Hell, he’s no Ken Beacon, though. Nor even a JDT.
Fair 'nough.
What are the long-range images of? How were they taken? How were the astronauts super-imposed on them? C’mon, Mr. Art, proof requires specifics. You should know that. Any dictionary will tell you that.
How did they get the footprints in the long-range photos? Did they dig mile-wide chasms to simulate footprints? How did they manage to do all this with the technology that existed in the '60s?
I HAVE studied the images, both your flawed ones and the originals. I found nothing extraordinary. I see no reason why I should believe these images to be “long-range photos”. So I ask again… what makes YOU so friggin’ special that we should take the word over an absolute crackpot over the word of several thousand NASA employees?
What do I have to lose? Absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. So I repeat… why should we, people who have absolutely nothing to lose, fear the truth?
Yes. I would. The problem is that you don’t provide any proof for what you see. Tell me why, for example, your “Tower On A Mound” can’t simply be, oh, a rock? Or are you claiming that there are no rocks on the Moon? And why can’t your “Art In The Dirt” simply be dirt? You haven’t acknowledged ANY of the counter-evidence presented before you… you have simply chosen to ignore it off-hand, without even considering the possibility that you may be wrong. And that is a sure sign of delusion.
Actually, no. It’s YOUR photo. NASA’s photo contains much more clarity and better quality. YOUR photo is rife with flaws, errors, and glitches that have resulted from a bad scanning process and shrinking of the image. As such, your “Tower On A Mound” looks blurred, while in the original image it would be crystal clear.
Good job. But, you see, you haven’t really answered any questions yet. You’ve just repeated your mantra of “I’m right, I’ve got the truth, Agent Scully is purdy…”
You still need to answer…
-
How does you evidence prove that the Apollo landings were faked? Remember, if you believe that these images are long-range shots with super-imposed astronauts, you have to show how EVERY ASPECT of the image is consistent with a long-range shot, not just one or two random “anomalies”. You have circumstantial evidence, at best, which proves nothing.
-
Why are you more credible than NASA? Simply repeating that NASA has no credibility is worthless. What experience do you have? Have you seen the original photos? Have YOU talked with NASA representatives? What about the original Apollo astronauts? What schooling do you have? What authority do you have to study these images and conclude them to be “long-range shots”? Have you a degree in photographic study?
-
Why should we fear the truth? If you’d spend ten minutes to wander around, the Straight Dope worships the truth. We embrace it. If it were a tangible object, we’d have a group orgy with it. The truth is the only thing that is consistently held in high regard around here. So, with that in mind, why should we fear this truth of yours?
-
Why do you seem to be the only person who sees this evidence? In this thread, we’ve had several dozen people say that they see NOTHING. Yet you repeatedly claim that everyone else is simply lying. There is a word for someone like this: Deluded. Why would all these people, who have absolutely nothing to lose, who have absolutely no connection with NASA, who have nothing at stake, fear this truth of yours? Isn’t it more likely (using Occam’s Razor) that you are simply… wrong?
-
Why do you conclude that a triangular-ish shaping of dirt is a “shuttle”? Why a shuttle? Is it impossible for geometric shapes to form in nature? Why would a shuttle be “half-buried in the dirt”? Why would it be sitting out in the middle of nowhere? Are you suggesting that there are shuttles just floating around out there, at random? A shuttle is a constructed machine, Mr. Art, and do NOT just happen “at random”. However, triangular patches of dirt DO happen “at random”.
There. I’ve held your hand for long enough. Now provide proof, pal. It’s not that hard.
And Doc… don’t fret it, I know when I’m dealing with a loon. I’m simply holding on with the hopes that somehow, someday, he’ll wake up and say, “Hey, wait a minute! This stuff is baloney!” Call me idealistic or stubborn if you will… but somebody’s gotta do it.
For some reason I’m flashing on Anne Bancroft spelling out “W-A-T-E-R” into Patty Duke’s hand, and… and… and…
SHE GETS IT!! “Wahhh…”
Spoofe, maybe you should try American Sign Language. 
Yes, we ARE in awe! I guess because of your software here, you can beat Piper up and still have room for other, decent, debates. But at any rate, it was wonderful therapy for Piper Addiction (the stress-induced syndrome whereby one feels compelled to reply to some of these whacked-out posts just because they are so damn irritating) to read the thread here. Thanks, guys.
And, yes, he has done some good, albeit unwittingly. Greetings, Straight Dopers, from we @ BABB! Good to meet you! I may just end up wasting more of my valuable time here…
Nenya_Elizabeth wrote:
Holy cats! You people have you own support group!! :eek:
Yeah, and I just noticed today that they have a link to my PhD thesis there. I’m not sure what to think about that. Anyone wanting to read that who isn’t trying to figure out gas dynamics of interstellar material… well, they must be insomniacs. 
