Sorry about that, Chief.
Chas, I finally got a few crops posted from that pic you linked to. It is the subject of Apollo Mini Anomalies 5, and I’m not even half way through yet. Excuse the massive amount of enlargements. Many of them will be thinned out to make room for other crops from other parts of the photo.
The images contain very few descriptions at the moment, but that will change.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=seethruart
Enjoy!
Seethruart
Do you think Seethruart may be suffering from Apophenia?
IANADoctor, but this phrase from that link seems to sum it all up:
I figured you saw those objects floating, someone would come up with a comment like that. When you can’t refute the evidence attack the messenger…right? It’s too bad people like you have done that to so many good people in the past. It doesn’t fool people any longer.
How do explain floating anomalies in a boot print? It’s kind of hard isn’t it? There is no explaining it, is there? That’s only a small part about what is anomalous about that supposed print. The left side looks a lot like poured concrete and there are even markings in it. And what about that anomalous “craft” looking object with the coned shaped nose and the enlongated body? It is laying on a supposed boot tread. And all of those triangles and spheres. There’s more art in the dirt there too. I noticed an earlier poster appreciated that type of thing and there is a lot more dirt art I haven’t posted yet. I just thought the one sample I posted in Apollo anomalies 1 was kind of cool.
I guess I can only expect more character attacks from this crowd. I guess if any of you had any character, the insults might carry more weight, but since I’ve never anyone of character to stoop so low, I couldn’t tell you for sure.
Seethruart
Thank God I’m not afraid of irony. You’d have me hiding under my desk.
Haven’t you subjected these people to enough of your ravings, Seethruart?
You aren’t the “messenger” of these anomalies. They aren’t some objectively evident phenomena that you are simply reproducing. The notion that these objects are something other than what they appear is precisely yours. They are anomalous because YOU SAY they are anomalous, not because they just are. Therefore you must provide proof that things which look an awful lot like boot prints are, in fact, the little buildings and spaceships you claim they are. They aren’t buildings until you prove they’re buildings.
I don’t know why you’re so indignant. Over on the Krishna forum, when you posted your latest photo and someone failed to see what you saw, you lit right into him implying that he was ignorant or inattentive. You have a real problem with people who don’t immediately see what you want them to see.
Your arguments suffer from the inability to distinguish premise from conclusion, a little fallacy known as begging the question. Until you understand more about reasoning, you aren’t likely to understand why all these people are laughing at you.
You folks have a way of misleading people. Since you are incapable of relaying the truth without bending it, I will correct you. I was called “ignorant” first, and I replied that “Ignorance comes from ignoring reality.” I guess if you had any decency, you would have told the story as it was, instead of making up your own version to suit you.
Since you based your entire post on that bit of untruth, I see no need to respond to the rest of it.
It seems you are ignoring reality also. Are you afraid to study the images? It appears so, because you are commenting on evidence you haven’t even bothered to look at, much less study.
Trying to assassinate my character will get you nowhere. It only makes you and your colleagues in denial look suspicious. It was unwarranted and unjustified character attacks on people who questioned points brought up by the Fox program that made me suspicious to begin with. Everything that show pointed out, and all of the other discrepancies that have been discovered since then compliment my theory, because they show evidence of the photos being faked, and evidence of the astronauts being super-imposed. They just never really focused on the ground itself. Their focus is always on the astronauts and the equipment and the background. Now the evidence is all coming together quite nicely.
Seethruart
So, when are you going to answer my simple question? How can the bootprint photo show depth of field only available at distances under 2 meters, if you claim they were taken from long range?
A FEW? You got 86 “crops” from that same photo, most of which are mere repeats with a slight zoom-in. There are probably a dozen or so distinct crops in the whole bunch.
Here’s a lesson you must learn quickly, Mr. Art: Quantity does not equal Quality.
There is no object floating. The shadows you pointed out can be created by two methods: The way you saw it (something “floating”), or by natural ridges, indents, and imperfections in dirt. Judging by the extreme angle of lighting, how do you explain the “floating” object idea? Why can’t there simply be a small bump in the dirt? Dirt does that, you know.
No, that is your tactic. OUR tactic is to attack the messenger LONG AFTER his evidence has been refuted. The thing is, Mr. Art, you’ve been proven wrong more times than Madonna’s been laid, yet you continue to persist. Rather than repeat ourselves ad nauseum, we express our annoyance. Additionally, you’ve been treated quite well in this thread, considering your own paltry behavior.
