Whether you can face it or not, photographic evidence is exactly what I have, and unfortunately the ground doesn’t “just look weird.” If the ground “just looked weird” I wouldn’t be here.
Seethruart
Bad photographic evidence of fakes, that is.
It does, you shouldn’t.
So, Seethruart, what anomalies have you seen in known long-range photos of the lunar surface, which weren’t allegedly taken by the Apollo astronauts?
Seethruart:
What criteria would you use to tell whether the photos are “actual close up ground” instead of long range images? Also, how would you be sure that the photos are detailed enough (high enough resolution) to use for this test?
I’m also interested in your answer to tracer’s question… I’m not clear on whether you’re saying these anomalies are flaws in the image, or actual structures present on the moon. If they are present on the moon, can you see them in other long range images?
All right, Mr. Art, I see that you have once again proven your cowardice by refraining from answering a few simple questions.
However, I have another challenge for you (what, did you expect this to be easy? Did you expect people to just take your word for it?). I have acquired a series of images that were discarded, since they didn’t show anything of import. I have posted some of those images here. I was wondering if you could apply your “expert” skill and evaluate these images for authenticity.
If you truly speak the truth, Mr. Art, you would not fear challenges.
First of all, I don’t work from your blurry crops. If you have a link to an original photo, I will be glad to look at whatever you put forth. I specifically ask people “not” to take my word for anything, and to study the evidence for themselves.
When I post a crop, I ALWAYS leave a link to the original just so people don’t have to take my word for it.
One more thing, even though I can find anomalies on the ground in any Apollo photo, I try to use the least blurred images I can find. Unfortunately, most of the ground in Apollo photos is either badly blurred, overly dark, overly bleached, or grainy, and I have to hunt around for clearer shots of the ground, and even the clearer ones are blurred.
Again, if you want me to look at an apollo photo, leave a link to the original. Also, if you want me to look at a photo of the ground in your yard, make sure it’s not blurred.
Seethruart
Another thing, Spoofe, that was no “fair” attempt at anything. It’s just another “devious” little stunt from a “devious” little man.
A fair person would have done it differently. I have yet to see a debunker do anything above board and honestly. If there is not an element of deviousness involved then there is usually no debunker involved either.
Seethruart
Even if you didn’t like SPOOFE’s challenge, there are still many technical problems with your theory, including but not limited to:
-The focal depth of your ‘long-range’ bootprint photo.
-‘Satellite’ photos that, if your theories are correct, must have been taken almost parallel to the ground.
-Lack of structures on what are known to be long-range photos of the moon.
-Photo editing that would have been impossible using 60s technology.
-Your source photos are third- or fourth-generation copies that contain much less detail than the originals.
Again, these are only examples of problems that many of us have found. Please try to answer the other questions too. You must present more evidence than ‘Look at the pictures’.
I would like you to look at the Clementine photos of the lunar surface. A photo library of 170,000 images is available, at resolutions from 1 pixel = 32 kilometers down to 1 pixel = 1 kilometer, at http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/. You can also select specifically named lunar features to display, including features near the alleged Apollo 11 landing site, by going to http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/features/.
The Clementine photos were taken by the DSPSE space probe, launched by the U.S. Department of Defense in January 1994. The probe orbited the moon for 2 months, taking approximately 1.8 million pictures of the lunar surface.
What anomalies do you see in the Clementine pictures? Do you see any structures, towers, shuttles, etc.?
Debunkers seem devious to you, Seethruart, because you include in your definition of deviousness the reticence to accept without question your highly questionable conclusions.
By this time it’s quite obvious that you can find “anomalies” in any Apollo photo. But by your technique I can find similar “anomalies” in any photograph that exhibits a sufficient degree of complexity. That makes your technique worthless. If your technique identifies “anomalies” which are not actually anomalous, then your findings are based on a staggering proportion of false positives.