Yikes! Well, I don’t know what handle you use there so I’m not sure who you are. If you want, drop me an email and we can discuss this.
Excellent. If you follow the above link (which should be edited to remove direct name references, since all trollage from that individual is ego-driven) you’ll see the “What’s wrong with Billy-Bob’s page” reference. It has to do with being somewhat skeptical in using online references for, in this case, academic term papers. Just change the words “eating disorders” to “Apollo hoaxes” and the reasoning is the same.
Quote, with modifications (in italics) to the loon in question:
"Evaluating Web Pages for Use in Academic Essays: 10 Guidelines
1.Is the information on the Web site fully documented?
Heck, it’s not even partially documented. Obviously amateurishly altered photographs with misleading, erroneous or outright illogical captions are offered up as the sole ‘proof’ of the claims.
Proper documentation (following MLA or APA guidelines) is the best indication that the author is responsible and conscientious and that the information is worth considering.
2.Can you confirm the accuracy of the references?
No. No one can- no source of the photos is given, no corroborating data is supplied, no other references agree with the data. Photographic evidence is obviously altered, throwing all data into doubt.
A good habit to maintain is to randomly check two or three of the references for accuracy. Even a small sample helps establish, or discredit, the academic integrity of the author.
3.Is the author identified?
No. He uses several pseudonyms and gives only “free” online webmail addresses as contacts. No supporting data of the author is given, and evidence gathered in other ways is strongly suspect.
Intellectual ownership of an article is an important consideration. If no one wants to admit to being the author, why not? Is it possible to e-mail the author or verify the author’s credentials?
4.What is the author’s background?
Nonexistent. Author is known only for his wholly illogical claims. Little supporting data is available, and author’s own actions mark him as a troll.
Background elements such as academic training and previous publishing do not guarantee the integrity or accuracy of the material on a public Web page, but it helps tip the scale in that direction.
5.How current is the information?
Relatively new, as in “newly fabricated from whole cloth.” Claims and “evidence” are based on bad scans and heavily-compressed digital photographs- themselves highly suspect, and further altered. Information is wholly untrustworthy and should be disregarded.
Is the information dated? New research findings appear almost daily in every field. Be sure that the information you are using is the most up-to-date you can find.
6.On what Web site does the information reside?
A private, anonymous “free” online photo-storage service.
Commercial sites (.com) often have a vested interest in making money; university sites (.edu) traditionally strive to be objective and fair.
7.Is the Web site trying to sell you a product or service such as on-line counseling or software?
Not yet. The coin of this realm is attention and ego-fuel.
Again, purely commercial sites are in the business of making money, not furthering the academic endeavour.
8.Does the site have a moderator or editorial board to review submissions?
Negative. Submissions and inquiries are ignored or disregarded, additional information provided in leiu of legitimate answers is often nonsensical, unrelated or irrelevant. Guestbooks are edited, entries are deleted, and eventually locked to outside submissions.
The academic community reviews the accuracy of material through qualified and un-biased moderators. Once an article has been reviewed by a panel of professional researchers or academics, you can have more confidence in the integrity of the material.
9.Does the site appear to spend more effort on visual presentation and advertising than written content?
Very much so. Written content is minimal in the extreme, and what there is of it is disjointed, nonsensical and absurd.
When you read an academic journal, you are rarely struck by the visual graphics or the beautiful models on the high-gloss cover. Also, they contain no advertising. Web sites that appear too glitzy and convey advertising may lack useful content.
10.All things considered, do you feel you can trust the material on the site?
That is an unqualified ‘absolutely not’. Dozens of widely-selected individuals have seen what is given up as “evidence” and all but the author have either declared it completely erroneous, or have debunked it in it’s entirety. The material as submitted is ludicrous to the point of being dismissed as fakery by even many of the other “believers” of an Apollo-mission or Mars statuary hoax.
At the end of the day you are responsible for filtering through your resources by reflecting on your own training and experience. If you are confident that the materials you referenced from the Web are accurate, then they probably are.
Keeping these 10 guidelines in mind is a good habit to get into whenever you are conducting on-line research. Remember, if you are challenged on the academic integrity of your sources you must able to defend them. These guidelines are a wise first step."
-Couldn’t have said it better myself.
No worries Phil. I used “Doc N.” there…
This was a couple of months ago when Pipes was posting photos straight out of the Apollo Journal, but making the same claims; the bootprint is superimposed, the ground is actually a mountain range photographed at long range, the boulder in the background is actually an alien building, etcetera, ad nauseum.
After being lured into an argument myself, I then tried to convince those others who replied to him, that such undertakings were pointless and will prove fruitless. When some continued to reply, I made further arguments that such debate was counterproductive- even though it made one feel better, it had the drawback of encouraging the troll further, meaning there would just be more nonsensical posts in the future.
