HB Contradictions

[laurel]

A contradiction Keith Mayes pointed out on his site . . .
Bill Kaysing: Yuri Gagarin could see "astonishingly brilliant" stars when he was in orbit, so astronauts should have been able to see this when they were on the moon.
Bill Kaysing: Yuri Gagarin probably never went into space at all.

Bart Sibrel: NASA had to fake the moon landings because they couldn't have solved all the problems caused by the Apollo 1 fire in just two years.
Bill Kaysing: The Apollo 1 fire was deliberate; Gus Grissom was going to talk about the hoax so they killed him.

And a related contradiction . . .
1. NASA needed to have public approval so they could get funding and they even faked the Moon landings to make themselves look good.
2. NASA was willing to have the Apollo 1 crew die a gruesome death even though they should have known this would cause bad publicity, Congressional investigations, etc.

[raven]

I am not sure if this has already been said, so please tell me if I am just repeating some on else. these are youtube vids by the way.
"Moon Landing Hoax- One giant spotlight for mankind."
The spotlight was a gigantic bulb that their photoshopping has 'shown'
"Apollo Moon Hoax? Sun or Spotlight? " says it was a whole bunch of lights put together.

[nomuse]

...And not only that, despite all the lights (or the really big light), the shadows had to be painted on to the negatives.

[JayUtah]

Anyone who has ever done any old-school negative retouching would barf at the thought of having to individually retouch thousands of them.

[Data Cable]

nomuse said:

the shadows had to be painted on to the negatives.

Is that before or after the foreground objects were pasted over the existing fiducials?

[PhantomWolf]

datacable said:

nomuse said:

the shadows had to be painted on to the negatives.

Is that before or after the foreground objects were pasted over the existing fiducials?

Before that, but after the cranes, trucks, glass domes, and alien artifacts were airbrushed out

[JayUtah]

...and smokestacks. Don't forget the smokestacks.

[Ginnie]

Yeah, all of that stuff was airbrushed-opaqued out.
And then the HB crowd added invisible, movable goalposts to all the pictures they use... ;D

[raven]

if it was airbrushed out, how come you can sometimes recover details from the shadowed parts of the images? Where light bonuses off the suit, and maybe rocks, and into the shadow. If you look at wikipedias Hi res, famous shot of buzz from Apollo 11, you can see some of the bootprints in the shadow.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg
(warning this is a big image)

[Al Johnston]

Stunningly clever, those re-touchers: they have all the attributes of Maxwell's Demon...

[JayUtah]

You can use an airbrush to darken only, without completely obscuring what's already there. In fact, if you want complete opacity in the retouching, you use a regular brush. Unfortunately if you use an airbrush to darken a shadow, it will be painfully obvious under magnification that this is what you have done.

You can't use an airbrush on the transparency simply because the picture is too small. On a 70mm transparency many details are too small to be seen with the naked eye. An airbrush can't make an infinitely fine line. Airbrushing would have to be done on a large print, which would then be re-photographed on reversal film, leading to a detectable loss of detail, color, and tone.

Sure, you can be charitable and consider that "airbrush" is used as a synonym for "retouch," but people who would make that mistake probably don't know much about retouching in general and its limitations.

[dwight]

Steering this sort of back: On numerous occassions I have been called a "pathetic geek loser" for knowing quite a bit about the TV technology (that being my actual job notwithstanding) by people who sit day and night on their internet accessed PC: the epitome of what many may see as being a "pathetic geek loser"...

[AtomicDog]

HB: "The Apollo program was fake from the very beginning of the progam. NASA knew from the early 60's that the design of the CM and the LM could never get men to the Moon."

Same HB: "The fakery started with Apollo 8. That's why James Webb left the program; he wouldn't countenance being part of a hoax." (meaning that until 1968, NASA was building genuine lunar hardware.)


From Turboniun's argument in this thread:

www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&st=3330

[Grand Lunar]

A contradiction that I see from Straydog on Youtube.

He claims that NASA is run by the military, and lies about this.

Because NASA lied about being run by the military, he says, they cannot be trusted.

However, this only applies to Apollo.

His excuse for LEO manned missions?
They have a camera in the cockpit that shows the astronauts during launch.

Now, didn't the Apollo missions also have a camera that showed them at launch? I seem to recall seeing such footage in the opening of "Star Trek: Enterprise".

Also, Stray does see anything wrong with unmanne probes like Voyager and Cassini only giving data and images that is fed through facilities given by NASA.

I've yet to get a reply. I bet he'll ignore my arguements and bring up another issue.

[Czero 101]

The only Apollo mission I'm aware of that had footage from inside the CM during launch was Apollo-Soyuz...


Cz