And it offends me that an agency trading on the public dime dosn't make everything more transparent.

And I don't want my tax dollars spent on oodles of computer servers and available bandwidth to supply every huge dataset to the 0.0005% of the human race that desires them, just so they can do it without getting up from their chairs. The NSSDC at Greenbelt already spends millions of dollars on computer clusters just to index and make the casual data sets available.

I see no difference between that and having to pay to get into Yellowstone, which is also trading on the public dime. Those very few who want special services from a government agency can pay a little extra for it.

So far the only illusion I have found is that I can really explore the data for myself.

Why do you labor under the delusion that such exploration involves little or no effort on your part? Knowledge requires activity.

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

Satisfy my curiosity and put an end to contrversy.

Justify your curiosity. Substantiate the controversy. Why, according to you, does everyone else seem to bear some sort of burden to refute your vague suspicion?

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

...all of the landforms and craters correlate to Apollo 15 data.

Um, they clearly do not. There are considerable salient features in each version of the photography (Apollo "20" and Apollo 15) that are not represented in the other, even in areas of high fidelity. While you have identified a number of features that do correlate, you appear to have ignored the features that don't.

I have considerable experiance in photo editing...

Exactly what is your experience and where did you obtain it? I have been a photographer for more than 25 years, and at the University of Utah I both studied and taught photographic interpretion and image processing for engineering purposes, including the recovery of three-dimensional data from shading information. My photographic interpretation expertise has been featured on the National Geographic channel and recognized by the journal Science.

I disagree with your assessment and correlation, and I would like to see something besides your assertions that these photos are equally valid representations of the same moonscape. And kindly do not handwave about better data; the data at hand on your linked page are sufficient to investigate an alleged correlation between coarse "land masses and craters" and draw a conclusion about likely equivalence.

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

I have put a great deal of effort into this. Many hours of searching for data and of evaluating data. Trips to the library and gooogle search. So do not assume I am being lazy. Ninety mile trip to sift through archives finding nothing. And my physical barries make it a lot tougher than it used to be.

Forums are for open debate and discovery. And yes I do expect some responsibility from myself as well as others. When I make a statement and it is challenged I feel an obligation to show my evidence. And I will challenge your opinions asking of your evidence.

I have been challanged and subjected to much criticism. Some rather rude and derogatory terms as well. The ones on this forum are some of the milder ones. Would have been a lot easier to simply agree with everyone and say you are right and I will shut up and go away.

Open forum. If you think my questions and curiosity are less than worthy of your time then you can choose not to respond.

I choose to post where my questions will come under the most intense critical review of informed educated and inquiring minds because that is where I have the potential to learn the most.

If your intention is to denigrate and discourage those who would ask questions then why do you even bother to further your own knowledge?

Attitude of superiority does not impress. Just a barrier to communication. I am not surprised at the vast number of conspiricy theories in the general public. Attitude.

Accept the burden to refute or just ignore. That choice is yours to make.

Change your avatar, that one looks a little pompous. Just my humble opinion.

Ok now Bart, I need to give a few humble opinions of my own here.

JayUtah is probably well accustomed to his avatar being picked on- so I won't comment on that but I will comment that your opinion may be that- it certainly was not humble.

You contradicted yourself too.
You said that you chose to discuss the topic here in order to receive well educated responses. Which is exactly what you are receiving from some here.
Yet you then turn around and claim you're being given superior attitudes- So which is it?
You say that you understand that some folks will have commentary. Yet you react sharply to not just commentary- But to good scientific advice and sound judgment as well.
You claim the folks here must accept the burden to refute? It doesn't work that way. Not here- nor anywhere else. Not in a courtroom. Not in science and not in life. You made the claim. You must accept the burden of proof.

Not only are you ignoring common sense here, you are ignoring the evidence you already have.

i do not believe for a moment that you will be satisfied until you prove your claims true.
Because all the evidence that you have that demonstrates that it's just a rock is not good enough now- it never will be.
If NASA bent over backwards providing you with all the data you want- it wouldn't be enough.

Don't you understand that you are seeking to justify your theory? That you will not stop searching until you have done so?
It is not about trying to learn the "truth."
It is about you obsessing over an absurdity and doing whatever it takes to make excuses and justify your apparent obsession with it.

The correlation between data is open to interpretation. I clearly state that A15 is a small data set in a large file where film grain is an issue. The A20 is low res scan as I clearly show. Shadow angles differ as well.

As to experiance my work has been seen on movie screens, movie posters, vcr tape covers, video games, cd sleeves, vehicle graphics, large truck advertising, sighs, magezine adds, and things I cant remember. Have not made it into national geographic yet but I do read it, fabulous magazene. No longer working so nothing recent.

Yes I have been quite agressive and have exhausted all avenues. Have played the devils advecate as well. Rude sometimes too.