After a day’s heated arguing about that, a few pointed out that what I was doing was just like what the troll was doing, which was, to an extent, true. At that point I gave up, realizing that some people simply MUST reply to a troll, especially one experienced at pushing intelligent people’s “hot buttons”.
In several of the other 'boards I’ve frequented over the years, I’ve run into a goodly number of trolls. And to be perfectly honest, unless you yourself have moderator access, the ONLY way to deal with a troll is to ignore him. Trolls troll to get attention- ‘hey everyone, look at me!’ Even if it’s negative attention, it’s still attention.
In some cases, the trolls, ignored, persisted for a few more days, then were never heard from again. In a few cases, trolls gave up in a matter of hours. Unfortunately Phil, your troll is entrenched- he’s been encouraged again and again, knows which buttons to push, knows he has a ready audience.
I hate to say it but I very strongly suggest simply deleting his posts as they arrive. Yes, it’s a form of censorship, but it is, after all, YOUR board, and the troll has proven time and again, over and over, that he has nothing of the slightest relevance to add to the discussion.
To the contrary, it’s gotten to the point where newcomers apologize for an “off topic” post when they ask about astronomical telescope hardware.
Moving to UBB type boards is no panacea either- the software in them actually makes it MORE difficult to delete a thread. Typically they are merely “locked”, which then sits there looking for all the world like a locked (censored) thread.
But I digress. I don’t mean to tell you your business, I just wanted to forward a little of what I’ve learned in about five years of dealing with trollage.
Although InvisibleGarfunkel’s ravings are obviously a complete pile of ocelot poo, I found this convincing evidence that the moon landings were faked on one of NASA’s own sites!
No, nerv, that’s even better–that’s evidence that the Moon has a breathable atmosphere!
Moon colonies, here we come!
Bah. All those people couldn’t fit in the LM. You know what that means? NASA found a way to transcend the three spatial dimensions! They’ve made the LM bigger on the inside than it is on the outside!
Yep, definitely an anomaly. I spotted Michael Collins and the other Command Module pilots in the pic, they could not have cast a shadow on the surface of the moon while they were orbiting the earth. Very suspicious.
Doc Nickel provides an excellent litmus test for judging the veracity of data found on the internet. The only thing I would take minor issue with is the fact that while one should certainly be wary, there are commercial sites that do a fine job of providing information, and we should be careful not to dismiss them out of hand.
I’d like to add a few criteria I use when determining the veracity of study or testing.
[ul] -Corroboration – has another lab, individual, or researcher been able to arrive at the same results?
-Disclosure of methods – The exact process used to arrive at any conclusion should be shared. In this way, corroboration and peer review can take place. Speaking of which:
-Peer review – Has any data or information presented been open to review by others with relevant expertise?
-Interpretation of data – This not only includes interpreting the test or study results for the reader, but one must address other studies or information that have been established even if they conflict; in this case stating how the new data supercedes.
-Cites to primary sources – A chain of citation back to primary sources, as opposed information and data that has been interpreted by others.
-Trained and independent authority – Does the individual performing the research or interpreting the data have the necessary expertise? Is there reason to belief he or she has an agenda which could compromise the integrity of the investigation?[/ul]
It’s really of no use explaining how the Apollo Hoax pictures hold up to this test. They don’t even come close to establishing a reason to consider them, let alone analyze them. They are more akin the lonely old men who find faces of the presidents in potato chips or religious fanatics who see Mary in tree bark.
I disagree that this individual is a troll. He has gone through too much trouble, and I’m confident he believes everything he says. Unfortunately, it’s not the type of belief a researcher has in their data, it’s more the unassailable conviction of a conspiracy fanatic.
Looks like I spoke to soon, Seethruart/piper is still on the rampage. He must still be out of Lithium…
Although nerv’s photo is pretty good, I think this one is even better!
For whatever it’s worth, you have to admit that the dirt/regolith in Seethruart’s “Anomalous Bootprints” pics does seem to be considerably different than the regolith seen on Eros.
Shouldn’t they be pretty much the same?
(But it’s Martian regolith that I want to walk in!)
Different how? Dirt is dirt.
No. One has a gravitational pull that is about 1/6th that of Earth. The other has a gravitational pull that is a much, much smaller fraction. As such, you’re bound to get a different composition of debris.
In other words… the conditions aren’t the same. It’s the same reason why the dirt in the rain forest isn’t the same as the dirt in the Sahara.
Why should the composition of the Moon be “pretty much the same” as the composition of an asteroid? Eros is probably left over from the dawn of the Solar System. The current best guess as to where the Moon came from is that a Mars-sized object collided with Earth sometime later, although still very early in Solar history.
And of course finding out whether or not the composition Eros resembles that of the Moon is one of the main reasons for sending probes in the first place.
Gravitational pull is different in a rain forest than a desert?
[Spock] Fascinating [/Spock]