As I’ve said, there are no floating anomalies. Do you have any experience with spatial dynamics? Lighting and/or shading? Those “floating shadows” are created by an indent in the soft, powdery dirt surrounding the boot print.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT THOSE APPEARED THERE?!? Why is there “poured concrete” on the Moon?!? Why are there “crafts” on the Moon?!? Explain those, Mr. Art. Please. Tell me how and why there are such items on the Moon, a celestial body devoid of life. Explain them. Now. Explain why nobody else has been able to detect these. Your explanation requires thousands upon thousands of “shuttles”, structures, and “gigantic artworks” to be present on the Moon. So why are they not there now? Why have they vanished in the past thirty years?
Explain that, Mr. Art. If you have the truth on your side, explain that.
I guess you’re just a sucker for punishment.
We don’t need to assassinate your character. You do it enough on your own.
Furthermore, please cease with this “Martyr” act. Nobody is attacking you. They are attacking your wild theories, crazy ideas, and blatant lack of evidence. They are posing questions to you, which you are ignoring. You are hiding behind this false notion of being “attacked” in order to refrain from having to actually THINK about these nutcase ideas you have.
You have many questions to answer. Did you think you could convince people with a few trite sentences? Did you think we’d trust you simply because you keep repeating “Trust me?” Are you a skeptic, or a narcissist?
SPOOFE, I think he’s been saying that the pictures are of the moon’s surface taken from a great height and with the pictures of astronauts and bootprints and equipment simply superimposed atop them. That’s why the “poured concrete” comment. He’s saying the prints are fakes cast in concrete, photographed and then inserted into the landscape images.
He’s totally wrong, of course, but that’s what he’s saying.
I think.
Seethruart, I invite you to The Pit. (And anyone else who wants to go in.)
Study enhanced and airbrushed images? That’s your reality?
If you really want them studied, I suggest trying to hide a Waldo in there somewhere.
You’re a quack, pure and simple. Give it a rest. I suggest you try some conspiracy boards. You may get a more sympathetic ear from more quacks. BTW - If you happen to have cancer or AIDS, I suggest you go to Mexico. They have cures there that the US government is trying to hide from you. You’d fit right in.
August West wrote:
Huh? All I get is a “Geocities page not found” error when I click on that link.
**
Again, one of you has to stooped to misleading people, in order to try and silence the truth.
NONE of the Apollo images have been airbrushed at all. The ONLY enhancements I have done to ANY images are “minor adjustments” to the brightness and/or contrast levels, mainly for the sake of clarity, and that is only to a few images. The majority of images I leave just as I have found them, except enlarged. When I do enhance an image I make it clear. As far as airbrushing goes. I have used an airbrush only in the Artificial Man and Bird Sculpture on the Cydonia Face folder, and that was only to box the area I was describing, not to enhance anything. I believe you either knew that, or have never even been to the site to see what reality really is. Since you misled people and tried to make it sound like I airbrush images, I will replace the images in the Mars folder with “boxed” images. That way you can’t use that devious little tactic against me.
**
Just because you are a scared little bunny rabbit doesn’t mean everyone is. If you need someone to hide Waldo in order for you to study the truth, then you don’t want to know the truth. You want to pretend it doesn’t exist.
**
Funny, you obviously haven’t studied one image at my site, and you rave on like an angry child and then call “me” a quack?!?!
Is that what someone told you to think?
**
This truth will never rest until everyone sees it.
**
I suggest you suck it up and try to take it like an adult, and stop trying to mislead people.
**
I don’t want a sympathetic ear, I want to rub this truth right into the faces of those who have helped the lie to go on so long. I want you all to know what’s coming in advance, and I want you to know you can’t stop it, and I want you to fight it, and agnonize over it, and lose sleep while you wait. Many people in this country are in jail for much less than the fraud that NASA and the US Government have perpetrated on the citizens of this country and the people of the world. Many good people have been screwed royally, while NASA and the US Government were running around faking moon landings, defrauding the world, and pocketing billions of dollars. This is sweet justice. This is payback.
