Disclose.tv

seahawk100 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:39 pm

bettyboolean wrote:

its just smudged emulsion you buffoons

I wanted to get some more insight from you too, Betty. Do you know how these smudges occur? By human contact, or is it caused by the process, where the smudge is created by part of the mechanical process? They always seem to appear to be so intentional, I guess that's why a lot of folks continue to believe that they are just more of NASA's B.S. And sometimes, it does seem as if there are actual "buildings" and such directly under the "smudges," like you can see through the "smudge" to what's underneath.

Not doubting you here, but just want to make it a clear "fact," so that we can say that we've actually learned something new, and then move on from there. Can you help us to make your statement more factually based? Or, indicate some of the facts that led you to this conclusion?

Thanks in advance, Betty Boo

Cheers,

Hawk

Oh, and I really don't think that I'm a buffoon, but I guess that I could be wrong on this.

bettyboolean · **Joined:** Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:53 pm **Posts:** 444

any newly developed photograph is wet like a painting, human contact, mechanical defects in automated equipment all these things can cause smudges. Considering the 1000s of images NASA has to process its not suprising some of them are smudged.

now you could argue someone has deliberately smudged the photograph to obscure something but there is no airbrushing on this image.

but on another note, surely the simplest way to supress data contained on an image is simply to withold the image?

p.s. looking closely above the prominent smudge on the crater you can see 2 other patches that have been smudged which would suggest another print has been placed on top of this one before it has properly dried

seahawk100 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:22 pm

bettyboolean wrote:

any newly developed photograph is wet like a painting, human contact, mechanical defects in automated equipment all these things can cause smudges. Considering the 1000s of images NASA has to process its not suprising some of them are smudged.

O.K., I'm with you here. I can see the logic in that.

now you could argue someone has deliberately smudged the photograph to obscure something but there is no airbrushing on this image.

Here, judging by your words, we are back to the original possibility that they could have been manipulated by NASA.
I think that a lot of us, even though we call it "airbrushing," know that it's not actual airbrushing- OK, so a misnomer, then. Digital manipulation? How's that? At any rate, we find ourselves back to where we were, but with a more accurately termed "manipulation" of said photos.

but on another note, surely the simplest way to supress data contained on an image is simply to withold the image?

One would think, but then they would have a rather "obvious" hole to fill, which to me, might not be as easily overlooked as an almost slickly "altered' image.

p.s. looking closely above the prominent smudge on the crater you can see 2 other patches that have been smudged which would suggest another print has been placed on top of this one before it has properly dried

Wow, pretty faulty [crappy] work by NASA "professionals." Jeez, they should hire me too, George! lol.

Well, I can see where that "could" be a possibility, but it's nothing that really solidly confirms anything.

Thanks anyway, BBL.

Hawk

bettyboolean · **Joined:** Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:53 pm **Posts:** 444

seahawk100 wrote:

Well, I can see where that "could" be a possibility, but it's nothing that really solidly confirms anything.

Thanks anyway, BBL.

Hawk
[/b][/i]

my purpose with pointing this out is precisely that. there is nothing in this image to suggest anything other than shoddy work.

The fact that you are looking for 'confirmation' means that on some level you have already reached a conclusion and whenever that is the case you will be seeing renegade nazis, little green men, covert space programs, whatever you predilection is , in these posted images.

seahawk100 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:09 pm

my purpose with pointing this out is precisely that. there is nothing in this image to suggest anything other than shoddy work.

I agreed that that is a possibility. But you have proven nothing. My objective is to collect facts, with which to reach logical conclusions.

The fact that you are looking for 'confirmation' means that on some level you have already reached a conclusion and whenever that is the case you will be seeing renegade nazis, little green men, covert space programs, whatever you predilection is , in these posted images.[/quote]

A little indignant there, Betty Boo? Why would one not want to establish facts where-ever possible, to assist them in reaching more reasonable, fact- based conclusions? Don't you look for confirmations when trying to come to any kind of conclusions? I thought that that was part of the process. No?

Actually, I have made no firm decision at all about what exactly the photos indicate. It has not been proven, one way or the other, what exactly they are. Personally, it takes me a long time to come to conclusions on things like this. In fact, because of the lack of facts, for either possibility, I have not at all come to one on this subject. I don't know about you, but I find it impossible to come to any conclusion what-so-ever without factual "confirmation."

