Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 03:48am PT
|
Bottom line? There was no S5/AS20 launch from Vandenberg in 1976 or ever - no launch, no pics (let alone no assembly building, no mobile launch platform, and no crawler). The AS20 photos are fakes and that can be determined by any number of methods - shadow projections, just plain bad shopping, bad crater relationship ratios, mismatched skews, and bad reproduction of the base scene.
P.S. The above comments in the post above related to AS15-P-9625 are entirely consistent with, and corroborated by, images AS15-M-1334, AS15-M-1335, AS15-M-1581, and AS15-M-1720 from the mission's non-panorama Fairchild mapping camera. Simply put, none of the shadowing or ratios in the AS20 photos stand up.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2010 - 10:02am PT
|
Bottom line? There was no S5/AS20 launch from Vandenberg in 1976 or ever - no launch, no pics (let alone no assembly building, no mobile launch platform, and no crawler). The AS20 photos are fakes and that can be determined by any number of methods - shadow projections, just plain bad shopping, bad crater relationship ratios, mismatched skews, and bad reproduction of the base scene.
P.S. The above comments in the post above related to AS15-P-9625 are entirely consistent with, and corroborated by, images AS15-M-1334, AS15-M-1335, AS15-M-1581, and AS15-M-1720 from the mission's non-panorama Fairchild mapping camera. Simply put, none of the shadowing or ratios in the AS20 photos stand up.
HJ,
Why do you just make up poo-poo? And you do so on the fly. You are very good at making up Bovine Dung.
Bottom line? There was no S5/AS20 launch from Vandenberg in 1976 or ever - no launch, no pics (let alone no assembly building, no mobile launch platform, and no crawler).
Bottom line. Not my story. I'm just relating it. Is it plausible? I think it is. Have you read the entire interviews with "retiredafb" and "Moonwalker1966delta"? I don't think so. They do go into some detail. Could it have possibly have been launched from Diego Garcia? That is a possiblity. It is mentioned in Luca's book which I'm sure you haven't read either. You are not even fair and balanced. You only look at the evidence you want to look at. Nothing else. You have an extrme biase from the get-go. You actually have to look at all sides to really get a sense of what is going on. You just have an immediate biase and say it's all fake. You can't even ask the question who would do the faking on such a grand scale or why?
Psuedo-intellectual. Debunker. You can't see anything this way.
The AS20 photos are fakes and that can be determined by any number of methods - shadow projections, just plain bad shopping, bad crater relationship ratios, mismatched skews, and bad reproduction of the base scene.
Once again. No critical thinking. No attempt to actually really compare the imges. You haven't even looked at all the stereo pairs and viewed it all in 3D. You are just making up stuff left and right. You really do not have a concept of image comparison. 3D will allow you to do this effeciently, yet you make no attempt to do so.
Even if you ignore all the Apollo 20 images you still have the 2 Apollo 15 stereopair images, and the 2 Apollo 17 stereo pair images that show the craft in perfect 3D along with the shadows. You can even see the boulders in the fore ground and the boulders of the rock-fall that some would like to say don't exist. It is clearly there in 3D relief. You now know how those stereo pairs were made. One camera. Different times. Seperated by long distances in the flight line. Purposefully made to overlap to be viewed in 3D, yet you make no effort to do so.
All you do is spew garbage and false observations all day long.
P.S. The above comments in the post above related to AS15-P-9625 are entirely consistent with, and corroborated by, images AS15-M-1334, AS15-M-1335, AS15-M-1581, and AS15-M-1720 from the mission's non-panorama Fairchild mapping camera. Simply put, none of the shadowing or ratios in the AS20 photos stand up.
No the shadows in all the images whether you are talking Apollo 15, Apollo 17, or Apollo 20 are consistant. Yes, the Apollo 20 images would be with the Sun Angle at less than 27 degrees above the horizon. You do realize that all sides of the Moon are illuminated from one horizon to the other, through 0 degrees to 90 degrees (the zenith) back to 0 degrees don't you? There is no constant darkside of the Moon, despite the wonderful name of a fantastic album by Pink Floyd.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 11:17am PT
|
You haven't even looked at all the stereo pairs and viewed it all in 3D
How many times do I have to tell you Klimmer, there is no stereo pair available for Cintune's pic. Thus, you cannot use 3d from stereo pairs to show that there is not a boulder in that pic.
