Tiny anomalies/artifacts found on the ground in Apollo photos

Great Debates
241

I was afraid somebody was going to show me people nuttier then Piper, lol.

I hate to admit it but I have run across some people on the web that are farther out then Seethruart/Piper. http://www.sibology.com comes to mind. (Piper’s pal at http://www.anomalog.com/bergrun.html is pretty damn strange too) It’s just that we’ve been battling Piper’s particular psychosis all damn summer long over at the Bad Astronomy Board.

We’ve told him about JPG artifacts, Pareidolia, etc, etc, etc. “You are all in denial!” is about the only response we get.

So let me get this straight… Nasa took long range shots of alien structures, superimposed astronauts on them, perfectly aligning them on video shots of them walking around. Used bootprint shaped buildings, also perfectly aligned to make a track. This is a pretty damn silly ‘theory’ and requires an unbelivable amount of stupidity on the part of NASA. It would be easier just to go to the moon.

I’ve submitted Piper to Crank.Net and I’m curious to see if he is awarded the coveted Illucid title.

242

I’ve taken these quotes out of order, but they are from two recent posts:

If you’re suggesting that we do not see the anomalies because we have been conditioned not to, then what does the first paragraph say about your preconceptions when you first discovered the anomalies. If your “eyes were already adjusted to focusing on tiny things on the ground in satellite photos” how can you be sure you were not predisposed to see the anomalies? What makes you believe that you were immune to a similar form of conditioning?

243

That wasn’t the question. There are many ways to get photos of the moon’s surface. The question is, how did the photo of the bootprint show such narrow a depth of field when that effect can only be done at under 2 meters? That rules out satellites, orbital Apollo missions, and aliens. To put it more simply so even seethruart can understand it, how can the photos NOT be taken from the surface of the moon when the effects in the photos are only possible when taken from the surface of the moon?
Answer the question. Answer THIS question, not some other question next time.

244

I did answer the question earlier in the theory. I said “all I know for certain is, they are long range photos of some kind.” Seeing how I’m just an average earth bound human, it would be impossible for me to know the specifics you ask for, and I think you know that, but just don’t have any other defense, and you hope if your question doesn’t serve any other purpose, it will help to confuse.

I suggest you write NASA and say, “Hey dudes, I turned this hoax believer onto a photo of the famous Apollo 11 bootprint, and he found LITTLE ANOMALIES ON THE TREADS OF THE BOOTPRINT AND FLOATING IN THE BOOTPRINT!!! He says they are not even bootprints but structures and areas RESEMBLING prints. He says many of the print like structures that seem to be floating in darkness are disguising entrances into the ground!! That’s not all!!! He’s found ALL SORTS OF TINY LITTLE STRANGE THINGS on the ground and rocks in APOLLO PHOTOS!!! He says they are long range anomalies. I HAD NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING AND NOW I SEE THEM IN APOLLO PHOTOS!!! He says the astronauts were super-imposed onto long range images, and that he has the photographic evidence to prove it!!! COME ON NASA, WHAT IN SAM HILL DO YOU SAY ABOUT THAT!!!”

I guessed that never dawned on you.

:slight_smile:

Seethruart

245

Why I need to ask NASA if we already know that your use of second or third generation digital COPIES of fotos, shoots down all your theories? :slight_smile:

246

The same things are in the originals and negatives. Look for yourself. It’s not like the Apollo photos are on Mars or something. If I didn’t already know they were in the originals and negatives I WOULDN’T BE HERE!
Try to come up with an original line of BS. The same old stuff gets boring.

:slight_smile:

Seethruart

247

Sorry, you are the BS trower. As the guy in the FULL MOON book and Museum exposition said, the Negatives were not released to the public, When you say that the anomalies are in the negatives too, you have to show that YOU went to NASA to see them. I am afraid you just did lie to us. :slight_smile:

248

As I made clear in my theory, there is nothing I can say or do to convince you, you have to convince yourself. Like I said before, if I didn’t KNOW FOR CERTAIN the same anomalies were in the negatives and the originals, I wouldn’t be here. You can obtain the originals, and in the first response that sounded good enough for you. It sounds like now the only evidence you’ll ever believe is the evidence you know you’ll never see. Don’t try to nit pic my responses. If you can’t face up to the strange long range reality on the ground in Apollo photos then you need to opt out of the discussion. I don’t have to show you anymore than what I already have photographic evidence of.

:slight_smile:

Seethruart

249

it is not nit picking to show that you are lying.

