In article <4478c646.1955134@nntp.charter.net>, SpamTrap@spamcop.com says...

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

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?

Oh- this is great stuff!  You offer us as evidence a photo (the
details of which you cannot remember) of an un-named event, taken
somewhere in America, date unknown, that was presented by a
documentary that you cannot name, verified as "not hoaxed" by persons
unknown.

Well, I don't have a photographic memory, to remember all the details,
from a documentary. I do have that documentary somewhere on file, and I
will be getting around to having it on a DVD, so that I can zero in on it,
at some time. It's on my to-do list, to compile all the UFO documentaries
onto one or two DVDs, along with all the various NASA documentaries I can
locate.

If this is an example of the standards you accept as "Proof"...  well,
little wonder you are so easily gulled.

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?

Ahhh-  good old Billy Meier and his his buddies Ptaah, Semjase,
Qetzel, etc.

Photos and Negatives that have never been analysed by an independant
outsider- only by carefully selected believers.  

Billy Meier never had his own photographic laboratory/etc.
The poster was done by an independent company - who had the
sophisicated equipment to blow up a 35mm frame to poster size and
retain all the sharpness in the original.

Meier and his stories have been rejected by almost every mainstream
UFO-ologist, but not by you.  Why am I not surprised?

If you would bother to check out the criticisms against Billy Meier,
some are done by exactly using the same slip shod techniques that you are
against - amateurish criticisms lacking first hand investigation and
independent expert analysis.
I'm not against investigation into Billy Meier - if it is done
properly and thoroughly - ie. on a professional investigative level.

I'm sure there would be other examples --- 

Oh, I'm sure there are---

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.

The opinions offered by those so-called "experts" was laughable.  I'm
only an amateur, but I've been doing photography for almost 40 years,
and the conclusions "they" arrived at are so lame even I could poke
holes in their "expert opinions' big enough to fly a lander through.

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.

You obviously are not acquainted with the hoary old trick of using
glass reflections.

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.

Again, the "experts" were only competent in using techy-sounding
language.  all of their explainations are easily blown away with a
little experimentation.  As you fancy yourself a photographer, I
suggest that you set aside some time to prove it for yourself, instead
of blindly taking someone else's word.

Well, you need to know exactly what lens was used for what
photographs? Do you? 

Of course I do.  Apollo 11's crew used as their basic camera a 70mm
fixed focus lens on one of their chest mounted Hasselblads.  The other
camera had a 500mm lens.  I believe that from the A-14 mission on, the
wide field camera used a 60mm lens.  Now- do you know what the field
of view for these lens are?  Do you know what the equivelent 35mm lens
is?  

It seems you haven't even viewed the documentaries - "A Funny Thing 
Happened on the Way to the Moon" and "What Happened on the Moon" - and it
is important to view these, to know what the evidence is, and is about,
because these clearly show them - the footage.
The first program shows archival footage that was taken aboard Apollo 11,
first giving the impression, yes - they're 1/2 to the moon, and then no,
it's a set-up - the astronauts actually reveal themselves it was all a
set-up, no if's and but's. This footage should not exist, yet here it is.
They darkened the Command module, by covering the windows, and stick up a
transparency of the Earth (so they were well prepared for this set-up)
on the glass window, they move the camera to the other side of the area
they're in, so that they can get a far shot of the Earth on camera.
Without this footage, with the audio - "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way
to the Moon" would be lacking in making it's case.
The later documentary, "What Happened on the Moon" sums up everything in
detail, alerting viewers what to look for, in the NASA photographs, for the
signs that they were indeed studio shots, not shot on the Moon.
Professional photographers knowledge is used throughout.
If you haven't viewed these documentaries, then you obviously miss out
on the smoking gun, and the direct evidence.

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?

No-  NASA's response is laughter, but they are diplomatic enough not
to guffaw too loudly in public.  They also know that it really would
not matter to hard-core conspiracy buffs.  Any conclusive photographic
proof NASA offered would instantly be labeled as doctored and/or
hoaxed, so why bother.  See the reaction to the high-res photos of the
Mars Face...

Of course, I can't go out and do my own first hand research...

why am I not surprised?  Seeing that so much of the "Moon Hoax" case
is based on the photographs, it would behoove you to spend a little
time verifying that the claims are true or not.  A simple setup in
your backyard and an afternoon of your time. That's what I did, and
why those who buy into that crap have basically abandoned common
sense.

I will get around to collecting all of the evidence, that is publicly
available - maybe I will get around to sourcing out all of the
large format printed books too, so that I can have poster sized prints
all around my bedroom.
Which show that they weren't taken on the Moon at all...

Fox Studios presented two documentaries about the Apollo Moon hoax.
One presenting the evidence, a round up of the claims that it was a hoax,
and they produced a followup - in which the other side, was presented,
that it was not a hoax, going to the trouble of having a set up, to show
that the hoax claims do not stack up. They showed that because of uneven
group, shadows do behave differently under those conditions.
Anyway my own reaction, was they didn't adequately show that the hoax
claims were false.

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.

A clearly presented case is does not mean it is true.  Ask any
criminal lawyer.  

A clear presentation helps makes the issues crystal clear.

Paranoia must be your best freind!

"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.

Take a look at this:
http://www.tinyurl.com/z8v5o

This guy is only going maybe 150mph. If you fail to see the parallel,
then there is no hope.

That photograph at that site you mentioned, is not the same as in the
"In Plane Site" documentary. It is a sharp series of freeze frames shown,
in which the bulge is not something that is motion blurred, that it
plainly shows it is part of the fuselage itself. However viewing some
thing first hand, the actual video evidence to clearly see what I meant?

Harvey

EW


If you add up all known religions
and cancel the contradictions, you are left with only one invariant
universal message: God needs *your* money.
 ----Uncle Al