I live in Utah, one of the most geologically interesting regions of the world. There are your sorts of “anomalies” everywhere we look. Down in Bryce Canyon there’s a hoodoo called Queen Victoria Rock. Viewed from a certain angle, it resembles the statue of Queen Victoria which stands outside Buckingham Palace. According to your method, I must assume without further question that this rock was intentionally carved to resemble Queen Victoria.
The argument “Vaguely looks like, therefore can only possibly be” simply does not hold water, and we aren’t devious for rejecting it.
It’s not that I didn’t like Spoofe’s challenge (Actually, I couldn’t care less about it), it’s that he is doing exactly what he accuses me of doing. He wants people to “take his word” that those crops are from something authentic. He doesn’t do people the courtesy of letting them know where the photos come from.
The focal depth is just right for showing there are things on the ground that shouldn’t be there, and also for showing that, there is no way that could be a boot print.
First of all, I make clear in my theory that, the only thing I know for certain is, they are long range photos of somekind. When I call them satellite photos it is mainly to keep from having to repeatedly go through the options.
Here is a link to some Apollo 10 orbital shots. One looks like it was taken almost parallel to the ground.
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/BROWSE/apollo10_1.html
There are also clementine images captured at an angle.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/uncgi/PIADBSearch.pl (This site has nine pages but only the first page is working right now, so you will have to bookmark it and come back).
Here is a link to about every anomaly hunter on the net.
http://www.dreamwater.com/nesjim/UltimateList/liststatementpage.html
Here are just a few links from that site. There are many there that deal with moon anomalies. There is definately more on the moon than dust and rocks no matter what photos you look at
http://members.dencity.com/yeshua/index.html
http://server2044.virtualave.net/bullitt/Moon.html
http://members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/orbit_page3.html
You have no way of knowing that for a fact. It obviously was possible, because it was done.
I don’t care what generation they are THINGS LIKE I AM POINTING OUT JUST DON’T SHOW UP IN PHOTOS AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. Anyway, the anomalies are in every single generation of Apollo photo there is. Those who have original prints can prove that to themselves, otherwise it will be proven when NASA stops hiding behind debunkers like yourself.
Son, these are more than just problems. They are serious discrepancies, and extremely strong evidence pointing to a fake.
Official photographic evidence is the best evidence there is. You can try to change that since in this case the photographic evidence goes against your beliefs, but it doesn’t change the fact that, in a court of law, photographic evidence is the next best thing to an eye witness. Your talk is the only thing that is cheap.
Seethruart
Well I see there is hope for you Seethruart. Acknowledging that your photos are blurry is indeed the first step to do better research. Remember your broken record retort for us to the research and see for ourselves does not work if your images do not have a clear item for us to work with. I am not talking only about the Photos: I am talking about the objects that you claim are there: what is the use for us to do a better research when we do not have even drawings of how the shuttles or faces are supposed to look? Even guys who investigate Noah’s ark in the alleged photos of it give us the provable STRUCTURE, position and orientation of the ark in those blurry pictures. You have not even done that. I think you are afraid of the follow-up questions. Or afraid the faces and shuttles, once we know the “right” location, orientation and probable structure, will be easier to debunk once you reveal how they are supposed to look?
So please be honest and acknowledge that you did not saw the originals or the negatives, we have to keep everybody honest.
Do you see any anomalies in those pictures?
United States Cybercrime VIII. EVIDENCE:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/search_docs/sect8.htm
Even a judge will certify that it is your talk that is cheap. You have not checked the negatives and you have only blurry (fake) pictures enhanced by you.
I found an anomaly on a rock here on Earth. It appears there are four giant men living in this rock. the evidence is here.
Tars Tarkas
LOL!! That’s the kind of evidence I like to see people come up with here. When you can’t dispute the evidence presented, come up with something funny.
Bravo!
Seethruart
I’ve read through this thread, beginning to end (twice, in fact), and I’ve made a couple of smart-alecky contributions here and there, mostly to ensure that any lurking readers don’t take this stuff any more seriously than it deserves, which is not at all.
