Seethruart, I’m afraid of the truth. Please stop uncovering its blinding light.
[opens door]
[peers in]
Geezum crow! Are they still here? :eek:
[closes door quietly]
[tiptoes away]
I would guess that you have encountered kathaksung, then?
(italics mine)
You don’t have to show us anything. Since you insist that “long range” photographs can have radically different depths of field, and since we are aware that such a condition violates physical laws, you have already provided more than adequate proof of your mental “condition.” More photos are really not required for that proof.
Although if you happen to have pictures of your lobotomy scars, feel free to shoot those our way too.
This is really the only defense any of you have left. I guess you must give people credit for having the intelligence of a three year old, rather that crediting them with being able to think for themselves.
You have been reduced to this type of thing, and asking questions any reasonable person can see are beyond me, and should be asked to NASA, and quite a few people are getting a chance to see your flailing defense of the Apollo fantasy for themselves.
Mostly it’s the same people, saying the same things and asking the same questions, and professing their blindness, over and over and over again. I believe everyone knows none of you will ever see anything that could prove your beliefs are just fantasies. You even create fantasies to defend the fantasy (I guess that is really the only way to defend a fantasy).
The Apollo fantasy is about to end, and that is a reality you will have to accept sooner or later. In the meantime don’t expect me to pamper and console you in your time of denial. I have better things to do.
Seethruart
Wow! Two lies in two days! I did indeed show you before some one who did get access to the moon photo negatives:
http://www.projectfullmoon.com/index.html
If you had looked at the website you would have found this:
http://www.projectfullmoon.com/printsales.html
And there is also a photo section!
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.
[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]
Because you won’t answer them the first time. Or the second time. In fact, it looks like you won’t even answer a simple question after a dozen times.
If these questions are beyond you, then you are -definatly- jumping to conclusions much too quickly, as you fail to completely understand the field you are investigating. You see a tiny “flaw” in a photo, and then conclude it’s fake, despite the evidence it is not; When confronted with this fact (Depth of field, for at LEAST the tenth time!) you completely ignore it and say WE are the ones ignoring evidence. That’s a rather arogant stance for someone who can’t be bothered to reason out HIS OWN claim. If you can’t explain how the apparent proof that they are true photos is NOT true, how do you hope to convince anyone else of it? As long as you can not answer the question as to how the depth of field was “faked”, then it is much more conclusive proof than your “proof”.
Depth of field makes all your so-called evidence irrelivant, unless you can find some way to counter it. Seeing as you can not, and you ADMIT you can not, how can you possibly claim your stance to be an educated one? The evidence is against you, and you have no explanation to counter it. You’re either jumping all bounds of logic, trolling, or both.
We do not need any other defense.
It violates the laws of physics for a photograph taken through any lens to be able to be out of focus (via changes in depth of field) in one place and in focus in another when the lens is hundreds of feet (not to mention thousands of miles) from the object on which it is focussing. You can “see” whatever your brain tells you to, but the clear presence of a bootprint with variable depth-of-field puts the lie to any claim that the photograph was taken from anywhere but a couple of feet away from the bootprint.
Bull. You STILL haven’t dared offer any in-depth answers to any of my questions. I’ll repeat them for you…
-
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?”
-
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?
-
Have YOU written to NASA? What was the response? Did you ignore it outright?
-
Mr. Art, for your theory to be accurate, it requires the presence of hundreds, if not thousands, of 500-meter-long “shuttles” to dot the face of the Moon. And where are the landing pads for these shuttles? Where are the roads? Where are the massive cities? We have far more starships than structures in your images… why is that? Are you suggesting that the Moon is one, big intergalactic trailer park?
-
How did the “structures” [on the Moon] get there? Who built them? How big are these structures, exactly?
I just cut and pasted these questions from where I asked them earlier in the thread. Answer them. You require more than just a simple, half-baked theory. You need specifics. Furthermore, there are several questions that Pheonix Dragon asked you…
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.
**Answer…
The…
Questions.**
If you truly have the “truth” on your side, then why are you afraid of discussing it? Again… ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
I’m only going to drop this issue when you answer the questions, Mr. Art, or when you disappear from the Boards.
I’ll ask you again, since you might have missed it the first time:
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.)
Well seethruart, I went to your site with an open mind as you requested and tried not to immediately think of rocks and dirt. Hell, I didn’t go to the moon, I’ve never met anyone who’s been to the moon, maybe no-one’s been to the moon.
Sorry to say that all I could see was - well, rocks and dirt. Certainly looks like they’re on the moon to me.
I have a few questions to add to the ever-growing list you haven’t bothered to answer yet:
-
How could long-range satellite photos give side-on views of objects? (‘round building’, ‘tower on the mound’ etc)
-
Why would NASA use long-range satellite photos of the moon as backdrop for their astronauts when they could have used any patch of light coloured rocks and dust on Earth?
-
In particular, why would NASA use an overhead photo of an alien structure that looks like a bootprint instead of just making a bootprint in said patch? Surely it would be obvious that the ‘truth’ would come out sooner or later.
-
If they felt they had to use this method, why did they not airbrush out the ‘anomalies’?