Now point to these 'clearly visible' boulders in the undisputed pics from the Apollo archive. It's just a simple pic with arrows.
Surely someone with your skills can do this.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 11:44am PT
|
Yes, I concede that you know something about stereo pairs. Too bad you're allowing your beliefs to get in the way of your training.
Separated by a long distance, but overlapping usually by 70%.
See, this is wherein the problem lies. The one image is a "direct" fly over, but the other is taken from a low angle and is not at the center of the shot. You should know that the further away from the center of the image the subject in question and the greater the difference in camera settings/resolution/etc.is, the less reliable the point-to-point matching and therefore the more "massaging" that needs to be done to mash it all together. I know a bit about this too, you see. My dad was intimately involved in imaging studies at a certain institution in Pasadena as the major focus of his job there between 1957 and 1989.
I don't think you know scientific methodology
Hmm. Why don't we compare our scientific research publications? I've got 18, 3 of which I'm the first author (meaning I'm the "go to" guy for any questions that may arise) in first rate, peer reviewed journals such as Blood, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Journal of Immunology, American Journal of Pathology, & Leukemia Research. All about molecular biology as it relates to cell signaling in disease processes such as CLL, AIDS, Cystic Fibrosis & Myocardial Ischemia. I graduated with a B.S. in Zoology & Chemistry, worked in the lab for 12 years, was Technical Director of the Scripps Clinic GCRC Flow Cytometry Facility and will be receiving my Doctorate in 2 months. Scientific enough for you?
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2010 - 12:35pm PT
|
Skept,
Ok, you know the medical field and your on your way toward your PhD (congratulations), but you do not know the wonderful field and powerful tool of Remote Sensing, and you're making serious and simple minded errors in your reasoning regarding it.
I gave you a wonderful source to view and you will realize how wrong you are. Watch the DVD, "NGS -- Taller Than Everest." It is a great watch and it will take you through a quick history of Cartography and Remote Sensing and how it was all used to make the most accurate map of Mt. Everest ever. It will take you through the importance of aerial photography and stereoscopic viewing. Cartography is a science. Remote sensing is a science. Without which we could not make the wonderful topographic maps we all use. And your guide will be Bradford Washburn, one of the most famous cartographers, oblique aerial photographers, and yes also a well known climber.
Cartography/Remote Sensing are both very powerful tools throughout the Earth Sciences, and they both heavily rely upon stereoscopic viewing.
Edit:
Trying to find the video that I have, not finding it now. Maybe it is no longer available? I converted my copy to a DVD. My Earth Science students see it before we launch into Cartography/Remote Sensing. Excellent primer.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/explorers/washburns/
Found it. It is actually a NOVA video with NGS.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/listseason/18.html
Taller Than Everest?
The tallest mountain in the world? Think again—cartographers had to when satellite date revealed a peak called "K2" might be the real champ. Which is the world's tallest mountain?
Original broadcast date: 11/05/91
Topic: geology
I'm not sure this video is available anymore. However, it is really good. It demonstrates the art and science of stereoplotting that is done to draw the contour lines interpolated between spot elevations. Glad I got it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 12:40pm PT
|
You want some remote sensing? Punch 7°18′48″S 72°24′40″E into Google maps and look at Diego Garcia. There's barely room for the airstrip, a few mobile homes, and the munitions bunkers. No assembly building, no crawler, no launch capability of any kind and there never has been. You can't come up with a launch, let alone get into the interpretation of obvious fakes.
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 01:12pm PT
|
Let's see couple of hours before lunch time for Klimmer.
Klimmer
Asking question again: guess you have knowledge as well on interactive finite-element simulation system for modeling 3D and 2D flow, mass and heat transport processes in groundwater and vadose zone. Portion of Earth between the land surface and the zone of saturation like 600 meters+ below the surface.
You know the visualization of isosurfaces for mass concentration.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 01:14pm PT
|
Cartography/Remote Sensing are both very powerful tools throughout the Earth Sciences, and they both heavily rely upon stereoscopic viewing.
Agreed. But the pictures used for such analyses are taken specifically for each study, with the parameters exquisitely controlled to maximize congruency. The moon pics you're trying to get us to accept were not taken in that fashion, and therefore do not stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2010 - 03:07pm PT
|
You want some remote sensing? Punch 7°18′48″S 72°24′40″E into Google maps and look at Diego Garcia. There's barely room for the airstrip, a few mobile homes, and the munitions bunkers. No assembly building, no crawler, no launch capability of any kind and there never has been. You can't come up with a launch, let alone get into the interpretation of obvious fakes.
HJ,
You are just repeating the same arguements over and over again. Apparently, you are omnipotent, you are all knowing. They couldn't ever get a Saturn V past you. You would have known about it. Bunk. Read what "retiredafb" had to say in regards to that. It is a plausible arguement that he reveals. He also describes what they had to do to launch East over the US. But you don't read anything other than what you want to read. They can fire a rocket at VandenburgAFB, you'll see it, but have no idea what it is or its mission. They can also do it at night when most people are asleep, and you would never be able to ID what exactly what kind of rocket it is even if you witnessed it at night. To say otherwise, you are just lying.
You haven't analyized any images. You haven't even taken the time to view everything that I have provided in 3D yet, nor dilgently cross-compared all of them. You can not fake 3D using one camera, 2 different images, 2 different times, with significant overlap, from slightly different perspectives. The object you see in 3D using these specific techniques do indeed have vertical relief and form.hey exist, and they are there. These are not computer generated fakes. Yes, you could do it with a massive 3D fake model, however, that is not what we have going on here. The images from Apollo 15 and Apollo 17 line-up and compare with Apollo 20, and are viewable in 3D, and match with all features. That is beyond chance faking with massive models of clay or what have you. Too amny subtle details match up over and over again.
The 3 boulders I have pointed out do indeed exist in the images from Apollo 15 and 17, yet you probably were not aware of them until I pointed them out. They are also in the apollo 20 images just where they need to be considering the more vertical aspect and perspective.
But once again those 3 boulders are not in the obvious faked Apollo 15 image because they removed them when someone went in to remove the craft and blend it with the Lunar regolith. I do not need another image to see that they have been removed. No outlines or shadows exist for the 3 removed boulders in the faked image.
We can do the same type study with the massive boulders in the rock fall region. I can do that. But it will take time. I'm not at home. I'm on lunch right now and that will take time. I'm not your slave. I do this because I want to and I'm interested in it. I want to know. It is a good puzzle to workout.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2010 - 03:15pm PT
|
Let's see couple of hours before lunch time for Klimmer.
Klimmer
Asking question again: guess you have knowledge as well on interactive finite-element simulation system for modeling 3D and 2D flow, mass and heat transport processes in groundwater and vadose zone. Portion of Earth between the land surface and the zone of saturation like 600 meters+ below the surface.
You know the visualization of isosurfaces for mass concentration.
SH,
Great you know Hydrology and groundwater or plume modelling.
My older sister is a geologist/hydrologist, and also my best-man in my wedding is a geologist/hydrologist.
Do I know the models you all use? No.
I do know a fair amount about Cartography, Remote Sensing, and GIS (ESRI: ArcGIS), but unless you use these tools day in and day out you will not know everything. ArcGIS Users know the education goes on for the rest of our lives. They are always taking courses to stay up with the changes. I do what I can.
So are we just gonna sit back and throw around our creds? I don't have time for that game.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 03:23pm PT
|
Ok Klimmer, a few questions if you would.
I LIKE that you are curious, and like to examine strange stuff.
I know NOTHING about imaging.
I DO see the cylinder thing in the photos.
You ASSUME it is an alien craft, you called it I believe, a Mother Ship.
Ok, MAYBE it is!
BUT, why is this your assumption? It is because you WANT it to be ALIEN?
WHY can't you assume it could just be a big rock, however shaped?
Hep me out on the logic behind the Alien assumption.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2010 - 03:26pm PT
|
Cartography/Remote Sensing are both very powerful tools throughout the Earth Sciences, and they both heavily rely upon stereoscopic viewing.
Agreed. But the pictures used for such analyses are taken specifically for each study, with the parameters exquisitely controlled to maximize congruency. The moon pics you're trying to get us to accept were not taken in that fashion, and therefore do not stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
Skept,
Once again you do not know what you are talking about. In the earth sciences, to include astrogeology, you can use one camera, 2 different times, even 2 different natural lighting conditions, that have significant overlap, and see the terrain detail in 3D. We do this all the time. Depends on what you want to see. If you just want an accurate 3D sense of the vertical relief and lay of the terrain, this is perfectly acceptable.
I even gave you sources to look at. The NASA Apollo image book below has many stereograms doing just that. Look for once before you spout off ignorantly.
So grab your stereoscope:
Here are many stereograms from the Moon . . . this is a very interesting study from the Apollo missions. You will even learn about stereoscopic images and how they are produced and their value . . .
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/cover.htm
And temporal studies with stereograms . . . view the terrain in 3D, then close one eye and see, then close the other eye and see the change. Temporal studies. There you go.
http://serc.carleton.edu/eyesinthesky2/week2/index.html
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2010 - 03:39pm PT
|
Norton,
See the very first post in this thread. This is not my story.
But now that I have looked into a great detail, I do think that yes, there is a massive mothership alien craft on the backside of the Moon.
Could it be Nephilim? Could be. That is a hypothesis. And that was not my original idea, I just agree with it. This hypothesis fits all that I know.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 03:46pm PT
|
The 3 boulders I have pointed out do indeed exist in the images from Apollo 15 and 17, yet you probably were not aware of them until I pointed them out.
Er,um, you have never pointed them out in the originals. You've only used the arrows in Cintune's pic and the faked Apollo 20 pic.
Post em up Klimmer. You have said they are 'clearly visible' in the originals.
Should be a simple matter for you to show us the pics with arrows pointing to the boulders.
Label which ones are Apollo 15 and which ones are Apollo 17 and their identifier from the Apollo archives.
Remember, we don't have stereo pairs for Cintune's pic, so stereo pairs are useless for proving they are not there.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 04:06pm PT
|
Read Norton's question and reviewed the first post. Still don't get why the assumption it's an alien craft (particularly a huge jump to call it Nephalim) rather than some abnormality (like we have all over the earth)
Peace
Karl
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 04:08pm PT
|
I still don't get it either. WHY does the FIRST assumption have to be ALIEN?
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 04:21pm PT
|
The NASA Apollo image book below has many stereograms doing just that.
Yes, but they're not trying to prove that there is an alien ship laying in ruins on the moon. That type of conjecture requires more rigor than what you're trying to have us believe. I'm reasonably certain I'm not the ignorant one in this exchange.
Of course, I'm arguing with someone who believes in alien devil-creatures...
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2010 - 04:32pm PT
|
Mono,
I did show you. Zoom in on the Apollo 15 image.
I can do the same on Apollo 17 images.
Posted before:
The image on the left is the official Apollo 15 image. I put the website url on the photo so it stays with it. The image on the right is the "unofficial" Apollo 20 image.
This is a stereo pair. You can examine it and see that all the detail lines up.
Keep in mind the Apollo 15 image on the left is taken at a very oblique angle from the Apollo craft fly-over pointing forward. You are seeing more of a profile of the craft. The 3 arrows point to very large Lunar boulders. The one the right is massive. Because this is such an oblique angle it foreshortens the distance between the boulders and the derelict spacecraft, making it appear as though the boulders are right adjacent to the craft. They are not, remember it is an oblique angle shot. The distance between the boulders and the craft are foreshortened.
The image on the right from "Apollo 20" is more of a vertical image looking down on the craft. You can see the 3 same massive boulders and realize they are indeed separate from the derelict spacecraft. They are the same 3 massive Lunar boulder structures. In stereo viewing all 3 boulders stick out very pronounced.
With this stereopair you can see it in 3D even though it is 2 different images of the same terrain and features but very different periods of time and sunlight and shadowing. Also you can close one eye and then the other and go back and forth comparing all features. Perfect match.
Original NASA images for stereoscopic viewing:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9630
This image from Apollo 15 has been heavily altered. It is fraudulent. The only reason to do so is to hide the obvious massive spacecraft that is there near Iszak D craters. This is my opinion.
The photogrammetry is pretty clear. I really recommend viewing these images in 3D for added depth of field detail, and to see the boulders in obvious relief above the Lunar surface.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 04:49pm PT
|
Sorry, Klimmer, I can't see those 'clearly visible' boulders in the Apollo 15 pic below.
Seriously Klimmer, those arrows point to 'clearly visible' boulders?
Are you freaking kidding me? That's your proof?
I see prominent craters in the Apollo 20 pic, not visible in the Apollo 15 pic. (as well as those inserted features above the 'nose').
And I see prominent features in the Apollo 15 pic not visible in the Apollo 20 pic.
You can at least take the image from the archive directly and zoom deeper than that instead of using some guys photobucket account.
And where are those Apollo 17 shots? You say they are visible there as well.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 05:50pm PT
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!