In other words, don’t feed the trolls…
Yes Seethruart I think you are worried more about me because you are the one who decided to insult me when I did not do so. I also noticed that if you take into consideration the problems of the low resolution (yes they are low resolution) images used for your research, your theories bite the dust and therefore you ignore that fact. That is why you ignored my last post.
Here is why your photos are the problem:
http://www.projectfullmoon.com/index.html
I did see them, and there were no anomalies. You are not using any original source images for your web site.
But even more damming:
This again shows that I was correct in saying that the images are from film and definitely not from satellites. Like Chas.E and many others mentioned, it is the WAY the photos were taken that proves you are wrong.
It is not good to stand to defend a theory based on low-resolution digital COPIES. And from a source (NASA) that, in your own words, is discredited. I may believe that you have problems, but that is a belief. I do know now that your evidence is bad. I know for a fact, that your MESSAGE is the problem.
:rolleyes:
No, pal, I asked YOU. YOU are the one who claims that starships and cities are on the Moon, not NASA. YOU are the one who must back up your words. NASA has the verifiable testimony of thousands of direct employees, thousands of other people with no ties to NASA, pieces of the lunar surface which conform with the geological development in a vacuum (which is impossible to find on Earth), archives upon archives of images and videos from the Moon, etc. etc. etc.
You have claims of starships on the Moon.
So explain the starships, Mr. Art. You made the accusation, you prove it. NASA is “innocent until proven guilty”, and unless you can explain the existence of starships and structures on the Moon, your evidence falls apart.
Jab…
Perhaps, but I’m still dying to know why “poured concrete” (or the lunar surface, for that matter) would have “shuttles”. Or “towers”.
I’m pretty sure he believes that an alien civilization has already colonized the Moon. That such a delusion could exist simply lowers my overall opinion of humanity in general, for it assumes that either, A: NASA of thirty years ago had access to focusing/telescope technology that does not exist today, or B: the aliens have all abandoned the Moon in the past thirty years for no good reason.
Sorry, I thought this thread was dead so I removed it. It was a feeble attempt at a joke.
Mr. Seethruart, let me tell you about a little something called “the scientific method” and how it works.
Step one: Observe something.
Step two: Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
Step three: Use your hypothesis to make predictions.
Step four: Test your hypothesis by experimentation or making further observations.
Step five: Modify your hypothesis by the results of step four and go back to step three. Do this until your hypothesis and results are 100% consistent.
What you are doing is modifying your results to match your hypothesis. This is a no-no, and you will earn no respect until you stop.
We also use a tool known as “Occam’s (or Ockham’s) Razor”
which states “one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”
or ,paraphrasing, “the simplest solution is the best”. Your hypotheses require leaps of faith and imagination, a thousand-fold conspiracy, extraterrestial activity, and sophisticated photographic fakery (although not so sophisticated that it can’t be undone by a nut with a magnifying glass). Although you like to present the illusion of working within the boundaries of science, you use none of it’s methods and your “work” is a fraud.
Thats your problem, seethruart, pretty much everyone has. I’d bet that if you went down the street and said “Hey! Have you seen any of those Apollo conspiracy photos?” or something to that regard, I think that you’d have a damn good chance 80% would say yes. And you’re still plugging away.
And yes, I’ve been there. Heck, I spent way more time there than I should have. You really, honestly, truely have not done anything new that hasn’t been tried before and completely debunked. And not just by NASA people, by everyday people with expert knowledge. Dare I say, far more expertise than you with vivid imagination and a copy of photoshop. Devious? I used no different words to describe your pictures than you’ve said yourself on your own site.
Look, I asked you a question point blank 2 pages back in this thread that you totally ignored. You immediatly jumped on this last one that I posted since it seemed to attack your ahem work. So, I will ask it again here. I’ll do a quote to save you searching for it since I am so nice.
I’d be curious to here what the answer is.
I take that back. I was thinking on my way to the office that your bootprint thing is at least original. I’ve never seen that one used before.
No, I’m asking YOU. I read your statement and it does nothing to address this specific question.
Unless you can give some logical explanation to this question, your whole hypothesis is invalid. How can the photos taken from a sattelite show a depth of field effect only possible at distances under 2 meters?
My goodness what a row. Though it is very entertaining to read. Reading Seethru’s posts remind me of those old movie mad scientists. You know the ones that say things like,
“They called me mad at the academy But I’ll show them I’ll show them all! NOW WHO’S MAD HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!”
