In article <4477b5f7.1377427@nntp.charter.net>, SpamTrap@spamcop.com says...

Furiously scratching in the sand, you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your
Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

For evidence of UFOs, look at photographs taken in times in which
there was no home computer running Photoshop, in which original negatives
were examined, and was found not to be hoaxed.

Can you give us an example?

There was one documentary which highlighted an American photograph.
I can't remember the exact particulars of, but it should be in the
group of photographs which are labelled authentic as such.
It was above a ranch house and I think it was at an angle. There was nothing
special about the photograph, except under close examination, it was something
not hoaxed, nor could it be anything but what is seen. The time was in
the 60s? or maybe late 50s?

And if no negatives were available, whether those photographs do stand
up examination by other means - ie. using only original prints.

Can you give us an example?  

An example is one of the Meier photographs. The one which was blown up to
poster size, which went through a special process so that all the detail
in the original was lost, when blown up to poster size.
The time in which the poster was made, would be late 70s or early 80s?

I'm sure there would be other examples --- I am collecting UFO
documentaries, so there would be such examples in the programmes I
have on file. I haven't viewed these of late, as I'm collecting all sorts
of related documentaries, and have a large number now, for my archives.

It one thing to make such sweeping claims like this, and another to
cite specific examples.

For the story about whether the Apollo Moon Landings were authentic or
not, simply look at "What Happened on the Moon" which presents a lot of
details which show that many things are in question as to the authenticity
of the Apollo Moon program.
It does review basic details about photography - and why the official
photographs are not authentic...

Seen the claims, and they were made by people with little or no
understanding of photography, film, or lenses.  Pass any of that
"proof" by any professional photographer, and all you'll get is hoots
of laughter.

You obviously haven't seen "What Happened on the Moon". When looking at
the photographs, the views of professionals, with knowledge of photography,
are cited.
With those UFO still photographs mentioned - the negative was examined
by an expert and deemed to be authentic (ie. no fishing line present or
string, etc), and in the case of the Meier photograph, with it blown to a
great size, any hint of string/etc should have been obvious too, in that
photograph.

example-  the photos where space is in the background and no stars are
visible is often cited as one proof of fraud.  But the "detailed
analysis" shows little understanding of the film speeds used, the
combined effects of the wide angle lens, high shutter speeds, and
fairly small aperature used to make those photos.  In that
combination, only very bright objects will register clearly on a
high-speed film-  the range is very narrow.  Dimmer objects, such as
stars, will make very little impression.  They ARE there on the
negatives, but you would have to use longer exposures when printing to
bring them out, which would completely overexpose the main subjects.

Yes - all the factors of film speed, exposure settings, camera
equipment specifications, type of lighting present, the environment it
was taken in, itself, etc etc are all taken into consideration.
This is not a conversation as if with a brownie camera group - everything
is taken into consideration seriously in "What Happened on the Moon".
A lot of details are mentioned, with photography experts present.

All through your education, say in mathematics, you are taught 
problem solving, and to use reason and logic towards finding solutions.
Well, use that reason and logic in reviewing the above comments I've
written. Do some basic research, look into it.

Obviously, your concept of "reason and logic" needs a lot of work, as
do your research skills.  Example- you've obviously never personally
experimented with a wide angle lens, and the effect that it has on
perspective and distortion.  If you had, you would know that a 26-28mm
lens (35mm film format) will cause easily discernable distortions such
as shadows that are not parallel.

Well, you need to know exactly what lens was used for what
photographs? Do you? Of course terrain may distort the shadows somewhat,
so this needs to be taken into consideration, if uneven landscape is present?

Many of the cameras used in the Apollo program used wide angle lens,
as longer lens need to be manually focused, which was impossible to do
in the suits the moonwalkers were wearing.  Auto-focus systems were
not available in the early 70s.

 ----
The above are just two examples of how poor your research is.  You've
bought into the very questionable arguments put forth by *someone
else*, and then committed the cardinal sin of failing to verify their
claims for youself with experimentation.  You actually did no research
yourself, and exercised no "logic and reason".  You prefered to let
someone else tell you what you should believe.  That is not using
intelligence-  it is gullibility.

