Do you not realize that is something you need to ask NASA??? How could I possibly know “how” it was done??? I only know for a fact it “was” done. I don’t know how to build a satellite, but I know a satellite photo when I see one, and I also know what high altitude long range photos look like, but I can’t fly a jet.
I can only theorize about how the images came to be. First of all, I do not believe these long range images were captured from Earth. I never said that and to me it’s ridiculous that you would even consider that. I believe it’s one of these three things; (1) They are zooms of satellite photos NASA never told anyone about, or (2) they are zoomed images from earlier apollo missions which didn’t land on the moon but orbited the surface of the moon (that is considering the orbital photos were actually taken by Apollo, and not an unmanned craft), or (3) we are not alone, and we had help. You can take your pick or think up your own theory. It doesn’t change the “fact” that the ground in Apollo photos is a series of very long range images (of some kind). There is no question about that.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere, since the images were not taken from the earth, you still have to explain how the photographs were taken by the moon satellites using film, it is a fact that all satellite photos are radio transmitted to earth, but this process turns all those moon satellite photos into images that if one zooms them up, one gets tons of noise or blocks from the digitized image.
The astronauts on the moon used film in those photos, or to put it in other words: only film could allow you to zoom like that. Satellite photos, again specially the ones from the 60’s, had a limit on how much you could zoom in before losing quality.
The whole post was about “others” that you imagine are watching us. If you deny that, then you are lying.
As to your general thesis, given the similarity in the degree of sanity that you display along with Jack Dean Tyler and kathaksung, the principle difference is that you charged into the board with a a chip on your shoulder while they had the courtesy to discuss their weird grasp of “reality” before they got hostile.
No my boy, that is not something I have to explain. That is something NASA has to explain.
Like I said, I know they are very long range photos of some kind. I only have to prove that. I don’t have to prove how it was done. Are you afraid to ask NASA anything? Do you like being a mushroom?
These photos have a definate limit to how much they can be zoomed. If these photos were actually taken from four feet off the ground as NASA would have you believe, I would be able to zoom in on specs of dust and actual pebbles. There is no dust and there are no pebbles to zoom on in these photos, because they are long range images. If you tried to get right down on the ground like you could in an actual close up photo, you will only see a blurred mess. Those camera managed to take some fairly clear photos of things far away and close, and there is really no reason for the ground to be blurred in every single Apollo photo.
The ground itself is anomalous. No matter what part of the images you study, you won’t see anyting that looks like actual ground, and you definately won’t find any areas that look like they could be crushed like flour and leave prints like the ones in the photos. Plus some of the supposed prints in the very last main photo are “floating” on nothing. Why the supposed prints turn white on soil such as that is one question, but how they can float on blackness (not shadow) is another question altogether. The structures on the ground that resemble prints are huge in reality, and you can see smaller objects on them and around them. At first I thought the prints had been super-imposed onto the photos like the astronauts were, and there may be some that are, but every print I’ve found so far is actually part of the ground, and the closer you look, the less they resemble bootprints, and the more they resemble structures. Some things passed off as boot prints, don’t look like boot prints to begin with.
I do not need to ask, because I saw the one story high photos at the museum, it truly takes your breath away when you see the all that detail. And sorry my boy, you still have to explain how the low-res photos of yours are of any use when you zoom at them, the digital nature of those copies screws up your research.
NASA has even higher resolution photos; it is not logical for the public’s NASA web site to have monster hi-res photos that the public with low band with access can not use)
This facile logic is easy to refute without even entering into the debate over the moon landing.
I’ve seen pictures of what i thought were monsters, until someone explained that they were dust mites photographed using an electron microscope. I’ve seen pictures of what looked like carnival lights, except that they were images of distant galaxies taken by the Hubble telescope. And photos of the surface of Mars showed what many thought were structures created by intelligent life, until further examination of Martian geology and weather systems determined that they were more likely the result of natural phenomena (but we probably never sent probes to Mars, either, right?)
People can only make determinations based on the accumulated experiences of their own existence. We interpret what we see based on a database of previous encounters stored in our brains, and as intelligent beings we also have the ability to extrapolate beyond that to a certain extent. Even when we see something totally new we are likely to try and fit it into some sort of already-contructed taxonomy, rather han automatically assuming that we have just encountered something beyond our experience. This is only natural. But as rational beings we should also be willing to move beyond the constraints of our own narrow experience.
Now i’m about as willing as anyone to believe that groups such as large corporations and governments do things which are not in the best interests of most people, but the ‘didn’t get to the moon’ conspiracy theory just does not stand rational analysis.
And if you believe that a photo taken from four feet or so would allow you to zoom in on individual specks of dust whose size is measured in microns, then you had better tell me where you buy your film, because i need to get me some of that stuff. It is physically impossible for photographic film to render an image of something whose size on the negative is smaller than the size of the crystals that make up the photosensitive material on the film’s surface. This is a measure of the “graininess” of the film, and the more light-sensitive (or ‘faster’) the film is, the larger the grains.
I just checked out the Tiny anomalies/artifacts found on the ground in Apollo photos thread and realised that most of what i said in my previous post on this thread (see above) has already been pointed out there. What’s up, seethruart, are you a glutton for logical punishment?
Seethruart you claim to prove that NASA did not land on the moon. Fine, start some other thread and prove it. It is now put up or shut up time.
No then, speaking as both someone with a decent handle on astrophysics and as (taps cross and adjusts Roman collar) a sort-of-official-but-not-quite man of the cloth (Roman Catholic, Carmelite, Third order secular, not that it matters): your friend is speaking as one who has had a short brush with science and quit listening. Not a couple of hundred thousand years ago, more like four billion, and it took the Earth quite a while to get the way it is now, probably tens of thousands of years to even remotely resemble the planet we know and love. Earth moves way the heck more than a percent closer and farther from the sun on a fairly regular basis. I must admit that this boggles the mind, after all it wasn’t so long ago that humanity (if you could call it that) classified things as either things to eat, things to mate with, things to fight, things to run away from, and rocks. We aren’t quite ready for all this and that’s why science has fouled up so much, (I refuse to enter religious foulups, we don’t have that kind of time) too much of the ‘logic’ that your e-buddy (really it’s more common sense, a force very often wrong and very rarely criticized) and too little real science. Also although the odds of the right collision of particles are rather small say about the same as rolling 42 sixes with dice, things change when you realize there are well over 1,000,000,000,000,000 dice at the least.
You are new here & already you are breaking one of the prime guidelines of this message board…don’t be a jerk. If you want to debate the evidence of the Apollo Moon landing, Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, Creationism, or your understanding of the real story of creation, then great…bring it on. People here will love to discuss it with you. But don’t jump in here and start insulting everyone.
Anyway, Chekmate’s thread here is about the stated Creationist’s claims. Other subjects such as the Apollo Moon landing should be, and have been repeatedly, discussed in other threads.
This is the Straight Dope Message Board…be prepared for people to ask for evidence to back up statements. Perhaps you reject scientific evidence wholesale. If so, maybe you can start a discussion about developing a better tool for understanding the way the universe works.
I’ve been here a while and I know the members here are willing to consider & discuss any subject in great detail.
Chekmate, it’s been a week since you began this thread. Have you taken any of its arguments and refutations back to your friend? How has she responded?
Could be. One of those two is certainly possible. Another possibility is that the vessel was an elipsis. Another is that its walls were not plumb. Another is that the measuring line was a nimble fiber that stretched. Another is that God helped form a “miraculous circle”. Another is that the author was using approximations in manifold dimensions. And there are countless others.
In any case, as a point of debate vis-a-vis biblical errancy, it is a weak and dangling nail upon which to hand one’s hat.
An ellipsis may be defined as an oblique projection of a circle. Let me ask you, of all the things in your life that you have described narratively as “circular”, how many of them were perfectly circular? Would you say the moon looks circular in shape when full? A wedding ring? The rim of a glass? Just how distorted would the vessel have to be in order to be off a cubit on its thirty-cubit circumference? (Give or take a finger.) And how distorted if its walls are not plumb?
That would be a circle with a circumference and diameter that is a ratio of some number other than pi — a circle drawn on a saddle, for example. Or on an irregular globe, like earth. Or in curved space. Or by God in manifold dimensions and in coordinate systems the likes of which you might never have imagined.
