gerrydandridge Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 The only crime here is not some thief making a fake to steal a moon rock but fraud to the people of this world and sadly the NASA apologists are just aiding and abetting it. They gave out 270 moon rocks as a goodwill to different nations is it just coincidence that the others handed out to different countries have either been stolen, or are now conveniently vaulted away from any further inspection? It now seems that all physical evidence is missing along with the lost data of humanities greatest achievement...we don't seem to have a lot for the billions of invested Tax dollars do we.. "approximately 180 are currently unaccounted for. Many of the Moon rocks that are accounted for have been locked away in storage for decades" There seems to be alot of "Apollo 11 display missing.", i did like this though "The experts and politicians in New Jersey, including former Governor Brendan Byrne, had no idea of where it was, or of the state even receiving it." From Wikipedia, even their bias is easy to see through on this damning article here It makes hilarious reading.... I would say moon rock were as scarce as hens teeth by reading this article... At best lets not entrust them with anything important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Just read some of the excuses like this from Hawaii " Flaws in the State of Hawaii inventory control system were highlighted in 2009 when an estimated $10 million in Moon rocks from Apollo 11 and the Apollo 17 Goodwill Rock could not be located. Curators and officials at every museum and university in the state, along with then Governor Linda Lingle’s office, capitol, and state archives, were contacted but none knew of the whereabouts of the items" I will add they seemed to go missing after the discovery of the fake one...coincidence perhaps? I imagine they probably had some Chinese factory knocking them out in the late 60s.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Chinahand, from my understanding they don't actually find any remains of the asteroids in other cases. I suppose the Russians found a rock at the bottom of a lake and said it was part of the object that caused such trouble, who is to know if this is true or false?, lets hope it is more authentic than the moon rocks that Armstrong and Aldrin gave to the Dutch Prime minister, they seem to have been deemed as fake...Petrified wood so they say....look here if you don't believe me A couple of major so called recent meteor impacts are meteor crater (Arizona)....nothing found there, something 50 meters in diameter and with such rare and unique properties should of been found in the area.....Tunguska also had years of searching, but again nothing was found. People should be asking themselves why would they pass off petrified wood as "moon rocks" from the Apollo missions, strangely many of these rocks given out as good will from the USA to various countries have now been stolen or are hidden away out of sight in vaults, rather conveniently. oh yeah you understand it that's sound then! x Hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 OK some moon rock is missing. All that shows is the ingenuity of people around the world to get hold of something valuable and sell it on the black market. There's an awful lot more moon rock that is NOT missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 This is quite interesting I think, I remember sometime ago somewhere I heard that the apollo 8 Earth-rise picture was a fabrication and remembered ROB Skibas Photoshop experiment, so I looked up an interesting article from the BBC dated back to 2008 here, the ironic thing about this article is that it is meant to be a flat earth hit piece, BBC style of course..However it seems there is evidence of more fraud in the form of the actual photo that they show. So I take the Photo here from the site, load it into Photoshop and change the RGB settings in Adjustments...Results are that a clear box is surrounding the earth in the image. I am no Photoshop expert whatsoever so can anyone with Photoshop skills explain why this is, i.e. does this conform the photo is a composite of some kind, when it was sold as being an image taken by the Apollo 8 crew whilst orbiting the moon....Have they pasted on the Moon Earth, thus the rectangle surrounding it... The photo form the BBC 2008 web page before and after RGB manipulation below. Their caption to this image is "Photos such as this one are deemed fakes by flat-earthers" .... Well in 1968 I suppose they never foresaw Photoshop did they... There is an interesting tale about NASAs reaction to this 1968 image also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Erm ... interesting how your mind works ... yes, the moon. Now, let's see. Paul, Gerry, can you use your imaginations? I'd like you to imagine a half moon rising at two places on the Earth. Firstly on the equator, and secondly on the Isle of Man. Do they look different? I'd especially like you to think about the angle the half moon is at compared to the horizon - is the line of the shadow along the moon at the same angle compared with the horizon, or is it steeper. Is it different between the two locations or the same? Try and work out what it would look like in these two places, maybe do a little research, think how it might look different on a flat earth, or a spherical one. Either of you willing to think about this. Genuinely it might be more fruitful than thinking about Youtube videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Chinahand perhaps I am missing your point here but I don't see how this has anything to do with what looks like a perfect rectangle shape around the earth in the apollo 8 image of earth rising when the RGB is manipulated, to me it indicates that it has been placed onto the image. If you save the image and place it into Photoshop and change the RGB the rectangle will appear. it is not of my making.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 My post is totally unconnected with yours. You posted it while I was writing mine. My post was stimulated thinking about the lunar eclipse last night and the comments about moon rock. Care to think what a half moon low to the horizon would look like on the equator and from Douglas, Gerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 OK, I see, sorry. I saw the moon last night at 1am from my garden, it was clear but sadly I could not stay up to see the "lunar eclipse" and watch it turn orange/red in colour. Yes I have an image of the half moon over say Douglas and how it would look like when low on the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 ... and at the Equator? How are they different if at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 thinking of it (quickly) I would imagine 90° difference in orientation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 So what would cause that angular rotation on a flat earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 The photo form the BBC 2008 web page before and after RGB manipulation below. Their caption to this image is "Photos such as this one are deemed fakes by flat-earthers" .... Well in 1968 I suppose they never foresaw Photoshop did they... A more rational explanation is that they placed a rectangle mask over the image to clean up the background to remove any artefacts to make the image more pleasing to the eye for the casual newsreader. They may also have sharpened the image given that it's massively reduced from it's original size already. It's a worthless demonstration, you need to do the same test on the source image. Photo enhancement and manipulation happens all the time, it's primary purpose is to make images more digestible in the few frames of exposure your eyes get on the TV. Clearly rational thought has no place in this thread but I thought I'd throw it out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Poor effort gerry, doesn't deserve any more than an F.for anyone else thinking "Hmmm, maybe he has a point", have google for jpeg compression artefacts. The photo form the BBC 2008 web page before and after RGB manipulation below. Their caption to this image is "Photos such as this one are deemed fakes by flat-earthers" .... Well in 1968 I suppose they never foresaw Photoshop did they... A more rational explanation is that they placed a rectangle mask over the image to clean up the background to remove any artefacts to make the image more pleasing to the eye for the casual newsreader. They may also have sharpened the image given that it's massively reduced from it's original size already. It's a worthless demonstration, you need to do the same test on the source image. Photo enhancement and manipulation happens all the time, it's primary purpose is to make images more digestible in the few frames of exposure your eyes get on the TV.Clearly rational thought has no place in this thread but I thought I'd throw it out there. I'm absolutely convinced he knows exactly what he's doing in introducing such a facile point. Worth a quick debunk, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Poor effort gerry, doesn't deserve any more than an F. for anyone else thinking "Hmmm, maybe he has a point", have google for jpeg compression artefacts. The photo form the BBC 2008 web page before and after RGB manipulation below. Their caption to this image is "Photos such as this one are deemed fakes by flat-earthers" .... Well in 1968 I suppose they never foresaw Photoshop did they... A more rational explanation is that they placed a rectangle mask over the image to clean up the background to remove any artefacts to make the image more pleasing to the eye for the casual newsreader. They may also have sharpened the image given that it's massively reduced from it's original size already. It's a worthless demonstration, you need to do the same test on the source image. Photo enhancement and manipulation happens all the time, it's primary purpose is to make images more digestible in the few frames of exposure your eyes get on the TV. Clearly rational thought has no place in this thread but I thought I'd throw it out there. I'm absolutely convinced he knows exactly what he's doing in introducing such a facile point. Worth a quick debunk, though. A near perfect rectangle around the Earth = jpeg compression artifacts. (very poor effort at a debunk) Or A manipulated photo from NASA. To me it is a smoking gun. It is hilarious that cognitive dissonance brings up all these ridiculous theories. How could " jpeg compression artifacts" place a perfect rectangle around the Earth like that? @Chinahand, I believe I can explain it on a Flat Earth. The moon would also be upside down in Australia, i.e. the moon would rotate 180° as you move from pole to pole...thus 90° at the equator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.