QUOTE(robertngo @ Jul 19 2009, 12:33 AM)
I read the national geographic article. I thought it was horrible.
First of all, were the photos used in there also the originals? I would bet not. I would bet that the photos in there were edited and touched up to look good... but also to cover up any signs or artefacts that would have caused speculation in the first place, or "paint" these artefacts to appear to have been caused by something else.
The article also gives nothing but plausible explanations to counter over-simplified hoax claims. Do you know the meaning of a plausible explanation? It's one of those things that make you think "it could be, but who is to say it might not?".
Take a look at this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...res/photo8.htmlQUOTE
Strange patterns of light partially obscure the upper left part of a picture of Buzz Aldrin setting up a foil sheet for collecting solar particles near the Eagle.
You can tell Apollo was faked because ... those mysterious reflections come from studio lights on a production set.
The fact of the matter is ... it's highly unlikely NASA would make such an obvious blunder if they had spent millions of dollars to fake the moon landing, Plait said.
"Okay, let's take a step back. NASA's going to release a picture showing studio lights? Hello!" The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares," he said. "There's a big fat pentagonal one right in the middle that is from the aperture of the camera itself."
It could be, but who is to say it might not?
QUOTE
A moon-landing picture shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing on the footpad of the Eagle's ladder, his bent knees suggesting that he's about to jump up to the next rung. (Read "Buzz Aldrin, First Man (to Pee) on the Moon, Sounds Off.")
You can tell Apollo was faked because ... Aldrin is seen in the shadow of the lander, yet he is clearly visible. Hoax subscribers say that many shadows look strange in Apollo pictures. Some shadows don't appear to be parallel with each other, and some objects in shadow appear well lit, hinting that light was coming from multiple sources—suspiciously like studio cameras.
The fact of the matter is ... there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface."
It's also important to note that the lunar surface is not flat, he added. "If an object is in a dip, you're going to get a different shadow compared to an object next to it that is on a level surface."
It could be, but who is to say it might not? ACTUALLY.... this attempt to debunk the moon landing hoaxes lies closer to the heart of the matter than the other paragraphs which seek to dismiss them as matters of "scientific" minutae.
A lot of photography professionals who've examined the originals do say that the photographs are too picture perfect, appear to have been created specifically for mass consumption, and do reveal that they have been shot in a controlled environment like a studio.
Did they have automatic cameras at the time? Did the astronauts have the time to adjust aperture and shutter speed settings in order to get such well composed and iconic photographs while on the moon?
I think that a lot of people who don't believe that the moon landings could be a hoax simply have invested themselves too much in the idea that it is real, or that "there is no way to know for sure". They cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that they can be LIED to in such a manner, in fact they REFUSE to believe it, and thus they will do everything they can to preserve and maintain their peace of mind. The simplest way is of course, outright rejection and derision.
Added on August 14, 2009, 10:05 pmhttp://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
^ Now we have a webpage specifically created to debunk the hoax claims... all of which have been summarised to single lines of contention.
I could go further and explain and argue, but it would be better for me to ask a question, instead.
I want to ask the readers here: Do you know how the international press works?
How do agencies like AFP, Associated Press and Reuters decide what stories to bring to you, and how they are to be PRESENTED to you?
Do you know how the mass media works... as well as who decides how they work?
Added on August 14, 2009, 10:42 pmI feel like writing an article about the Iraq war and what it taught me about the media and propaganda and how it's helped me to interpret current events.
I also feel like writing an article on HOW to cover up a conspiracy, drawing on patterns that I have observed from almost all "unsolved mysteries" that have had more and more pieces added to the puzzle over time.
The question is.... is anybody even interested in knowing?
The second concern of mine is: isn't it true that the people who already have the ability to perceive, have already done so and are well on their way to understanding more?
Meaning that the people who don't have that ability are in fact wilfully keeping themselves that way?
This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Aug 14 2009, 10:43 PM 
Aug 11 2009, 12:06 PM
Quote
0.0431sec
0.47
7 queries
GZIP Disabled