I understand now. Seewhatever is from the “Left Behind” board. Come to cause trouble again…
I’d like to repeat my exact words: “the conditions aren’t the same”. In other words, different conditions breed different results.
Yeesh.
…
But you gotta admit, He’s a tad fatherjohnish
All this reminds me of a letter-to-the-editor I came across in a semi-highbrow magazine once. The magazine had decided to run a Hollywood Gossip column and one reader really objected to this. “Irate of the Suburbs” went on and on and on at great length insisting he didn’t want to read about George Hamilton’s beauty treatments, Liza Gibbons’s divorce, or Al Pacino’s interior decorating. Who reads this column anyway? was his last line. “Why, you do” was the editor’s reply. This is a protest-too-much thread if ever there was one.
And Sofa King: Is it logical positivism or is it hormone trouble? There’s no need to be so cruel. Who made you head kicker outer?
What an awesome picture! I really, really, envy those guys some days. Well, most days, but some days it hits harder than others. Read a Reader’s Digest story by Gene Cernan (I think it was) once, about what it was like to be up there. Wow. That really brought home that it was actual, real, live humans, like me, who landed on our moon. Think about it: out of all the billions of people who have ever lived, only these few have ever lived any part of their lives on any other planetary body than the earth.
As someone else said: if the only way to convince HB’s that we did land on the moon is to take them up there themselves, hey NASA, I’m an HB too!
On to Mars…
Aww, come on, Phil, don’t you know hero worship when you see it? Besides, I’m just practicing reading heavy-duty stuff for when I go to grad school. And, I’ve got a quick place to point anyone who wants to read it.
I have update the “Bootprints folder.” It’s quite extensive. There are NO actual boot prints in any Apollo photo. The supposed boot prints are long range images of structures made to resemble bootprints. The bootprint structures come complete with structures and space crafts on them.
I also want to note that, this url has been posted mainly on “debunker” sites, and I see a lot of you making comments about the photos, but you aren’t even looking at the photos. I can count how many times each photo has been viewed. The normal debunker pattern is to look at the very first main photo in one of the folders, and then “maybe” quickly glance at one of the crops and then profess their inability to see anything. The truth is, you are afraid to study those crops. You don’t want to see any evidence of a fake mooned landing so you pretend no evidence exists. It makes you all look like a bunch of scared little bunny rabbits to me.
All of you need to get this through your thick skulls. The moon landings were faked, and the other evidence along with my evidence is overwhelming, and you children can attack whatever messengers of truth you want, and you will never change that. The types of comments you are making here, will only come back to you.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=seethruart
Seethruart
When are you going to point out that there is no green cheese for sale at the supermarket?
So, Seethru, what you’re basically saying here is that the whole purpose of this thread is to advertise your website? Isn’t that against the rules of the SDMB?
I suppose NASA somehow anticipated the nutcases when they ordered pictures to be taken like THIS:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5877.jpg
LOL!!! That is no close up. That is a long range image taken from all most directly overhead. Just wait until you see some enlargements of it and how it looks when it’s rotated.
Plus, there are some fairly close shots of supposed prints in the images I have already posted, and they are long range images too.
Pulling out Apollo photos to try to prove your point is a mistake. Apollo photos are only evidence of a fake.
Seethruart
andros:
[Moderator Hat ON]
A few days late, but… andros, you know the rules. No namecalling here. (And I have limited tolerance for changing usernames to make them direct insults, too. At the very least, Jab, you can come up with something better than “seemybutt.”)
[Moderator Hat OFF]
:::jaw dropping:::
I once heard Garrison Keillor on his radio program once use the phrase “looking reality in the eye and denying it.” I always thought it was a humorous phrase.
Not anymore.
Seethruart, you have been given good, solid evidence of a moon landing, and have chosen to utterly ignore it or apply bizzare explanations for it. Someone shows you a bootprint and you see a long-range photograph of…uh…I don’t know what it is you see.
Let me ask you something. What do you think was the motivation for NASA to perpetrate a hoax of such epic scale? Why would they do this, knowing that it would require hundreds, perhaps thousands of people to be involved in a conspiracy? Conspiracies with so many people involved don’t remain secret very long. And why risk exposure, knowing that the public reaction would be undiluted outrage?
I simply can’t understand why someone would choose to believe that one of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th Century was fiction.
OK, I turned my laptop on its side, it looks exactly the same, except rotated 90 degrees. You can’t enlarge it further unless you have access to the analog negatives.
Look closely at the picture, notice that the camera is not perfectly perpendicular to the ground. Also notice that the top of the boot print is slightly out of focus, while the bottom is in perfect focus. The same effect is clearly visible through the whole print, from edge to edge.
