Mythbusters did the moon landing

Quote

Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago.  Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.

For the tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.

http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#

Can you tell that the image above is a painting?

http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/26/photorealistic-painting/

What about that one? Can you tell that the finished photo at the bottom is a painting?

Quote from: Holy crap!?! on August 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  )

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 28, 2008, 12:33:36 PM

Quote from: Holy crap!?! on August 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  )

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.

But their are grown men with no government ties out there that will tell you that they've been to anartica. They've flown around the world. They've sailed all the seas. They've seen they world. You would either have to say they're lying or they "misunderstood what they saw".

They could examine the ink to see if it ever expanded in the presence of a vacuum. That could prove the pictures hadn't even been to space.

Your forgetting how the government works...everything goes to the lowest bidder.

You don't get SR71's, stealth fighters and things like that by buying on the cheap. 

They could examine the ink to see if it ever expanded in the presence of a vacuum. That could prove the pictures hadn't even been to space.

Quote

Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago.  Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.

For the non-digital tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.

http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#

Can you tell that the image above is a painting?

http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/26/photorealistic-painting/

What about that one? Can you tell that the finished photo is a painting?

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on August 28, 2008, 05:29:03 PM

You don't get SR71's, stealth fighters and things like that by buying on the cheap. 

Yeah you do. The machines aren't built by the government, they are built by companies who contract for the government, and since the companies want to have the government's money, they will try to outdue each other. It may only be by mere cents per part, but it still adds up.

That's how all forms of contracting work.

the first one is an obvious painting

while in the second one if you scrool down just a little but you see this quote:
 "Here’s how he did it. You take a photo, and in photoshop, you take the erase tool and go over the image. Then you post the “working” images in a ‘work-in-progress’ gallery, then you pose the ‘finished portrait’ by some airbrush paints and an airbrush, with your home-boys looking on. Then you post it on a blog site such as Hemmy.

Oh, by-the-way… the girl was photoshoped onto the canvas after the photo of the 3 guys were taken"

Quote

the first one is an obvious painting

Maybe the airplane is. But the background earth in the image looks exactly like the things NASA shows us.

Quote

while in the second one if you scrool down just a little but you see this quote:
 "Here’s how he did it. You take a photo, and in photoshop, you take the erase tool and go over the image. Then you post the “working” images in a ‘work-in-progress’ gallery, then you pose the ‘finished portrait’ by some airbrush paints and an airbrush, with your home-boys looking on. Then you post it on a blog site such as Hemmy.

Oh, by-the-way… the girl was photoshoped onto the canvas after the photo of the 3 guys were taken"

Nope. The second one was featured on the cover of Air Magazine.

http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp

Well the picture looks exactly like something I would put out with photoshop and I find it funny that he does not have any pictures of himself painting it.

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on August 28, 2008, 05:29:03 PM

You don't get SR71's, stealth fighters and things like that by buying on the cheap. 

Yeah you do. The machines aren't built by the government, they are built by companies who contract for the government, and since the companies want to have the government's money, they will try to outdue each other. It may only be by mere cents per part, but it still adds up.

That's how all forms of contracting work.

Quote

Well the picture looks exactly like something I would put out with photoshop and I find it funny that he does not have any pictures of himself painting it.

Does the artist photoshop the air brushing workshops he teaches too?

For the non-digital tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.

http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#

I am sure he does not, if you look at the other work he has done you will notice that none of them look anything close to the "painting" of the girl. His other works are good but they are still obvious paintings

That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.

Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media.  If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?

Quote

I am sure he does not, if you look at the other work he has done you will notice that none of them look anything close to the "painting" of the girl. His other works are good but they are still obvious paintings

Most of his other paintings looks pretty photo-realistic

http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/comersus_listCategoriesAndProducts.asp?idCategory=55

More trickery?

Quote

That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.

What tipped you off?

Quote from: ragnarr on August 28, 2008, 07:28:35 PM

Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media.  If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?

Because they are funded by the conspiracy. Why would you want to expose something that leaves you well off?

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 28, 2008, 07:30:32 PM

Quote from: ragnarr on August 28, 2008, 07:28:35 PM

Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media.  If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?

Because they are funded by the conspiracy. Why would you want to expose something that leaves you well off?

I'm sorry but I can't take that response seriously at all.

Quote from: ragnarr on August 28, 2008, 07:44:00 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 28, 2008, 07:30:32 PM

Quote from: ragnarr on August 28, 2008, 07:28:35 PM

Just like when China added extra fireworks for the broadcast of their opening ceremony, and just like when Iran digitally added extra missiles to the picture of their missile testing, these fakes were exposed very quickly, mostly by experts hired by the media.  If they can prove it for those situations, how come they cannot prove it for the lunar missions?

Because they are funded by the conspiracy. Why would you want to expose something that leaves you well off?

I'm sorry but I can't take that response seriously at all.

So you'd rather bite the hand that feeds. I see.

Quote

the first one is an obvious painting

Maybe the airplane is. But the background earth in the image looks exactly like the things NASA shows us.

I cannot disprove a conspiracy, therefore it is pointless for me to try, however what I can say for certain is the notion of a conspiracy is pure speculation, that is why I cannot take your response seriously.  What I am trying to do is merely make a point that if people want to find out about a faked moon landing, there are realistic ways of doing so.  Personally, I do not think there is anything stopping you from pointing a telescope to the moon to see if the landing site exists.

Quote

That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.

What tipped you off?