is land there or not.  i can't even make out where on earth we are looking at (though it seems it would have to be eastern europe to the right and eastern africa just to the left...)  at any rate, it seems pretty obvious to me that the clouds in the area where the specular highlight would be, are reflecting more light than elsewhere.
  

three very clear and resounding failures bishop.  but hey, i'll give you credit for coughing up *something*, however lackluster (no pun intended), to back up *one* of your wild assertions.  you do still have these two remaining assertions to back up:

The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown...Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:

    * Bart Winfield Sibrel
    * A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
    * wikipedia: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
    * moon base clavius
    * bad astronomy: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.

i'm not sure what video you watched, but i downloaded that link (seen it before) and watched it.  very pretty isn't it.  and nothing you claimed stands up to even the most *passing* scrutiny.  really pathetic, bishop.  you'll have to try quite a bit harder than that.  here are a few problems with your assertions:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The glare clearly reflects off of the clouds, sea, and land in the video.

Care to point out where the glare is in this shot?

http://s94958815.onlinehome.us/angryastronomer/MESSENGER-Earth.jpg

Quote

seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:

    * Bart Winfield Sibrel
    * A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
    * wikipedia: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
    * moon base clavius
    * bad astronomy: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.

If its unequal then there can't be two halves.

the earth, as seen from space, can have un-equal halves for the exact same reason the moon has phases: the relative angle of the sun!

and on the flat earth, it would have a big circle that was lighted NEAR THE MIDDLE and the rest would be black! still not equally light and dark!

Quote

seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:

    * Bart Winfield Sibrel
    * A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
    * wikipedia: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
    * moon base clavius
    * bad astronomy: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.

Quote

i'm not sure what video you watched, but i downloaded that link (seen it before) and watched it.  very pretty isn't it.  and nothing you claimed stands up to even the most *passing* scrutiny.  really pathetic, bishop.  you'll have to try quite a bit harder than that.  here are a few problems with your assertions:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The glare clearly reflects off of the clouds, sea, and land in the video.

wrong, wrong, and wrong.  are you freaking *blind*?  watch your own freakin video.  frame by frame.  i did.  i pointed out to you a *specific frame* you can go to if you choose to.  you are so blatantly wrong on this is pathetic.  you know what, don't bother me any more with this nonsense. 

i do however challenge everyone reading this thread to download the movie and watch it frame by frame.  see if i am wrong, or bishop is clearly, unambiguously a jackass.  (and also wrong.)

bishop, if in that video you actually, genuinely do somehow see a continuous sun reflection unbroken by clouds or australia and africa, this casts serious doubt on your ability to observe *anything* and not see only what you previously believed you would see.  i am not just being inflammatory, there is seriously something wrong with you.

Care to point out where the glare is in this shot?

http://s94958815.onlinehome.us/angryastronomer/MESSENGER-Earth.jpg

the number of shots you can find with a high cirrus cloud layer, and/or a landmass, and/or thick cumulous clouds where the sun's specular highlight would otherwise be (as in your photo link - above south america), number in the tens of thousands.  statistically, it would probably be most of them.  i can scarcely understand what you think you are trying to prove by linking to them.  but hey, at least you are trying.  which is, i must admit, an improvement.

oh and bishop, you are still conveniently ignoring the call of "bullshit" on your other two claims which you have yet failed to try to defend.

Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.

i forgot to adress this gem.  i have no idea what you are trying to say.  care to make sense?

apparently Tom is so certain that space travel iis fake he never bothered to look at any pictures! spaceships don't hover above one part of the earth, they go around it in big circles!
so when they pass above the part of earth where it's noon, earth will appear fully lit, when they pass above the part that's dusk or dawn earth will appear half light and half dark, and when they pass over the part where it's midnight, earth will appear fully dark!

he's saying, "the light and dark parts are not exactly the same in every single photo ever taken, therefore all of them are faked!" that's his so-called "logic"!

just for fun, here's a video from the ISS:

this shows a space sunrise.

and check this one out:

i created this thread to talk about the apollo moon video ("a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"), so we can get hopefully back to tom providing evidence for this three specific assertions of fraudulent nasa photos:

1) The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown.  2) The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another.  3) Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

the bold numbers are mine.