A Contax lens of the type used by the astronauts has extremely shallow depth of field when taking photographs at a distance of about 1 meter, only a few centimeters. However, when taken from a long distance, that same lens will have very wide depth of field.
The photograph could not possibly have been taken at a distance of more than 2 meters. It it was really a “long range” photo, the depth of field would have been almost infinite, using the hyperfocal system I previously described. The entire bootprint would have been in focus.
Chas, I can enlarge it MUCH further. Don’t you worry, I wouldn’t think about not posting crops from it. I’m working on it now. It will be the next thing you see, and I’ll start another folder with those crops.
It’s a long range image just like the ground in every Apollo photo. I had overlooked that copy of the photo, and the only thing I have is a low res version and I couldn’t get a crop I was satisfied with, but I have been working with the image you linked to and it is much better. Give me some time.
Seethruart
In another tread I tried to say this to Seethruart:
“NASA has even higher resolution photos; it is not logical for a web site to have monster hi-res photos that the public with low band width Internet access can use.”
After looking at Seethruart’s replies it is clear that he is using low-res COPIES of pictures from the NASA film photos, an organization that, according to him, should not be trusted. But we should trust HIS research based on those flawed photos.
Well a mushroom gets it’s nutrients from the waste of other organisms and if you can justify using flawed material from a so called unreliable source (NASA), that makes you the mushroom. The photos are low-res, because NASA (in that web site) is reaching to newspapers or to students that want to use photos for their class reports.
By the way, to approach the film quality of a single frame of 35mm film, computer images do reach 20 or more megabytes in size. One of your Hi-res pictures (again, from the so called discredited, NASA) is only 293 kilobytes (as15-86-11655.jpg)
In conclusion, you are still zooming into low resolution digital COPIES to base your research, that is indeed misleading.
There is nothing you can get from this image that can’t be seen in the full image, cropping will do nothing except eliminate data that clearly proves you are wrong. I picked that photo because I knew you’d fall for the bait, this image has one unfakeable feature. Even today, no technology exists that can fake it, surely they couldn’t have done it in 1969.
Answer my question. How can a “long range” photo show such short depth of field, when that phenomenon can only occur at focal distances of under 2 meters? Feel free to explain this using optics, mathematics, photochemistry, etc.
How did the “structures” get there? Who built them? How big are these structures, exactly?
You DO realize that calling them “long-range” shots implies that the work NASA did would have made the hoax MORE difficult than landing on the Moon, right? At least other Moon-Hoax believers just accuse NASA of filming it all in a secret video site in Nevada…
We ARE looking at the photos. I have viewed every single photograph you have on your site. Hell, I’ve even directly referenced and made comments on several of them.
And I’m curious… how, exactly, have you “enhanced” these photos? Because it simply looks as if you’ve simply enlarged the images, cropped them, and then ran a white-colored Hot-Wax Coating… which would mean that you’ve ALTERED the photos, which would make any evidence gleened from them suspect.
Or maybe we HAVE studied these crops and found nothing, and you are simply lying. But I’ll give you a chance… prove that I haven’t viewed any of those photos.
:rolleyes:
You presented evidence. We presented counter-evidence. So far, you have consistently ignored all counter-evidence, while your evidence has been referenced to and examined.
Given those facts, it would appear that the person who is in denial is using a screen name that begins with an “S” and ends with “eethruart”.
It is most definitely NOT. If it were long-range, taken from overhead, you would be able to view ALL sides of the “supposed giant footpring”.
I challenge you again… post your credentials. What experience with photo manipulation and study do you have? What authority do you have to make such conclusions about these photos?
I will NOT back down until you are forthcoming with ALL information, Mr. Art. You are posting disinformation, and disinformation is frowned upon.
Try something, Mr. Art. Go outside. Take a picture of your back yard. Now upload it into your computer, zoom in, and rotate it. You will find it unrecognizeable as your back yard.
Except it (and the other photos you posted) show no evidence of being long-range. A long-range photo looks “flatter” than close-ups. A long-range photo appears more homogenous in terms of color/shading distribution. A long-range photo will show distortions and errors from the zooming.
Finally, I ask you again (I find myself having to repeat questions to you a lot)… where were these long-range shots taken? What are they taken of? And why, for the love of Spam, are there friggin’ SPACESHIPS in these pictures?
Explain the spaceships to me, Mr. Art. Because you’ve failed to do that anywhere else. Are you suggesting that there are spaceships on the Moon? How come these spaceships don’t show up in any other, non-Apollo-related, pictures of the Moon? And why has NASA been able to attain such amazing long-range shots of the Moon, when the technology to achieve such sharp images and such high-quality zooms doesn’t exist TODAY?
I’m bored with this game. Can we play something else now?
If it’s not a closeup, but it’s a hoax, then what is it a long range photograph OF?