I have never seen such a denial of reality in my life. Now normally these stupid moon hoax sites at least show something you can see even if their explainations are wrong, but this…
Seethru, look man I’m not gonna say you are wrong, but…
damn you’re wrong. There is nothing in those images except what you see in your head, and I’d get it checked or at least change the tinfoil, the old stuff’s apparently worn out.
RickJay wrote:
Isn’t it obvious?
NASA sent hundreds of robotic digging machines to the surface of the moon in the mid-1960s. These machines flawlessly dug out a giant, mile-wide indentation on the lunar surface which, from a distance, looks exactly like a boot-print. Then they took a picture of it with one of their unmanned lunar-orbiting satellites.
All so that they could fool us into thinking that they sent human beings to the moon in 1969.
Oh, the humanity! Anyone else think it’s about time we stopped wasting electrons on this? If you plonked seethrough on the surface of the moon and rubbed his nose in the evidence he would still deny it. He’s already resorting to movie-villain-type dialog.
Just let this thread die, already!
Nerv-Chairman of the “Secret Committee to Undermine, Modify and Suppress SeethroughArt’s Sublime Liberating Ultimate Truth” (SCUMSSLUT)
Oh, the humanity! Anyone else think it’s about time we stopped wasting electrons on this? If you plonked seethrough on the surface of the moon and rubbed his nose in the evidence he would still deny it. He’s already resorting to movie-villain-type dialog.
Just let this thread die, already!
Nerv-Chairman of the “Secret Committee to Undermine, Modify and Suppress SeethroughArt’s Sublime Liberating Ultimate Truth” (SCUMSSLUT)
Oh, the humanity! Anyone else think it’s about time we stopped wasting electrons on this? If you plonked seethrough on the surface of the moon and rubbed his nose in the evidence he would still deny it. He’s already resorting to movie-villain-type dialog.
Just let this thread die, already!
Nerv-Chairman of the “Secret Committee to Undermine, Modify and Suppress SeethroughArt’s Sublime Liberating Ultimate Truth” (SCUMSSLUT)
Wait a minute, here. Do I understand this correctly?
- NASA is a fraudulent organization…
- That faked the moon landing…
- By building enormous structures and shuttle craft on the moon…
- And photographing them at long range…
- To produce faked “closeup” pictures. Furthermore…
- This assertion can be proven…
- By repeatedly enlarging low-res scans of said pictures…
- Which are available from NASA…
- Which is a fraudulent organization…
Now, ignoring the merely gargantuan leaps in logic in the rest of this argument, I’d like to focus on statements 2 and 3, above.
I think I might see the problem here.
Most people (well, pretty much everybody), entertaining a notion such as, “NASA faked the moon landings by building enormous structures on the moon” would immediately discard it, arguing to themselves that there simply aren’t enough resources to build thousands of Hoover-dam-and-larger sized structures on the moon. In addition, the sheer ridiculousness of imagining NASA executives even considering such an action as a plausible solution would also argue for discarding such a notion.
However, let’s assume that there is a person (named, say, seethruart) who simply does not see the inherent ridiculousness. This person says, “Building enormous structures on the moon rather than landing on it seems like a reasonable course of action.” It seems to me that trying to explain why this idea is silly, using whatever arguments you choose, is akin to trying to explain colors to a blind man: seethruart is lacking that sense of “reality” (for lack of a better word) that the rest of us have, and trying to explain any concept related to “reality” is doomed to failure.
Zut, I will now predict that you will get naught more than a “Go ask NASA” reply from Piper.
From his website:
Seethruart cannot say I have not looked at his website.
You’re wrong, buddy. The photos are exactly what they are reputed to be: Photos taken by men on the surface of the Moon.
Piper sorry seethrart has said,
“Since you based your entire post on that bit of untruth, I see no need to respond to the rest of it.”
Is there any reson to respond to him anymore? He has proven himself fraudulent and unable to admit being wrong.
For the fun of it ( :rolleyes: ), I thought I’d give this a chance. So here goes.
Note that for all comparisons, I looked at both SeeThruArt’s pics (enlargements) and compared to the ALSJ image ( http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5877.jpg ).
Highlight 1:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=3&uid=145721&gid=409984&imgid=4140391#top
(I think this will link the right page. If not, this is off the boot prints page 2, or Mini Anomalies 5.)
