Oddities, curiousities and strangness in history

That is sooooooo cool, must use it at school!

Dont suppose you could explain it to an old drunk Scotshobbit could you Kafria? What's going on? Hows it fooling the brain that way?

Okay! Here goes.

Light receptors in the eye are split into those that recieve in black and white or those that recieve in colour. Only about 10% of the retina has the colour receptors, concentrated in the back of the eye where we focus on the centre of any image we are looking at. The rest of the retina picks up shading info only.

When you look at the image the receptors around most of your eye are picking up the same info they usually do, tones of black and white. By focusing on the red dot (and so the green and blue too, you can't help it!) the colour receptors are stimulated too. We don't see the colour image here as the eyes can't help scanning slightly and we know it is a negative image.

When you look at a blank surface you are seeing the same after image you see in many other situations, only this time, in the abscence of the scanning information, the brain interprets it as the full colour picture (it colours the picture in as it would normally from the info it got from the colour receptors).

Well thats what I assume anyway. Maybe talking out of my....... hat!

That does sounds like it makes sense -which as anyone knows is as good as fact!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I haven't found anything anywhere to say they are not genuine. The Egyptoligists dont even seem to doubt them- just what how they come about and what they represent. As far as I can tell they are genuine and of the same age as all the surrounding carvings.

I have no problem believing this. After all there have been geniuses in every generation, men and women that dream and invent things in their head and some actually bring them into being. Look at DaVinci. As the scripture goes' There is nothing new under the sun" Did not Marco Polo write about indoor toilets in China in the posh places he visited. Necessity is the mother of invention so to me nothing is inconceivable to someone at every moment that exists.

Ghostly images and blue blobs- what a strange news day at the BBC!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16770489

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-16768505

A galaxy every 3 minutes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/29/alma-radio-telescope-chile-astronomy?CMP=twt_gu

That a hell of a lot of galaxies- if there is a God seems he kind of went a bit mad on the scale thing if its all for us!!

Contains strong language and facts!

I've always been equally fascinated and equally sceptacle about the Apollo moon missions. And then the pics recently came out claiming to show the lander, footprints and all sorts of other stuff still up there and that seemed to be that for the conspiracy theories.
But there is a lot of stuff that still doesnt add up- amongst the big ones for me are things which are physical- such as clearly converging shadows which must therefore mean more than one light source when there shouldnt be. Or the lack of either any blast marks or crater under the lander or a single drop of settled dust on its shiny flat landing pads or the most compelling for me- the crosshairs on some pictures being obscured by objects in the picture- which is simply impossible, they have to be on top as the crosshairs are burned onto the lens.
But still- photos of the stuff on the moon- seems to put it all to rest. Then I was watching this, its all the usual stuff right up until 32 minutes in -the footage they show seems absolutely genuine and damning. Watch for yourself but this has really thrown the cat back among the pigeons for me.

What I have never understood is this, when the astronaughts are stepping out of the module for the first time ever in the history of the Universe, who is taking the photos and who is doing the filming on the moon?

Theres lots of oddities about the actual filming- including if you speed it up to 2 twice speed it looks like they are on earth skipping and the footage has just been slowed down.
There is the shadows problem- there are clearly multippel light sources as shadows go in different directions in the same shots

- nothing is silhoiuteed- so even photos of astronomers standing in complete shadow are somehow still fully lit.

The same backdrop appears in locations supposedly miles away from each other-

and by a strange coincidence there is an area of desert which is part of area52 which is full of craters.

On the left a shot of the moon as Apollo craft approaches, on the right one of the craters at Area 51- or is it the other way round.


Now I'm not syaing there arnet perfectly good explanatios for all these things- but NASA doesn't seem very good at making them.

Petty RU on the buckie? your spellingz are appaulingz, and I thought there werent suppository to to be shadowz on da moonz? explanatios? you speekin da hitaliano or wot?

Mythbusters had a special about moon landing myths. Might be worth watching before starting to throw cats around:

Full episode on youtube (playlist)

Maybe Vikings throw cats around, but I can assure you Mad Cat Ladies stroke them, love them, and give them tasty treats, throwing indeed.

Yeah I have seen a lot of the counter evidence- most of it seems pretty solid, the crosshair one however I have yet to find a satifactory explanation for and several of the hadow ones where the excuse of reflected light from spacesuits and surface combined with a higegr exposure explains it- but I have also seen equally compelling testimony of attempts to recreate a similar effect, none succesfully.
And the ten minute segement of the above clearly shows footage of the three astronauts from the first appllo mission faking the view of the earth to make it seem much further away when they are clearly in the final shots of the footage- where you can see where the camer is positioned and the earth out the window- in earth orbit not as they are claiming at the time- halfway to the moon- and as the moon is 2 days from earth orbit they could not have been there 9 hours later. This footage I had not seen before- I personally had thought the manner settled, there were anomalies but we definetly went to the moon- this footage however cast very serious doubt on that for me.

The particularly bad typing was not buckie induced or it would be that bad all the time but typing on a laptop in a hurry- I hate being in a hurry and I hate typing on a laptop too- so you got a lot of typos and I got a lot crabbit!

so you dont think we went to the moon? or if they did go, didnt actually film then, but later, on earth? maybe one of them boobed and left the camera lense cap on, so they had to film everything later in area 51. I think it would be hard to prove men didnt go to the moon at all, as they have moon rock and stuff.

I think we went, but I think they also faked stuff too- of all the moon landings the most likely to be a fake is the original. The lander had a 0% success rate at landing in tests and it was the height of a Cold War proganda war over the Space Race- like I say I would consider it undisputed that we went but its clear from this footage that for some reason they were faking the shot from the ship whilst in earth orbit to make it look like they were much further away- thats hard to explain away.

I think so too, maybe something went wrong with the film or camera, they probably couldnt go home and say sorry folks there was a glitch, as it was the most important day in history, and as you said, the world was watching. NASA probably needed to keep the politicians sweet for future funding too.

shake your head quickly while looking at it



ps I am not responsible for any brains bashed off the inside of skulls or eyeballs shooting out!

Thats spooky action at a distance!

Something creepy in this pic- can you spot it?

Is it those BEIGE cushions? they are really quite horrific. But if its not the middle class furnishing I dont know what it is, do tell.

I see creepy people!

Yes beige is really creepy.

Very true Mrs Fgg but thats not the creepy thing in the photo! Took me a while to spot this one I have to say but when you do it gives you a jolt.