I love all these little people "Exposing the Bishop" when that is long since past. The gravy is cold, you simpleton fucks.

ﮎingulaЯiτy IS Tom, you idiots.

There is only one me, and that was all it took. months ago.

I love all these little people "Exposing the Bishop" when that is long since past. The gravy is cold, you simpleton fucks.

what you don't [seem to] understand is that i and many others could care less what "is long since past".  it didn't happen in *my* past here, so the statement is irrelevant to me.  if it's not in the faq and doesn't show up in a quick search, it's fair game.  if you're lucky enough even to get that.  i would wager - and you probably would too - that the majority of active people on this site are relatively new due to constant churn endemic to internet forums, which are always and forever doomed to repeating the same things.  just like this forum.  you know that.  sucks for you and other long timers i know [if 9+ months is a long-timer...and it is relatively speaking], and it will for me too if i make it as long as you [which i doubt].  i'm not above apologizing for your trouble, but then i'd be doing nothing but apologizing, for myself and others, for repeating debates.

which kind of begs the question, why *would* anyone hang around for nine months or more?

anyway, i would also suggest that you have repeated your share of debates that came before your time as well.  i don't care to do the tedious research to back that assertion up with examples, but it's such a statistical safe bet as to be near certainty, safe enough for me to say: "people in glass houses..."

the gravy is *always* cold.  get over it.

The only word in that post that has any meaning is "irrelevant".

The only word in that post that has any meaning is "irrelevant".

um, you really showed me, i guess.

thank god i am able to turn off animated gifs.

i created this thread to talk about the apollo moon video ("a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"), so we can get hopefully back to tom providing evidence for this three specific assertions of fraudulent nasa photos:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2007, 09:14:55 AM

1) The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown.  2) The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another.  3) Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

the bold numbers are mine.

bump.  waiting for the photos to back up *all three* of bishop's specific assertions.

i created this thread to talk about the apollo moon video ("a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"), so we can get hopefully back to tom providing evidence for this three specific assertions of fraudulent nasa photos:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2007, 09:14:55 AM

1) The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown.  2) The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another.  3) Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

the bold numbers are mine.

bump.  where are the nasa photos to back up your three very specific claims of photographic fraud?  you only provided a movie to back up one, which you failed miserably at.  you have two more to go to maintain credibility.  otherwise they are just hollow yet very specific accusations.

Quote

1. Later video? It was taken and available at the same time, just not used in the videos trying to discredit the moon landing.

NASA is obviously using a different method in that released video.

Explain why you think this or how it is obvious.

What does that have to do with these trial runs in the unreleased video I've provided? That "rebuttal" video in no way deals with the events which transpire in the video I've linked.

You have yet to prove these events. The video I provided explained why your events were impossible. I find myself once again asking, 'Did you watch it?'

Quote

3. He doesn't; we don't.

Actually, yes, we do see a very close and near earth when the black prop is removed. It's pretty clear at the 4:15 mark that the astronaut is not half way to the moon.

You interpretation is flawed and unsupportable. You could be watching a video of a car running over a cat and then argue the cat was trying to commit suicide. It doesn't make you right. 
You're seeing what you want to see. I know I am not because I find the notion of a flat Earth interesting and would love to be proved wrong. I'm just honest with myself.

Quote

4. He doesn't; we don't.

The astronaut tells us that his window is filled with the camera. However, when the lights turn on we see that the camera is  at the back of the cabin. That's a clear cut lie.

They had the camera in the window in one clip. They didn't in the next. If I say I am in my car while on my phone, then I hang up and get out, it doesn't make me a liar.
I seem to have won point 2 since you didn't respond.

ﮎingulaЯiτy IS Tom, you idiots.

That's insulting. 
I'm ashamed that I share the genetic code of the human species with him.

The only word in that post that has any meaning is "irrelevant".

The word irrelevant is by it's very nature... irrelevant, therefore it can't have meaning, that would be a paradox.
PARADOXS ARE FUN!