Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2010 - 10:54pm PT
|
Even today's current space stuff is so primitive it's an embarrassment.
Pure garbage.
Space travel is not done the way modern science is trying to conceive it.
In this age of Kali they are actually going backwards instead of forward because modern science is missing completely the key element.
Total cavemen ....
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2010 - 10:55pm PT
|
Hawkeye, until you've actually encountered a sasquatch, like myself and half a dozen others here on ST, your question is legitimate.
You did not see it.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2010 - 10:57pm PT
|
Even today's current space stuff is so primitive it's an embarrassment.
Pure garbage.
Space travel is not done the way modern science is trying to conceive it.
Go the moon--show us how to do it right. Don't let those backward "primitives" in NASA get in your way. You are so much smarter then them.
Or are you?
I don't see any pictures of you standing on the moon.
what can one expect from a caveman ... other than internet wanking all day long .....
Post up your moon pics, Werner.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2010 - 11:10pm PT
|
The moon planet nor space travel is the goal although these "so called modern scientists" are trying very hard and in their process are misleading not only themselves along with the the public at the their expense.
Pure foolishness.
They (modern scientist) don't even know what the real goal is, thus they mislead everyone and try to dazzle us with their primitive mechanical technology.
Children are easily dazzled .....
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2010 - 11:18pm PT
|
more illuminati disinformation
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2010 - 11:51pm PT
|
Photogrammetry 101:
Who can tell what in this image has been doctored and why it is fraudulent?
I know.
It is clearly missing in this image. Gone. Vanished. How come? It is clearly visible in the original Apollo 15 image but not in this altered and doctored image:
You have to view it in 3D stereo or you will miss it . . .
C'mon I'm holding your hands here . . .
It shows up clearly in the following official NASA Apollo 15 images viewed in stereo:
And it clearly shows up in this stereogram from Apollo 20 matching the official Apollo 15 image, which indicates a very big evidence that this is the real McKoy and not faked:
If you do not view it in 3D then you probably don't know what I'm talking about. And I'm not talking about the obvious massive 3D spaceship either. I'm talking about a natural feature that is in the stereograms made from the official NASA Apollo 15 images, and the stereogram made from Apollo 20 images, but this obvious natural feature that is 3D is not in the faked image at the very top of this post. It is vanished. Gone. (Proving that it is faked, altered, filtered, and smoothed among many other things.)
By the way, for someone to go to the trouble to falsify this image from Apollo 15, is another good indication that the ship is actually there. You don't do fraud to erase a spaceship, to tell the truth. You do so to lie and cover-up. You don't hide something if something isn't there to hide.
So what is this natural feature?
Here is another big clue. It is clearly visible in both the following images but not the altered fake image of Apollo 15 at the top of this post.
Yes, by all means go to the original and zoom in as close as you want in both images. The natural feature is clearly visible in the originals but not in the altered faked image at the top of this post.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010 - 12:01am PT
|
And the nose is clearly not distinct unlike your 'Apollo 20' pics from some guys photobucket account.
And there are a lot of 'anomalies' apparent in comparing all the pics.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2010 - 12:16am PT
|
You are at a serious disadvantage if you do not view these stereograms in 3D. That is what photogrammetry is all about. Depth of field. Depth of detail. You guys are missing serious detail without viewing in 3D.
I'm not gonna give you the answer just yet. You guys need to try to figure this out. I have held your hand. I have led you to the river to drink, now you have to just do it -- drink in the 3D.
Here is a great resource for stereoscopes . . .
http://ascscientific.com/stereos.html
I have the Sokkia Pocket Stereoscope.
I also now have the PokeScope. Works great for viewing 3D on the computer. You can scale the images large or small and see it in full 3D. With my Sokkia I have to set the scale at a particular scale to get the 3D results to work right. So I would go with the PokeScope.
The PokeScopeŽ 3D Viewer
A Modern Stereoscope
and Stereoscopic Software
http://www.pokescope.com/
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2010 - 01:18am PT
|
Also, realize that the craft is nearly in the dead center of the entire image. Curoius how they flew directly in line with it. See the shaded relief map of their flight/photography line. Flight line was straight over Iszak D craters and the Ship.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/apollo15/as15indexmap01/150dpi.jpg
Also, this is obviously a panarama by apollo 15. You can see the curvature of the Moon going away to either side.
Also, know that this is not a vertical image but slightly oblique looking forward. The spaceship on the baackside of the moon is very oblique in these images as a result. Very important to note that.
|
|
MisterAnswers
Social climber
Ark on the Moon
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010 - 01:43am PT
|
Mister Answer has an Answer - that is one dumbass statement Klimmer made and it is his inability to think straight that makes it difficult for people to take him seriously.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010 - 01:44am PT
|
There's an unexpected and not readily-explainable shape
in this image, the Bible speaks of angels, and the photograph
passes photogrammetry validity tests. Therefore, the shape
must be a spacecraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her!
Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE:
How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2:
She looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
Bring her forward.
WITCH:
I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH:
And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
Well?
VILLAGER #1:
Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE:
The nose?
VILLAGER #1:
And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2:
Yeah!
CROWD:
We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1:
No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes.
VILLAGER #2:
Yes.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
A bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGER #1:
She has got a wart.
RANDOM:
[cough]
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
VILLAGER #2:
Do they hurt?
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]
CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH:
It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3:
Burn her!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2010 - 01:59am PT
|
Some people on this thread (like myself) are not disputing the validity of the image, but are rather disputing the assumption that the shape is a space craft.
Rational Thought 101.
Tell me what's wrong with this statement:
"There's an unexpected and not readily-explainable shape in this image, the Bible speaks of angels, and the photograph passes photogrammetry validity tests. Therefore, the shape must be a spacecraft."
Stzzo,
You have forgotten this is not my story. I didn't make it up. The public World really didn't know much about this story before April, 2007.
The full story was presented by "retireafb" and then later "Moonwalker1966delta." All of the video was presented and given, showing that it was obviously a derelict spacecraft. The videos match the still images also. You can compare back and forth, back and forth. Do so for yourself.
Not sure how you can fake that and then do so in 3D without making a very expensive perfect scaled elaborate model of the entire region of the Moon where the spaceship is. Who does that just for kicks on the internet? We are talking big production and lots of time and money $$$ to fake all of this. Some is faked, and it has easily been called out already. I'm sure we will figure out more. But for me, the ship indeed seems to be there. The photogrammetry does say so. And there are attempts to hide it and claim those images are the real ones. Hardly.
Like I said before, that is very easy cover for the truth. A trickle Controlled Disclosure Program. By the time they come out and say that something is truly happening, everyone will already know.
What you quoted up there I never said. Don't put words in my mouth. The story is someone else's. Rami the Isreali artist was the first one to come up with the Nephilim theory, I just happen to agreed with him. It certainly is not a rock.
Yes, I know it challenges everyone's reality. I know this.
|
|
Mike Bolte
Trad climber
Planet Earth
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010 - 02:12am PT
|
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2010 - 02:21am PT
|
Well, you can stand by it, it is your argument, but it is wrong. I never presented it in the weak link manner you portrayed. The manner you portray it in is just attack and ridicule.
The Nephilim hypothesis is just that. It is as valid at this moment as any that has been thought out carefully. There is a difference between best guess and brain-less guess.
The Nephilim hypothesis, does indeed fall into place very well, whereas others are very difficult to conceive due to Universal and Galactic distances and enormous amounts of time required. Parallel Universes? Multi-dimensional beings perhaps?
But the Christian hypothesis, Fallen Angels/Nephilim/Demonic Spirits is as valid as any right now. Personally, I think it is far more valid than any other. We have a all time best selling Holy Book, called The Holy Bible. GOD's word doesn't shy away from this topic at all, but explains it. Many Christians are now waking up to that fact. It is a hypothesis that is worth considering.
Edit:
And not just the Holy Bible, but the Book of Enoch also helps explain and goes into great detail regarding the Nephilim hypothesis. 2 great books are very much in agreement.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010 - 02:22am PT
|
Of course .... what can one expect from a caveman
such as graniteclimber anyways other than internet wanking
all day long ......
Werner, I just checked, and you've made, as of this moment,**
16,002 posts to Supertopo, compared to my 2611 posts.
You are the master! I tip my hat to you.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2010 - 02:41am PT
|
GC,
Werner has never hounded anyone like you constantly do, or constantly ridiculed anyone on ST like you and a few others do, and he has been here for a very long time with 16,000 + posts. Cranky is one thing. I can live with that. But to do what you do (cyber forum stalking and bullying) and then only have 2600 + posts, boy you have to work really hard at it, to piss that many people off.
You have heard from many that have told you to just be nice or respectful or go away. How hard can that be?
Disagreeing with someone is one thing. We can all disagree and privately think each other is nuts, but you don't have to be down right mean and rude about it.
I would still like to hear about your climbing resume.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010 - 02:47am PT
|
Graniteclimber and Klimmer seem like yin and yang to me, like Romeo and Juliet, like Hansel and Gretel, like Abbot and Costello. Can't have one without the other.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2010 - 06:43am PT
|
There's an unexpected and not readily-explainable shape
in this image, the Bible speaks of angels, and the photograph
passes photogrammetry validity tests. Therefore, the shape
must be a spacecraft
This is the kind of logic that I've been talking about all along. Its at the level of a 3rd grader....at best.
Klimmer, I think you're so obsessed with detail that you've completely skipped common sense and rational skepticism, replacing it with wishful thinking and religious absurdity.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!