But I’d now like to offer something else, before taking my leave of the discussion. This is not intended as a personal attack or an insult. This is a sympathetic voice, a last attempt at capturing reason.
Seethruart, you are utterly mad.
You are in the grip of a delusional belief. You honestly need psychiatric help. I went to your site, and I carefully reviewed, oh, 90% of the material there. You can check the access logs you’ve referred to more than once; I actually spent a couple of hours looking through everything, staring at images, giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t agree with Jack Batty. I don’t think you’re consciously pulling people’s chains. I think you put a moon picture on the screen, zoom in a bit, and honestly see tiny buildings and spacecraft wings and floating shadows and a thousand other details. They aren’t there. They are manufactured by your mind. Your perception is altered by your delusional state. You stare at a picture, you see towers and windows, then you zoom in a little bit more and you see portals and coneheads, in exactly the way spiritual cultists see demons and persecution in every bus schedule and carpet pattern and gust of wind.
Your delusion doesn’t even make sense by its own rules. From the very first page, you contradict yourself and offer up non-sequiturs that make no logical sense. (Example: “What are mini-anomalies? That’s a very good question. First of all, they are not mini-anomalies.” Huh?) Further, you say, over and over again, that the Apollo pictures are fakes. We never went to the moon, we staged everything on a dark and dusty set (and, in your version, we built ten-story concrete bootprints and photographed them from a mile away, or whatever). But if that’s the case, then where are all the little spacecraft coming from? Did NASA import a bunch of miniature aliens, put them up in Monopoly hotels, and then invite them to spread themselves around the soundstage before the photo shoot? Or, alternatively, sometimes a different version of your conspiracy theory comes to the fore: We took long-range photos of the moon and superimposed images of astronauts over the pictures. In order to believe this, you must elide the fact that this was technologically impossible in the late 60’s, and in fact it’s equally impossible even today to get such clear photos from Earth-centered equpment. So, in other words, we didn’t go to the moon, and the faked pictures prove it, but to get those pictures we had to go to the moon. It’s a circle, you see, and makes no sense to anyone who is able to think rationally about it. You have repeatedly demonstrated yourself as unable to think rationally, so you don’t see the problem.
By the way, if Jack Batty is right, and you’re simply pulling our collective chain, then you’ve simulated a delusional human very, very well; it’s a masterpiece of Internet “acting.” An annoying masterpiece, true, but a masterpiece nonetheless. However, as I said, I don’t believe this to be the case, so I’m sticking to my initially stated conclusion that you’re utterly barking mad.
This delusional framework is so powerful that you are unable to recognize basic factual information that undercuts your claims. In particular, the observation about the focal length required to produce the bootprint photo is fundamental optics, and is obvious and unanswerable to anybody who knows anything about it. You dismiss it with a wave of the hand, proving that either you don’t know anything about the subject, or that your fabricated reality has such a grip on you that even a moment’s serious consideration of non-conspiracy alternatives is dangerous to your mental stability, and must be shunned. Or, more likely, it’s a combination of both factors.
The real key is on this page, where you display a picture of clouds in the sky and then assert – and I quote – “The clouds themselves are UFOs.” If I send you a hundred random pictures of clouds, will they all have UFOs? If you lie on your back in a meadow and stare up at the sky, is everything around you a UFO or evidence of one?
You also have this page, among others, where you’ve looked at a satellite picture of Mt. Everest and picked out surface details with passing resemblance to faces, hoods, and, I don’t know, polar bears or something. Doesn’t it worry you that you’re seeing this stuff everywhere? That everywhere you look, whether it’s on the Moon, on Earth’s mountains, on Mars, or even among the clouds in the sky, you see structures and spacecraft and sculptures and evidence of who knows what all: this doesn’t make you at all concerned about how your brain is doing this to you?