Without truth there is Seetruart :slight_smile:

250

Seethruart:

Do you also see those miniature space shuttles and alien cities on photographs which are known to be long range photos of the lunar surface? E.g. in photos taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, or the Clementine space probe?

(The Clementine mission was handled by the U.S. Air Force, not NASA, so they would not have had an incentive to cover up an Apollo hoax.)

251

You haven’t shown anything.

I have shown photographic evidence.

You are proving you can’t handle it.

:slight_smile:

Seethruart

252

So in other words… You see what you interpret to be buildings/aliens/shuttles/faces in a photo, and automatically leap to the conclusion that they’re long-range photos with super-imposed images of astronauts in them… But you have no idea -how- they could manage any of it? Much less, you claim that they were done almost 40 years ago with detail that would be impossible now. And you assume it must be true?

You’re entirely skipping the basic process. Find some evidence (As shakey as this is), then come up with a solid, workable theory as to how it works. A theory is not a simplified statement (IE, “They’re superimposed images atop long-range photos”). That’s a thesis (Hypothetical idea set foreward, commonly without proof). As such, it’s even more open to disagreement because it offers no proof, only ideas. And seeing images in the dust is no more proof than seeing images in clouds.

To be a solid theory, you need not only evidence, but a working explanation of how it works. Provide support for a theory, and others might believe it. Theories, however, are just as open to being disproven as a thesis, even moreso, because the entire working of it has to work, or the whole thing fails to work. So far, you seem to skip some very serious steps with no possible explanation as to how it would work. Of course nobody is going to believe you when you can’t explain HOW a semingly impossible task is done.

So, if you want people to believe you, you need to explain how it could -possibly- be done;

1- You’ve already been asked a good dozen times about the depth of field and focus, and how a long-range shot could possibly look like on taken at under 2 meters. As long as you can not give an answer to this, the entire thesis is unbelievable.

2- How did they attain such a high-quality image with 1960s technology? As was mentioned before, no terestrial-bound telescope (I’m fairly certain that includes the large observatories) can attain that high of resolution at that range. I doubt the hubble could, though that might be a little more reasonable (Just a few decades too late for your argument)

3- Explain the annomalies. What are the structures there for, and why would they be so small? Why are there faces painted in the dirt on the MOON? Why are there supposedly people laying there on the moon? And how did they get there? Obviously, NASA didn’t put them there (If they did, why did they fake a moon landing, if they were already there?).

4- If they did have the tech to do all this (Ignoring that it’s beyond modern tech), why didn’t they use it to go to the moon instead of faking it? With your proposition, it would have been easier to do it for real.

Unless you can start offering answers to “how?” it happened, nobody is going to listen to you screaming “it just did!”

253

I wanted to quote this post one time to make sure everyone had a chance to see it and check out ht elink.

Contrary to the conclusion one the of previous posters jumped to. I did not jump to ANY conclusions about this, and as far as I know, everything has been considered, and the only reasonable explanation is that the astronauts were super-imposed onto a series of long range images. The only other explanations depend on pretending many factors don’t exist. My explanation deals with reality. Reality is not always roses and cotton candy. Sometimes reality is strange. This Apollo hoax reality is stranger than science fiction.

:slight_smile:

Seethruart

254

Okay. Let me try this.

Seethruart, I just picked five photos from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and focused for several minutes on them. I saw dirt. Rocks. Bootprints.

I did, however, see several photos of the same patch of ground, before it was being raked, while an astronaut was raking it, and then after being raked. Which strikes me as difficult to do from orbit.

(At this point, I have to admit that without this thread I might never have visited that site. It’s amazingly cool, and very thorough in its documentation. So, that much I owe to Seethruart. It’s nice to have such a comprehensive record of a magnificent human achievement.)

Anyway, Seethruart, my question is: How many people would have to say that they don’t see what you do, to convince you that you might be mistaken?
And, Seethruart, why do you keep insisting that we write to NASA, asking them about the anomalies you’re convinced you’re seeing, when you won’t believe anything they’re saying anyway? Take a look at NASA’s official statement on the moon landing hoax theories, and tell me; if you disbelieve that, why would you believe anything they say?

I’d like you to take the time to read About.com’s definition of the word “delusion”:

Seethruart, your ideas about the moon photos are not subject to reason or contradictory evidence. There’s a strong possibility that you are delusional.

If you’re happy with your life the way it is, great. You seem pretty harmless, though obsessed. If you’re not happy with how people are treating you, or how your life is unfolding, you may find a psychiatrist’s help very useful. This page gives you a good place to start finding help.