Your powers of perception, and the fact - based on your own words- that you think that you just "know" what my "looking for confirmation" means, indicates to me that you are seriously lacking in this skill. You seem to have inferred that I was somehow trying to disprove your theory- and trying to prove that the NASA images are indeed a cover-up of what is actually there.", when the fact of the matter is just the opposite. My current thoughts on the issue is that it could be either possibility. Nothing solid at all. I don't come to conclusions when that is the case. How could anyone with a brain even consider such a thing? Oh, yeah, I forgot, I'm a buffoon.

You ever hear or read anything about making assumptions? Well, your assumptions have just illustrated it perfectly. Only, it didn't make an ass out of me.

ufosearcher · **Joined:** Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:01 pm **Posts:** 173

Wet photographs and accidental smudged emulsion examples from GOOGLE MOON.

georgethebear · **Joined:** Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:04 pm **Posts:** 71

seahawk100 wrote:

georgethebear wrote:

seahawk100 wrote:

George wrote:

"Is that the best that Nasa can do with airbrushing. Perhaps they want us to see. Here is my airbrushing and "who knows" they might give me a job."

Here, George- I fixed your image.

Nice work! - They should give you a job!

Cheers,

Hawk

Thanks for that. Very nice man.

No prob. Hey, George, since you obviously know what you're doing in re: to "repairing" the "airbrushing," I wanted to ask your opinion on the following. If you'll notice Betty's post, above, where she says that the "airbrushing"- or what we have tended to think of as airbrushing, is in fact smudged emulsion. Now, I had never heard this explanation before, and in most all cases where we have seen this, it has been pretty much accepted that it was, in fact, NASA's attempt to hide things from us. What I want, is to get your opinion on this. Does that seem correct to you? I mean, seeing that you can basically make the "smude" or "airbrushing" disappear, I thought that maybe, in doing so, you might have had some thoughts on it. Do you think that it is an emulsion smudge? If so, if would have to be a "smudge" made by the processing equipment, right? And not by someone's brush or digital manipulator? I have to look at this as a possibility, but wanted to get your input.

Thanks in advance,

Cheers,

Hawk

As far that i am aware, Nasa use digital data for their photos and they would be stored in their computers like we do on our pc`s. If it were the case of a smudge on a wet photo it would take the ink off back to the white paper. I have done it myself with instant polaroid cameras. This is a digital smudge, trying to hide something and not doing a very good job with it. If you look at the Nasa photos of the moon and see how many of these snaps have smudges on them, i would be sacking whoever produces the photos. You can see that they are trying to hide something and not using the right method of doing it. As you can see from the photo that i messed about with it shows no indication of something being there. If Nasa had done the same there would be no questions. It makes me wonder that maybe they want us to see it because it will out in the end and come as no surprise to us, like turning down the shock.

odrama · **Joined:** Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:47 pm **Posts:** 254

I'll suck my own wiener next tuesday before this is people on the moon.

xhunter · **Joined:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:52 pm **Posts:** 23

DON'T KNOW WER U GOT PILLARS N SHEEPLE FROM BUT I CAN DEFO MAKE OUT A CLANGER :think:

PS. THE MOON IS MADE OFF CRYPTILIAN CHEDDER :flop:

FACT !

ASK WALLACE !

STILL THANKS 4 POSTIN !!! THE MORE WE POST THE MORE WE DISCLOSE :look:

xhunter · **Joined:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:52 pm **Posts:** 23

bettyboolean wrote:

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

MINTEED INDEEDY :flop:

Topics		Author	Replies	Views	Last post
{ RELATED_TOPICS }
	Google moon shows; military bases on the dark side !	freeyourmindnow	1	1117	Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:07 am stratosfear
	Moon Rising - Now we see the true moon guys & gals. [ Go to page: 1, 2 ]	gunzenbomz	12	1578	Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:07 am jetxvii
	Full Color Moon Showing Spectacular UFO's Over The Moon	chrisfryfyi	5	2197	Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:46 am theyrecomming
	7 UFOs near Moon 9July2011 HD Too Big for 'Moon Orbs' OVNI [ Go to page: 1, 2 ]	serendipity	10	798	Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:16 am shaggietrip
	Alien moon,Why NASA Never Returned To The Moon,	bugmenot	0	1314	Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:04 pm bugmenot

Disclose.tv

Sub Navigation Links

MILITARY ON MOON!