It is a matter of who is gullible? You or me?
"What Happened on the Moon" is a serious discussion of all the details.
NASA's response to all this, is that it happened so many decades ago -
why should they respond to any of the allegations now?
[They simply got away with it for so long... to reply now, would only
 weaken their case. In "Astronauts Gone Wild" - all those astronauts had
 to do, was to say calmly ... 'The allegations are unfounded'... but no,
 they simply went 'nuts' when confronted with the allegation that they
 lied to the public, and world, etc etc. Hardly what you would expect if
 it was true as they say it was...]

Of course, I can't go out and do my own first hand research...
I haven't the time or expense to look up all the archives possible that
has as much of the original moon photographs still in their archives, etc.
That is an awful lot of legwork to do.
I'm just saying that "What Happened on the Moon" presents an excellent
rounding up of the details that need explaining. Not one person is featured
criticising, but two. What they have presented is very airtight, and the
case is presented very clearly.

That, my friend, is NOT how they taught you in school.  Remember those
physics and chem classes?  The books told you what would happen when
you combined vineger and baking soda, and had you stopped there, you'd
be simply parroting back what an "expert" told you.  That's why the
teacher had you do those experiments, so you could learn how to verify
the claims of others.  

Having been an avid amateur still photographer for some years, many
years ago - I know the points they are making in "What Happened on the
Moon" are valid, as all the claims are, about the anomalies in the
Apollo Moon photographs, and having a basic knowledge of the outer
space environment on the Moon, know that certain things can't be done
there. eg. Having a standard unmodified Hasselblad camera working there,
would not be possible. You can guess the reasons why? Can't you...

Well, you obviously did not completely absorb those lessons.

Once you've seen "What Happened on the Moon" and then watch any of the
official NASA footage and photographs, you can then say - Oh, that is
a studio setup there, see the multiple shadows, the fill in lighting, or
the sun is much too large than it should be, etc etc - and see if there
is anything that looks 'authentic'? after discounting that which appear
to be faked.

If you are predisposed to "see" something, you will surely see it.
Try the "open mind" approach.

I don't say that every UFO photograph is genuine - as some are
certainly faked. But we should now be able to identify certain types
of craft as belonging to certain UFO groups, ie. German type, Meier-Plejaren
type, etc etc. At least that would be a beginning...

Feel free to do so!  No one else has been able to.

We can't trust what the US Government says all the time. 9-11 is a prime
example of why we shouldn't. Same for the story about the Oklahoma City
bombing - in which the truth about that, has not come out in the mainstream
media yet...
We should use the same method to check out whether anything is true or not?
And apply that to everything, so that we can be sure of what we know,
and to accept nothing less than the truth.

I love all these calls for the government to "finally tell the
truth"...   You won't accept any version except the one YOU believe to
be true.

I can see by your last statement that you are easily gulled, easily
led, and you lack the basic motivation required to do even minor prime
research.  You are far more apt to parrot the opinions of others as
you are  incapable of formulating your own.  You are also willing to
believe in that vast conspiracy that, in your mind, constitutes our
government and that "it" is the root cause of most catastrophes,
covers up countless hoaxes, and is obviously in league with the alien
presence.

Paranoia must be your best freind!

If you bothered to look into any of the details concerning the Oklahoma
City bombing, you will know what I mean...
With 9-11, all they (FBI, US Government, etc) have to do, is to show clear
evidence of a commercial airliner striking the Twin Towers, and the
Pentagon, then there would be no doubting the official story.

"In Plane Site" shows how that by freeze framing the footage shown via
the mass media, that the fuselage of the plane is not that of standard
Boeing 757, that it in fact has an extra bulge to it.
In fact it looks more like a military plane than a civilian plane, because
of that different feature. Perhaps the strangest thing shown via freeze
framing, is that there is a burst of light, before the plane makes contact
with the building. There was not expert opinion about this anomalie -
only saying that could be a missile contact? Or something of that nature.

Of course it will be expert opinion, that will clear up the whole 9-11
question. Whether demolition experts would automatically say ...
"Oh, that looks like a controlled demolition for sure..." as the Twin Towers
fall. Even more so, with it is the 2nd tower hit, that falls first...
The aftermath of 9-11, the twin towers site, was off limits to any
independent engineer, or expert, wanting to examine the debris.
What happened after 9-11 is as strange, to take note of. Who was involved
with cleaning up the mess? None other than G W Bush's brother, who was
also responsible for the security of the buildings...
There is a whole list of things, about 9-11 that is too weird.
But of course, you are not interested to check them out.

Harvey

EW



Reality is nothing more than a mathematical abstraction...
or a really good steak.