Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Just because adobe photoshop was used doesn't mean objects were added to the LRO pics. There are other uses for it.
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-russell-b ... hop-touch/
Doing the stereoscopic analysis is actually very easy in a computational sense. The background of the researcher is fairly immaterial. It only requires 2 pics to be selected taken a short distance apart, exactly as modern '3D' cameras work today, which are simple consumer items. His 'information' therefore isn't questionable. The only thing that would stop his study being replicated would be NASA altering the pics or taking them down in response to his research becoming known. All that is required is to do the 3D calculation that suggests that 2 shots of something in the foreground will jump around a lot when overlaid, whereas something very distant will barely move at all. It's simple physics and trigonometry. The amount that the respective objects jump around can be used therefore to estimate how distant they are in reality. His straightforward application of the trig suggests that mountain ranges that are supposed to be miles away are in fact only a few tens of metres away. The findings cannot be construed otherwise.
It is of course ironic that profwag pulls out his usual hand-waving vague 'the information has been called into question by unspecified debunking experts' type rhetoric to smear and cast doubt on the findings. No links, no references, and of course you would realistically expect some Apollo fanbois and NASA/military PR flacks to have a go at the findings on any spurious basis they can think of to protect the dream. In other words, you could and should fully expect to be attacked by the usual disinfo types.
Another piece of evidence that helps 'triangulate' the finding are the topographical shots taken of Mons Hadley, for instance, by unmanned orbiters, which show extremely jagged mountains as you would expect on the moon where no weathering due to wind and rain and age can occur, as there is no atmosphere, water, precipitation, etc. They would therefore vaguely resemble 'new' mountain ranges being pushed up on earth by tectonic activity like Everest or the Matterhorn. However, the Apollo shots supposedly taken on the surface of the moon always show extremely weathered, rounded looking mountains, like Ayers Rock for instance -- or surprisingly like the mountains that had been photographed by the Apollo astronauts at Mauna Kea in Hawaii on a documented trip. This should simply not be possible.
Does this mountain profile look familiar at all?
Here's an exact replica on the moon! The universe is truly an amazing place...
There are, apparently, according to the pictorial record of the Apollo astronauts, some surprisingly weathered mountains on the moon! Even though the unmanned topographic shots show them to be extremely jagged as you would expect.
Further suspicion is cast by the impossibility in one pair of shots of the background moving while the foreground is frozen between 2 shots! This implies a projected or sliding background is in place that has moved between the shots being taken, I'm afraid. These are all 'official' NASA photographs available to the public.
Further suspicion is also cast by the fact that although the astronauts would have been moving 360 degrees around their supposed 'experiments' and therefore should have been taking shots of landscapes all around, the vast majority of shots are all pointing in the same direction at the same backgrounds, further evidence of the use of a stage set and 3rd party photographers -- on earth.
If this sort of evidence was presented to a court with an impartial judge as a kind of criminal investigation, I'm afraid the defendant, the US govt, would be put away.
Naturally, as these things are brought to light, NASA can always exercise the kinds of photo touch-up skills that have been around for a long time, since at least the 1930s, irregardless of the existence of Photoshop:
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 09 Feb 2014, 19:28, edited 1 time in total.
Where are the SELENE pictures? And remember Japan is an 'ally', I shouldn't have to mention the history.
Oh, there still aren't any. How convenient.
Could I ask where you retrieved this picture Syd? From my untrained eye, it looks like an obvious photoshop to me, but would explore further with some more information on the picture.
With a little more study Syd, please realize that my point wasn't on the evidence that Japan and China presented, only that they have publicly said they have evidence of the moon landings. If their pictures (or lack thereof) are not real, they would STILL have to have been in on the hoax and many, many people in these two countries would still be contributing to the moon hoax 40 years on. Perhaps you think that's a possibility, I don't think it's very likely.
Who knows? I await the pictures. Any convincing pictures.
Nope, it seems to be the legit mountains.
http://www.hilo.hawaii.edu/~csav/galler ... na_kea.php
Picture of astronaut Buzz Aldrin taken in Mauna Kea Hawaii.
[Quote marks added to unbunch profwag's panties. Now he can move on with his life.]
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 12 Feb 2014, 10:44, edited 1 time in total.
Syd, if you're going to voice an opinion on the moon hoax, you should at least post your own views. Plagiarism is not a good thing and as far as I'm concerned, you no longer have any credibility--with me at least.