It took me a while but I located this image on the original. It is at the top, or toe, of the bootprint. There is no clear evidence that what you interpret as the shadow of the “floating” object is in fact that. The crop changes the sun angle and removes other references to see what direction the shadows are falling. Also, it is blurry because of jpeg resolution and compression - not your fault, but it does make it harder to tell detail in the enlargement. Looking at the full size for comparison, the sun is in fact coming from the direct right side of the picture. The object in question and the shadow are, in fact, in a near opposite direction for that sun angle to work. (I’m sure you will now use that as further evidence of your position, but it is not intended that way.) In fact, it appears to be a sequence of bumpy ground, shadow from the bumps, then the lip of the bootprint, followed by the shadow in the print (going from right to left). So while the enlargement gives the impression of a floating object and a shadow below it, that is an erroneous interpretation.
Highlight 2:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=3&uid=145721&gid=409984&imgid=4140415#top
I do not see any floating objects, nor do I see any spheres. I see some fuzzy lines of shadow and lit regions, and blurry blobs. I cannot locate this on the original - I’m not saying it isn’t there, I just don’t know where.
Highlight 3:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=3&uid=145721&gid=409984&imgid=4140513#top
This looks like an enlargement of the third shoe tread down from the top. In the original, it is clear the treads are not pristine, but suffered some damage from when the boot was removed. This makes sense, as if it tried to cling to the boot at all it could happen this way. I have done this many times with snow, for example. It especially fits if he rocked from the full foot down to off the heel as he stepped backwards. The texture of the soil also appears roughened in that tread, like some small pebbles there. The enlargement is blurry and does not show anything more than an elongaged structure with some somewhat smooth edges - exactly how a boot tread should look.
Highlight 4:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=3&uid=145721&gid=409984&imgid=4140554#top
The objects do not look to me like a triangle and a sphere, though I can see something vaguely triangular on the left. It looks to me more like roughened, uneven stuff clumped together. If I tilt my head to the right, I do see what you say resembles a face, in the same way I can see faces in clouds or in floral patterns in drapes and upholstry; i.e. it has patterns of lightness and darkness that resemble eye sockets, nose, chin. Okay, no big mystery there.
Highlight 5:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=3&uid=145721&gid=409984&imgid=4140627#top
You don’t say what the object is or why you point it out. Judging from some of your past comments, I am guessing you intend the blurry smear just to the right of the crosshairs to be a face. It looks to me like it could be an owl face - big, black eyes, a black open mouth, pointed ears. Again, that is interpreting it like interpreting images in clouds. It looks to me to be a pattern of shadow and dirt, enhanced by digital compression.
Highlight 6:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=3&uid=145721&gid=409984&imgid=4140702#top
You don’t even point out what I’m supposed to look at. However, using the same methodology as above, I do find something face-like by studying the shadows just left of the cracked mound. I say face-like because it is less distinct than the “lion” face on Hoagland’s page. Again, to me it is nothing more than patterns of shadow and dirt.
The rest of the pics aren’t explained what they are supposed to be pointing out, so I’ll end here.
So, I looked at your pictures, and I don’t see anomalies - I see blurry patterns that resemble shapes but are merely the result of bumpy ground in low angle lighting.
Duck Duck, nice pics.
SeeThruArt said:
What, you mean traffic like people from here, and links like mine? Okay, if you want to take that as positive, whatever.
And it seems to me tha Chas.E has asked you a specific question that you need to explain for your methodology to be accepted. How do you explain the depth of field effect that can only be created at distances under 2 meters? How are your “long range images” able to duplicate this effect?
zut, I don’t think he’s claiming that NASA built structures on the moon. I think he’s implying they’re aliens. I think he’s saying that NASA used orbiting vehicles to take long-range surface pics, then used those as backdrops for the fake pictures created in, say, a soundstage. No, I don’t agree, but it’s important to not set up straw men.
Well, there’s a review of some of your anomalies. Sorry, there’s nothing there.
People seem to be falling all over themselves to fail to see what Seethruart says is invariably, without question, there. Yet Seethruart claims there are indeed people who believe him. Strange that none of this vastly oppressed minority seems to be rushing to Seethruart’s defense. Says something either for their state of existence or the degree to which they’ve been convinced.
"Dear PictureTrail visitor,
We are in the process of performing major server replacements and upgrades on a part of our system hardware. The pictures and accounts you are trying to view are on this portion of our hardware that is being upgraded. These pictures and accounts will unfortunately have to be offline until the upgrades have been completed. We anticipate the upgrades will take several days to complete."
Do you need more proof of a vast conspiracy?! {grin}