-
Isn’t it an amazing coincidence that the aliens built structures that look exactly like a boot print or exactly like the rover in front of a rock?
-
Why were NASA so desperate to pretend they’d been to the moon anyway?
It would be very easy for you to just tell me to ask NASA all these questions but of course I’m not going to do that. What I want to know is your opinions. Why do you think NASA did these things?
Please try to answer these and the other questions. Your refusal to respond is causing your credibility rating to rapidly drop into negative figures.
I can answer this question… because we were racing with the Soviet Union at the time. The theory goes that NASA knew they couldn’t beat the Soviets there, so they faked it to prove “American superiority”.
However, this doesn’t answer why even the Soviets picked up the radio broadcasts from the Moon. You’d think that Mother Russia would have been the FIRST entity to try to discredit the Moon landings. Instead, they’ve ALWAYS said that even THEY detected the Apollo transmissions. Hell, CB enthusiasts around the world picked up the Apollo transmissions.
How did NASA fake THAT?
James Randi’s site, http://www.randi.org in the comments section. It is a reproduction of a letter from Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the British author, commenting on a survey showing that 20% of Americans believed the moon landings were faked.
“Dear Jim, As a long-time admirer of the United States, I am appalled to hear that a recent poll suggests that 20% of Americans are ignorant fools: I hope the figure is grossly exaggerated, as no other term is strong enough to describe anyone who believes the Moon landings have been faked.
If the late unlamented Evil Empire was still around, I might have suspected some of being communist sympathisers attempting to discredit the one achievement for which the U.S.A. may be remembered a thousand years from now.”
Anyway, that about sums it up. The rest of the letter goes into how difficult it would be to actually fake something like this and keep it a secret for any length of time. It’s an interesting letter and an interesting site, I highly recommend it to the many pseudo-scientists and conspiracy theorists.
Testy.
Seethruart,
please answer the questions above.
At present the ‘dialogue’ consists of you saying “I can see an anomaly”, other posters replying with questions and showing difficulties in your position. You then reply “Everyone can see it.”
In the context of the above, this whole paragraph could be applied to you.
Has anyone agreed with you?
Does this mean we’re all in a conspiracy?
Or could you be … mistaken?
Unfortunately your evidence is far too shaky for this confident boast.
P.S. Answer the questions!
Seethru, you say all Apollo lunar missions were frauds. But what about Apollo 10?
What do you think about the Apollo 10 mission?
I want no replies from anyone but Seethru, since I have a specific reason for asking this.
The photographic evidence I have only helps to prove the actual landing missions were faked (11-17) which I make clear in my theory.
I have seen other theories that suggests the other missions were faked, and that Apollo 10 was either unmanned, or it’s not even an Apollo craft taking the orbital shots, and that the actual Apollo 10 craft did nothing but orbit earth the entire time (like 11 through 17 supposedly did). However, I only focus on what I have actual photographic evidence of in official Apollo lunar surface photos. You’ll have to debate the other missions with someone else.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=seethruart
Seethruart
The evidence that you are using got much worse if that was possible:
An average digital image at film resolution is about 20 megs or more if you whant to reproduce a 35mm photo.
I checked the moon mission info and I found that the film that they used was 70mm!!!
To get a digital copy of one of those images in your computer, to analize for “shuttles”, one now is talking 40 or more megabytes for each single file! The files would be even larger if you ACTUALLY do your peculiar research in the proper manner, which in reality you have never done YET.
On top of that, you have been reduced to be a liar, not once, but twice.
[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]
No one here has reduced me to a liar, but those who have seen what I am pointing out are seeing you and the others for what you really are.
I guess you think the last lines in your post are supposed to mean something? (maybe they mean you are immature). Don’t you think if these anomalies weren’t in the negatives and the originals that, NASA would have let everyone know that by now? Do you think they are afraid to release the negatives? Do you think they would rather have people like you go around denying blatant and obvious discrepancies, instead of simply showing people the negatives of the anomalous photos I have highlighted so far? If there is nothing in the negatives but rocks and dust, NASA has nothing to worry about, right?
Not only can I show people how to see through art, I can show them how to see through you.
Seethruart
So we have this: you lied twice about your evidence.
And the fact is: you have not done your research properly yet. I ask you respectfully to stop there and do YOUR research with appropriate photos. Michael Light and other documentary producers had no trouble to get access to the originals, until you do that, do not bother even saying that we are the deluded ones. You see if you think only a second about this since you are not using the proper evidence any anomaly whatsoever can be dismissed because of the nature of the photos used: third or forth generation film photos that then even NASA used in their websites because for the web there was no need for so much detail. And then you are using those photos but now in digital compressed form. Your evidence is not good; your message is not good.
[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]
The photos you’ve seen don’t even help prove that, since you are entirely unable AND unwilling to explain the proof that they’re real, short-range photos from the surface of the moon.
You’re also avoiding answering any of the questions being asked, despite being asked multiple times to answer them. Instead, you ignore any facts presented, and call people ignorant for not blindly following you. Seems to me you’re trolling, and doing a bad job of it.