Good luck.

255

So, basically, you still do not understand granularity and depth-of-field well enough to see that your delusions are just that?

OK

256

On the contrary, you can not handle this:

After you lied about knowing for certain that the artifacts were present in the negatives, you need to do a better effort to convince us that we should keep an open mind. (How about an apology)
My complaint is simple: your use of second or third generation digital COPIES as evidence for your theories will never be accepted in a serious investigation, you need the NEGATIVES or a first generation copy. If you DO think about it, you are failing in your research even before you give the first zoom to your photos. That is the conclusion I reached after examining your files. And using logic.

It is not a matter of convincing us if those shuttles are there in the moon, it is a matter of convincing us that your evidence is good to begin with.

[sub]“If I didn’t KNOW FOR CERTAIN the same anomalies were in the negatives and the originals, I wouldn’t be here!!” --Seethruart

Without truth there is Seetruart. :)[/sub]

257

If it were reasonable, then it would have a reasonable explanation as to HOW it was done. However, you have not given even an ATEMPT at describing details of how it could be done, just vaguely brushing at the topic. Unless you can provide a reasonable explanation as to how it can be done, the only explanations left are very unreasonable ones, and therefor, unbelievable.

And you certainly are jumping to conclusions, seeing as you have formed a hypothesis, and then jumped straight to a conclusion without forming any functional idea of how it could be achieved. Again, explain it.

Dodging serious questions in no way helps your cause; It hurts it. Unless you can address the doubts directly, there is no way you’re ever going to provide anything beyond circumstantial evidence. And frankly, circumstantial and questionable evidence that it was faked can not compare to the much more solid and provable evidence that it was true. For your argument to be true, you not only have to prove that you’re right, but that the proof of the actuall landings isn’t true. Moreover, you give absurd reasons for it, further decreasing the believability of your argument.

If you want anyone to believe you, you have to make your “evidence” (If it can be called that) stronger than NASA’s. Otherwise, people will have to side with the stronger evidence, and against yours.

So I’ll ask you again. Answer the questions.

258

Mr. Art, I’m going to try one more time…

You claim that there are shuttles and structures on the Moon. Okay, then… here’s my simple question…

How come these “shuttles” and/or structures can’t simply be odd formations of dirt or rocks?

Why do you automatically shout “Shuttles!” when you see something that’s oddly triangular in shape? Why do you shout “Tower on a mound!” when you see something that happens to be a bit mor vertically-oriented than the surrounding area? Why is this your automatic reaction every time? Why do you never - NEVER - stop to question, “Can this possibly NOT be a shuttle?”

And, again, I notice that you claim that these were long-range shots. I see you’ve revised your original theory to state that they might have been taken in orbit around the Moon. So obviously you believe that NASA had developed the capability of GETTING TO the general vicinity of the Moon. Why is it such a leap of imagination that they actually landed a manned craft down there?

And don’t give us this “I know they’re long-range shots, but I don’t know how they made them.” Either you’re qualified to make the examination, or you’re not. I’ve asked several times before, and I’ll ask again: What are your qualifications? What experience in photo examination do you have? What training? What authority do you have to proclaim these photos to be false? What knowledge do you have with the process of “superimposing” to declare these bootprints as superimpositions?

And as for this…

Why? Have YOU written to NASA? What was the response? Did you ignore it outright? NASA has been extremely forthcoming with evidence, and have answered questions. We’re done with NASA. NASA isn’t even being questioned here. You are. So stop trying to hide behind NASA.

When YOU finish answering all the questions that people have asked of you, then we’ll consider going back to NASA. Until then, we will hold everything you say with utter suspicion.

But others have seen the originals and the negatives, and they have given their testimonials about how the originals don’t contain the anomalies that you are presenting. To whit, you are lying.

259

I don’t know how to address Seethruart. I don’t know how to present anymore valid arguments or evidence. All I know is that I haven’t been this entertained since Andy Kaufman died (or did he???).

:wink: - I’m with you Seethru- - but I think you need to throw in a new wrinkle - you might be losing some audience - how about claiming to actually be in contact with the aliens, that ought to shake up a few posters.

Keep up the good work, ya fruit-cake ya.

260

Is this picture real or fake: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.geo101.jpg

I got it from this webpage: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html On the left, click on “Fun Pictures”. Scroll down to “Geology 101 Field Trip” and you can learn how this picture was made.