**
Sometimes if you don’t have a sensible thing to say at the end of a post, it’s best to say nothing at all. That way there’s less of a chance of looking like an idiot. I don’t think many people here have a handle on that concept.
Seethruart
Piper whined:
“Funny, you obviously haven’t studied one image at my site, and you rave on like an angry child and then call “me” a quack?!?!”
Face it Pipes, you’re a quack and your images are meaningless.
But I think it’s sweet you’ve found a hobby.
Okay. I’m trying to see this from Seethruart’s point of view.
I’m looking at one of Seethruart’s linked pictures above. I’m looking at “Enlargement of Tower on the Mound”, which I got to by clicking on the left-hand link.
The photo’s accompanying text says:
-
There is no “triangular object behind and to my right of the tower”. Okay?
-
My 17-year-old daughter, who has excellent vision, and who is looking over my shoulder, confirms that there is no “triangular object”. She does point out, though, that the long skinny shadow and the long indentation in the surface, which together actually form a sideways “V”, might conceivably be taken to resemble a “sort of” triangle, if you mentally filled in the missing third leg. Okay? If this combination of shadow and indentation is your “triangular object”, then it’s not a triangle–it’s only 2/3 of a triangle.
-
She also points out that it’s possible that you’re referring to the V-shaped light-colored area in between the shadow and the indentation. Is that it? Those funny light-colored ridges?
-
There is no “photo below it”. There is no “inverted version”. All that is below this photo is an ad for PictureTrailPlus Sponsor. Okay? There is no photo below this photo.
Any time you blow pictures up, you’re going to see weird things. Here are some pictures. You tell me what they are. Are they Mars? Or are they your own body?
http://catalog.cmsp.com/data2/fx070008.htm
http://catalog.cmsp.com/data2/fx070003.htm
http://catalog.cmsp.com/data2/fx070001.htm
Look! It’s evidence of water on Mars!
No, it’s just a lymphocyte.
I have a serious question for Seethruart …
Do you do birthday parties? 'Cause you are a laugh riot, my man. I haven’t laughed this hard since I found out about my woefully inadequate augmented foreskin.
And do you take requests? Riff on Kennedy. That shit always kills me (no pun intended).
LOL!!! This is what I want people to see. Insults and flat out denials. YEEEEE HAAAAA!!!
Spoofe, ask NASA.
Doc, looks like you never had anything but insults anyway.
Duck, You keep studying those images, like I and others have. Most people who study the images do see what I am pointing out. It’s funny how only on debunker boards no one can see anything. You people deny EVERYTHING. To deny those blatant floating objects, one with a shadow underneath it is, pretty bold. It’s funny to me. It makes you all seem blind or daft.
I still have twice as much left to post as I have already posted. You will have a lot of denying to do. This evidence becomes more overwhelming as I go along, and I’m taking my time. I see no reason to hurry this. My site picks up a little more traffic everyday as people see what I have pointed out, and leave links to my site. Also I have posted my theory in the first folder, so now people will know exactly what this is all about.
It’s all coming together just like I hoped it would, and all of you are responding to it just like I thought you would.
Not many things in my life have gone this smoothly.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=seethruart
Seethruart
And you’re behaving exactly like we thought you would. You won’t even answer a simple question. How can you take a long range photo showing a depth of field effect that only occurs at distances under 2 meters? Answer this serious question and maybe we’ll take you seriously.
Chas!!! Thanks for that link!!! That is turning out to be a great piece of evidence! I found a high res black and white version too, and I am going to post some comparisons, and I will post some more enlargements of the ground around the area that resembles a boot print.
I already told a friend how a debunker turned me onto that photo. That makes it even sweeter.
As far as your questions go, I have explained my theory on the intro page of Apollo anomalies 1. If you want to know anything beyond that, you will have to ask NASA. Seeing some of the questions being asked here, I find it ridiculous that anyone would expect me to be able to answer them. I am only stating what I have seen from studying the ground in Apollo photos, and the conclusions I have reached based on those studies (which I document with photographic evidence).
My conclusion, the Apollo photographs are not genuine, they are fakes. That is really the only conclusion I can be 100% certain of. I can make no claims about the videos, or even whether or not we actually landed on the Moon. However, if we did land on the moon, the Apollo photos are not evidence of it. The Apollo photos are only evidence of a fake.
At http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?username=seethruart
Seethruart