So, for illustration, try this experiment. Take a big bag of wheat flour. Pour it into a big, haphazard pile. Then study it closely. Take some pictures, if you like, so you can obsessively enlarge them by five percent at a time. Look for structures and anomalies amid the piled flour. You will find them, I guarantee you, or at least you’ll find things that look identical to what you have labeled as alien artifacts in the Moon pictures. What does this mean? That the demonic forces are tormenting you by surrounding you with these clues? That some unseen force is manipulating your environment at every turn, for some unknown nefarious end?
Or, more likely, that you’re simply stone-cold out-of-your-skull insane?
I don’t doubt that you’ll dismiss this warning with as much smug disdain as you’ve done with everybody else who has tried to reach you. You’ll call me blind, or a puppet of NASA, or whatever else is required for you to continue propping up your fantasy world. You are evidently stable enough to maintain some semblance of a life – you can operate a computer, after all, and form at least recognizably grammatical sentences, which indicates that you haven’t lost complete touch with reality. This tenuous grasp on normalcy (job, friends, whatever) is enough to convince you that you’re fine, and your delusions haven’t greatly impacted your ability to keep yourself fed and clothed.
Eventually, though, you will become unstable. First you’ll melt down on this board (signs already showing) and get banned, and then similar things will happen elsewhere. (For example, if you keep posting ten nearly-identical zooms of every cropped portion of every picture you “examine,” the PictureTrail people will eventually yell at you about excessive bandwidth and too many files, you’ll yell back that they’re trying to prevent you from “getting the truth out,” and your account will get yanked.)
You’re already seeing UFOs in clouds; how long will it be before the Little Green Men are talking to you in the patterns of acoustical ceiling tiles, or wood grain, or raindrops? At that point, you’ll have a complete meltdown, and you’ll end up in an asylum, or on the street, or in a relative’s basement. It’s not too late, of course; if you grit your teeth and seek professional psychiatric help, you might be able to break the cycle, and return yourself to healthy mental functioning.
Still, as I said, I don’t expect that burst of self-awareness to happen now, or soon, or perhaps ever. I simply offer the warning because I’m a humanist, and my conscience doesn’t allow me to watch somebody spiraling down into madness without at least saying something. I expect to be ignored, but that’s on you; I’ve done my part.
But I will say that if I knew you in real life, if I were a friend or relative, I would be pushing to have you involuntarily committed and evaluated.
In a nutshell: Seethruart, you are not in touch with reality. Your brain is not working properly. You need to get help. Others in this thread may profess amusement at your “harmless” and vaguely entertaining delusions, but I’m saddened by the sight of someone so clearly drifting off into the black hole of insanity.
I recognize that I haven’t said anything new here, that others have been saying all of this to you over and over and over, and it has made no impact on your warped psyche. But again, as a human being, I’d be remiss if I didn’t make the effort.
Your insanity is no longer fun for me, so after this warning, offered in honest compassion, I’m done. And if any future trolls of your ilk happen by, I’ll give them a link to this thread so they can see how crazy people are treated on the board.
Get psychiatric help. Seriously.
In other words, you don’t want people to see this. Otherwise you couldn’t care less. If it weren’t serious, and I was a nutcase, you wouldn’t even be here and this thread wouldn’t have over 6000 views.
The only thing you are doing is showing how afraid you are of this reality.
Those who have nothing to do with NASA or the faked Apollo photos, don’t have a thing to worry about. They have no reason not to believe what they see with their own eyes in official Apollo photos.
Your words, nor your insults, nor your character assassination will make the reality of the faked Apollo photos go away.
It may not always be me who is spreading the word of this reality, but the reality will be the same.
This is history in the making. In 5 or 10 years (hopefully less) children will read about the faked Apollo missions, and will be taught that lies only lead to more and bigger lies, and teachers will use NASA and the US Government as their prime examples.
Seethruart
Seethruart the reason this thread has 6000 views is the same reason people rubberneck at traffic accidents and trainwrecks: sick curiosity. We know we should look away, but are fascinated by the horror of it all. Please seek help.