Here is a link to what Syd posted above that shows solid evidence of my assertion that his views are not his own: (about 1/4 of the way down the page)
You should be ashamed of yourself, Syd.
what are you talking about now?
is this your way of saying you're losing every debate on the strength of the facts, so you're resorting to illegitimate forms of attack? you choose to quibble on non-existent issues and find a way to stop listening? kind of like the way ostriches think if they bury their heads they're safe? it always strikes me that the more you're losing the more outraged you get...
lemme see, you've lost Apollo, jfk and 9/11 and have no strong views on the paranormal, so that's 0 for 3... never mind, you're not the only person in the world who employs irrational ego defence mechanisms...
You know damn good and well what I'm talking about. You're posting other peoples crap and claiming it as your own. That's not how you "win" anything. And no, there's not anybody on this board (or anywhere else for that matter) that has shown one ounce of evidence for a moon hoax (remember that we, or should I say "I") pointed out that faked photos are zero physical evidence that we did or didn't go to the moon. I win that one. Second, Neither you, Winston, Misha, nor anyone else has shown any kind of physical evidence that it wasn't LHO who shot JFK. I win that one as well. As for 9/11, well, people who think it was anything other than 19 terrorists who flew planes into buildings, there is nothing anyone can say to convince otherwise as there is also zero physical evidence that has been presented to suggest anything else. That's 3 for 3. Oh, and if you're plagiarizing other people's posts, which I caught you doing in the last post, then you aren't even in the competition. Sorry Syd. You're 0 for 4.
so I should put '[quote]' tags around everything even when I cite the website source underneath? is that what's got your panties in a bunch again? you want to start a diversion instead of addressing the facts of the matter?
I haven't been caught 'plagiarising' anything, where did I attribute any writing as my own? The sources are cited. Even if I didn't cite a source, copy and pasting from a website is not claiming the writing as my own, it's copying and pasting. So it's a non-event. Half the pics and youtubes that are pasted in here are uncited, is that plagiarism? I sure as hell didn't take the pics or make the videos. Apparently this is a website of record and has to conform to the highest standards of academic referencing.
Meanwhile your claim that says there is not a shred of evidence when very clearly there is is just another favourite ego defence mechanism of pseudosceps, or govt operatives and failed sceptics who couldn't pass the true sceptics entrance exam: denial. Or de Nile, the longest river in the world, pseudosceps like to make pilgrimages to it to wallow in it.
Picture of a pussy in denial. [uncited source]
What it tells us all, Syd, is that you aren't using critical thinking when you post. It tells us that you look up a conspiracy website, say to yourself "hey, I'll just post this as my own and come across as knowing what I'm talking about" when in reality, it appears now that you don't. It's one thing to post the same idea as someone else's after researching the subject, but another thing altogether when you cut and paste a lengthy post, complete with pictures, and try to come off as knowledgeable about a subject. It's a lazy way of debating a subject and disrespectful to the person who took the time with the original post, regardless of how far off in left field the original's poster's ideas were.
I'll re-engage on this subject if someone posts anything new and original, otherwise, rehashing someone else's opinion makes it a dead topic.
haha, a dead topic? really? that would make all the science of the last 500 years dead and fruitless also, as people frequently build on other people's work to make new discoveries, formulate or develop theories, etc. but I guess a pseudoscep takes the scientific history of the last 500 years and the process of acquiring knowledge pretty much for granted. I'm presenting information from a variety of sources here to make a case. a lot of similar info has already been presented on recent threads.
but any excuse to run away from the evidence.
apparently things on scepcop are dead topics when profwag says they're dead topics, a time-honoured tactic that has gotten the US govt out of addressing the evidence of 9/11, JFK, Apollo and a host of other dubious operations it has engaged in.
So we will assume the OP's remarks stand, I guess, since profwag has once again chosen to disqualify himself from comment, and we can consider all his inputs to be null and void, as usual.
You can always put each other on your "Ignore" list, but then who would you have to debate with?
Apparently I'm debating people's posts from other website anyways. It's a crock o' crap actually. I mean, if I wanted to debate other people, I'd go to their websites to do it! I'm more interested in the opinion of people rather than the opinion of other people.
Oh well. By the way Ninja, isn't there some sort of rule that says posters can't use the Greek language to post? I mean, how the hell are most of us on there supposed to understand what those dudes are saying? They might actually have something that proves the moon landings didn't happen or that Elvis shot JFK, but we would never know.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests