Dog Pile!!!

SLF...if you have a comment or a question please share it with us...

However the "dogpile" comment is really unncessary. If you think it unusual, or unfair for posters here to demand evidence from those who would present extraordinary claims, then perhaps you do not understand what a science/debunking board is all about.

Yup, your contribution to this thread falls into exactly that category...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

You're welcome.

Glad to be of some help.

Remember pareidolia when yet another CT, HB, et al, comes here with a picture they say proves some outlandish claim.

What usually follows is a bunch of conclusions based on a photo (usually second or third generation, not that the JPEG artifacts would keep them from their claims), from which the HB, CT, et al, avers to the derivation of information about materials, power sources, dynamics (including thermal), manufacturing methods, structural engineering, environmental controls, propulsion, guidance systems, and a host of other applications within the realm of space science and engineering. And often even biology.

But, once we ask for details, they typically (100% rate so far) fall on their uninformed faces.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

"Open-mindedness is not the same as empty-mindedness. To hang out a sign saying, 'Come right in; there is no one at home' is not the equivalent of hospitality." - John Dewey

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Another poster, Gethen, has a signature that reads "An open mind is like an open window, it needs a good screen to keep the bugs out" (or something similar).

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

"Keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out."

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Actually, the sig you speak of belongs to N C More.

Neither N C nor Gethen have posted here in the last 6 months....which is a shame as both always had something interesting to say.

My Bad.
But it is their fault for not posting.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

I am aware that the Apollo 20 story has been thourghly debunked. Don't know or care about validity of story.

However three metric photos are from different angles and all of the landforms and craters correlate to Apollo 15 data. Further the three metric photos show authentic dimensional shift.

They could only have been taken from low orbit. The Apollo 15 data is at a 23 degree shadow angle so taken in late afternoon of long lunar day. Three metrics have a longer shadow angle so taken later in solar day.

The only way these three metrics could have been faked is to edit a ship into authentic metrics. I have been unable to find the original metric photos from NASA or any other source.

Seek help in finding original photos.

I have considerable experiance in photo editing so know these metrics would be virtually impossible to fabricate without three original and authentic photos. Rotating a single pix or fabricating from scratch is virtually impossible.

See this link I created to show this.
http://www.freewebs.com/moonship5/

Where did the original metric shots come from?

You don't care that the story has been thoroughly debunked? If it has debunked that seems to expose the whole story a bunk.
No, they don't, not completely. Some craters are in the wrong place, and others are completely absent from the original. For instance the crater ringed in pink, and the uppermost crater ringed in yellow are very different in each photo. Obviously a fake. But thanks for the comparison photos, they show quite nicely that the faked images are not perfect.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

You must have given them a cursury exam. The differences are due to shift in viewing angle as expected in a three dimensional object. The difference in shadow angles makes some features show up better in metrics and not in A15. Some better in A15 and not in metrics for same reason. Yet the correlation between them is clearly visible.

Shifts in perspective and shadow angle should have expected differences.

Remember the face on mars? Trick of illusion in shadow and light. Took photos from another perspective to prove the idiots wrong.

The features showing up in all 4 photos are consistant with such shadow and light play. The A15 has slight random pattern from film grain. The A15 has flattening of landscape from large focal lenght lens effect.

The metrics lose detail because they are low res scans of high res image.

Many years of experiance with photo editing so know what I see. Seeking source of original photos could prove these were edited. Seeking the truth here not on a campaign to prove anything either way.

Thought someone here might know where to find such metrics. Originals end debate either way.

I could easily fake the metrics from originals. I could easily fake them if creating pure fantesy. Not so easy to do and keep authentic match to A15 detail. Have worked on movie projects so know this from years of experiance.

That still assumes the object in question is a ship of some kind. How have you drawn that conclusion?

I assume the 'ship' is the object that appears to stick up from the crater in the centre of the image. However, that object seems to match up with a feature in the Apollo 15 image. It is less prominent in the Apollo 15 image because of the shadow angles, but it is definitely there. And it doesn't look like anything unusual.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

No, I have not drawn that conclusion. The data all points to that but it is still open to interpretation.

The A15 data shows an object with upper structure and right to left symmetry. Not much more can be said of that. Natural, possibly. However it is unusual and suggestive enough that I would think it remiss of NASA or DoD or whomever to not investigate it further.

Therefore I would expect more detailed photos to exist. The metrics have authentic detail and depict it as a ship. Low res scans show that what we see is not the original images so tampering with them cannot be ruled out.

Thats why I seek the source of the originals.

All else is speculation as is my next statement so do not read more into it than that.

When the face on mars controversy arose I looked at those photos and saw only play of shadow and light in a landform. NASA publicly stated it as such and later proved it.

I look at the A15 data and see something more provocative than just a play of shadow and light. Not conclusive but worthy of investigation. Yet on this much debated issue NASA remains silent.

Just want to add that the vids of supposed ship prove nothing because motion makes it easy to trick the eye. Thats how hollywood works.

The metrics are still shots so examination of detail is more revealing. Only better photos from a documented source can say decisivly.

I just realized that I also have considerable experience in photoanaylsis.

I've used the Original Polaroid Land Camera, the Swinger(tm) from the mid 1960s, every Polaroid camera since then, several Kodak Cameras, Bell and Howell Movie cameras, A couple of 35mm Nikons, and a few digital cameras.

So I'm an authority on space photgraphy, and my opinion merits regard.

There is no good evidence of intelligent life on Mars.


Ha Ha!

__________________
Banned By Nancy Lieder

Was I in error in assuming this was a forum of open science debate? Or is it a forum where questions not agreeing with the majority bring ridicule? Thought I could seek an answer here to a legitimate question.

I agree with you. There is no good evidence of intelligent life on mars. There is however overwhelming evidence of unintelligent life here on earth.

Relax fellow Debunker And welcome to the Army

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Yeah. It seems that nobody knows anything about the metrics. Wish I could toss them out of the equasion myself. If the landscape detail did not match known data as well as it did I would. I e-mailed the ask NASA public outreach program askng for more information on the anomaly but got no response.

And believe me I have gotten some downright rude attacks on all but one or two venues I have raised this question in. Hope the SELENA probe data will settle this one way or the other. They responded to my inquiry that all data will be made public in sept 2009.

My personal guess is that whoever faked that Apollo 20 thingie bassed it off of the Apollo 15 orbital picture. But that's just my personal guess (which isn't worth.. anything?..).

__________________
I animate LEGO Bricks as a hobby. Isn't that just awesome?!

If you want my vote, I'd go for it being real and natural.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett