« on: August 18, 2014, 01:56:49 AM »
OK, some of you are jumping to the extreme end of a different argument about whether or not the moon landings happened at all. My post is not about that.
I'll reiterate my point, underlined below
They present a variety of interesting discontinuities and other inconsistencies which could lend some credence to some of these images being produced in ways that are not congruent with the official story.
Whether differences in lighting or physical geometry, some things just don't look right.
Now I'll expand that a little by saying, it certainly does appear that some of the images appear to have been made in a staged production environment, or in near-earth-orbit, or composited in such a way as to try make them appear genuine when they may not be. There are many reasons why this may have been done, frankly, many of them I would also think of as contingency items if I were part of that team at the time. Still others may have been manipulated for purely artistic and marketing reasons and not disclosed as such.
If you don't watch the whole video, try watching these short segments.
Otherswise it's a lot of time to spend when you could be reading CR instead.
0:20:50 thru 0:21:40 - scene items in FRONT of camera reticle marks, these do not necessarily look like "bleed outs" as described in the debunk. But that would be sloppy compositing work otherwise.
0:22:40 thru 0:26:40 - shadows that don't line up for infinity isotropic light source (sun). I'd like to hear a good reason how this photos like this were taken on the moon and not under artificial light. I've never seen a lens create this kind of anamorphic distortion and the surface does not appear to have any topographical features that would create an apparent shift in shadow directions. see screen shot below.
0:31:45 thru 0:33:14 - sure looks like fill-light hot spot (artificial lighting argument continues a few more minutes) and does not match the wiki debunking image I looked at.
0:38:30 thru 0:43:15 - seriously uneven lighting causing falloff, + some front fill light, possible horizon too high relative to where camera should be. another few minutes on, central reticle is not in the center of the shot, or even close, it looks reframed.
all these items are plausible debunkable - but what was the source of the image being analyzed? Was it purported to be an unadulterated copy or was it a concocted one? likely the latter.
As for the ozzy woman, she's not alone seeing the coke bottle and it's live vs a later rebroadcast
0:49:20 - 0:53:00
There's more, but the premise I would not quickly discount is that, altho the Apollo program accomplished what was intended, it sure looks like some images and video were also produced from a secret contingency plan and used in support of the main program.
It sure would be nice to see high res scans of the original images disputed with their full DR and detail available.