Mythbusters did the moon landing

  • 413 Replies
  • 99146 Views
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #90 on: August 28, 2008, 02:29:10 PM »
That is the best part. The originals were "lost".

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #91 on: August 28, 2008, 02:30:37 PM »
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?

That does look like an artists rendition, and not an optical picture.  That is just by naked and untrained eye.  Forensics can prove it much more definitively I'm sure.  The question is, has the actual negative ever been analyzed by an expert in the field?

?

Holy crap!?!

  • 37
  • can't...look...away.....
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #92 on: August 28, 2008, 02:34:02 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". That would be like me going to a store that you've never been to and me buying a blue pen. I get back with it and you tell me that they don't sell blue pens there and what I've got isn't even a blue pen.

But even if it's misguided knowledge, if it's based on a lie instead of study, then how can anything that comes from it be considered anything but garbage?

And I'd still like to know what type of proof would be accepted. I'm not demanding or anything if it comes off that way--just curious.


*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #93 on: August 28, 2008, 02:36:04 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".


Let's stop right there because everything after is irrelevant, since I've never disputed that people have been to Antarctica, flown around the world, sailed the seas, or seen the world.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 02:38:50 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #94 on: August 28, 2008, 02:47:14 PM »
Check this out, online records of the Apollo 8 mission.  The original pictures and video can be found at the National Archives.  You can even hire an independent researcher.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/eyewitness/flash.php?section=25

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #95 on: August 28, 2008, 02:57:14 PM »
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.

I think if they could fake the entire thing, then creating a vacuum to take pictures in would be easy.  So I don't see that as convincing any FE'rs.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #96 on: August 28, 2008, 03:18:40 PM »
Why do you think the pictures would have evidence of being in a vacuum?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #97 on: August 28, 2008, 03:56:11 PM »
Just do it yourself.  Its pretty neat.

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

Look for the Apollo mod.

?

LogicIsBetter

  • 56
  • Round Earth Romanticist
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #98 on: August 28, 2008, 05:29:03 PM »
Your forgetting how the government works...everything goes to the lowest bidder.

You are truly naive if you think this is always the case.  Every GS14 or above is practically an expert at writing sole source justifications and the like for buying things without competition or bidding and for paying higher than the lowest bid.

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

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #99 on: August 28, 2008, 05:45:02 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.

?

LogicIsBetter

  • 56
  • Round Earth Romanticist
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #100 on: August 28, 2008, 05:46:08 PM »
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.

Just when I was starting to respect you more.  This is just silly.  There is no ink on a photographic negative.

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #101 on: August 28, 2008, 05:48:57 PM »
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?
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"

« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 05:52:31 PM by cbarnett97 »
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #102 on: August 28, 2008, 05:49:53 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.

I believe the Abrams tank is an exception for this.  The new tank was supposed to be a diesel so everyone made a diesel prototype.  Well Chrysler Defense made a turbine powered prototype and won the contract.  
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #103 on: August 28, 2008, 06:00:13 PM »
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
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 06:03:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #104 on: August 28, 2008, 06:08:46 PM »
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.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #105 on: August 28, 2008, 06:10:46 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 06:13:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

LogicIsBetter

  • 56
  • Round Earth Romanticist
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #106 on: August 28, 2008, 06:11:06 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.

No, it's not how ALL forms of contracting work.  Some contracting works that way, but there are many ways for the government to procure things.  

If the govt wants something expensive, they generally find a way to justify it.  And yes the govt is often pushing the technology development ahead of private industry.

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #107 on: August 28, 2008, 06:20:32 PM »
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?
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
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #108 on: August 28, 2008, 07:03:32 PM »

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#


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

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #109 on: August 28, 2008, 07:28:00 PM »
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

I don't know what you're talking about. Most of his other paintings look 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?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 07:52:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #110 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?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #111 on: August 28, 2008, 07:30:07 PM »
Sorry, that last post was assuming that experts have examined those photos and videos.  I should be asking, have they? If not, then what are you waiting for?

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #112 on: August 28, 2008, 07:30:32 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?

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #113 on: August 28, 2008, 07:35:12 PM »
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?
but they are still obvious paintings, very well done paintings but still paintings I did not look at one of his other paintings and then say to myself "wow that looks just like a photograph"
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #114 on: August 28, 2008, 07:44:00 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.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #115 on: August 28, 2008, 07:49:01 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.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #116 on: August 28, 2008, 07:57:13 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.

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.

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #117 on: August 28, 2008, 08:03:38 PM »
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.



what, green and blue?
hogblock - I can't work out whether your a fucking penis, or a comedy genius in disguise as a fucking penis

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17996
Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #118 on: August 28, 2008, 08:07:39 PM »
Quote
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.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/

http://www.spaceref.com/telescopes/Can-you-see-objects-left-behind-on-the-Moon.html

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134

Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Reply #119 on: August 28, 2008, 08:24:47 PM »

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

What tipped you off?

Uh, that there's a 40 year old airplane there? 

Your post indicated that photo-realistic artistry existed 400 years ago (forgiving the term "photo" in reference to that kind of time frame).  You offered proof of this by posting a link to what shuold have been an image of a 400 year old hyper-realistic artisitc rendition...but sadly, it wasn't to be.

Can you offer evidence that hyper-realistic artistry was in an advanced state 400 years ago?