No it is not true that I am on a campaign to prove a preconception. Actually I think it is probably a big rock. Just a couple of troubling issues that I have not been able to dismiss yet.

Like Alexei Leonov being in a most fake looking vid. If he is pasted in then why is there no one who knows the source of the clip from such a well known public figure? I think the vid is probably a fake. But I feel that absolute proof of that would require finding the source of clip. It's not like he is an unknown. He was in the public eye. When was he filmed in that outfit performing those actions? Seems like someone would know. Did not raise that issue here because thought it not relevent to the issue in a significant way.

As to the burden of proof there is an anomaly in A15 pix. It has upper structure and strong suggestion of left right symmetry. Controversial A20 pixs from an unknown source show it to be something other than a natural formation. This is evidence.

To claim the evidence is not valid does put the burden on that claim. To refute evidence requires showing better evidence. Just because the majority of opinion goes against the evidence does not make it evaporate. I have not seen irrefutable better evidence yet. Would like to. Strong and well educated opinion is not physical evidence.

Just want to show that the public should be presented with the evidence and decide for themselves. This is the line I added to my web page to that end. Your consensus of opinion is presented.

"The following pixs are from the NASA links above. I edited them to give reference numbers and show enlargement of anomaly. This also illustrates some of the issues. Even at over 3 km long the anomaly is still a small object in a large image. Every opinion from the science community is that this is a rock or a horizontal thrust ridge. Every evaluation pro and con has its issues. What do you think?"

To not present this to the public would be to censure. Also some here seemed to have trouble finding the anomaly in the NASA links so I presented pixs with enlargement of anomaly and pointer to location.

Even bad books should not be burned.

Is there? Have you met the burden of proof to show that there is, or have you just claimed that there is? I'm a total amateur, here. Convince me that there's an anomaly, and then it'll be Jay's job to explain it. (Well, not necessarily Jay. But someone a heck of a lot more capable than I.) Until then, your claim that it's an anomaly means your burden of proof.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

If I may throw my 2 cents in... I gotta be honest and say I just don't see whatever it is I am supposed to be seeing in any of the pictures posted in this thread without reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy stretching my imagination. I mean, with the Face on Mars I look at the picture and say "hey yeah, that does look like a face... cool..!!" I don't believe for a second that it is anything more than a trick of shadows, lighting and geography, but at least I can see what I am supposed to be looking at.

Here, I just don't see it.... but I never could see those 3D pictures either

What he said.

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah

Here is the final post I am adding to the web page I created to evaluate this. Thought you would find it revealing. The clementine cd's I ordered could change my mind but I doubt that.

""The following links are quite revealing.

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/im...15-M-1579.html

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/im...15-M-1580.html

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/im...15-M-1581.html

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/im...15-M-1582.html

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/im...15-M-1583.html

It is only from the east that it looks like a spaceship. Views are 1579 eastern view to 1583 western view.

In the most western view of 1583 it looks most like a ridge.

I'm betting it is a big ridge of moon rock and dust. I am quite perplexed as to the purpose and energy put into the Rutledge claim.

Should his claim prove to be valid I would be quite surprised. I gave this all the serious consideration I could give it and in the end find that it fails. I am still wondering where the Leonov clip and the metric views originate from. If hoaxed a lot of effort went into this. It is quite imaginative.""

I have been challanged and subjected to much criticism.

Not from me. You've simply been asked to present your case according to a meaningful standard of proof. Your case consists of presenting two sets of pictures and making assertions about them, many of which are demonstrably untrue. You wrap all that up in an ambiguous air of expertise.

If you think my questions and curiosity are less than worthy of your time then you can choose not to respond.

For many pages I chose not to respond. Now that a substantial number of posts have issued from you, I think it is appropriate to ask for some evidence. Hogwash such as "Logic does not apply to unknowns," and "How can you tell what a crashed spaceship might look like," attract responses. If they do not attract the responses you desired, that's not the critic's problem.

If your intention is to denigrate and discourage those who would ask questions then why do you even bother to further your own knowledge?

My intention is to inform you what I believe is insufficient about your case, and to elicit further data, reasoning, and computation from you in hopes you really care about presenting a case.

And kindly do not attempt to style a weakly prepared and inadquately presented case as "just asking questions." Passive-aggressive argumentation does not impress.

Attitude of superiority does not impress.

You opened the door to claims of expertise by claiming yourself to have it and to argue from it. I require it to be demonstrated if you continue that line of inquiry. If you present your findings as those of an experienced photographic interpreter, then you will be asked to meet that burden. I cite my verifiable experience as proof of my expertise. If you intent to argue in the capacity of an expert, I require a similar recitation from you.

Accept the burden to refute or just ignore.

Refute what? You just wave your hands and keep raising the possibility it's a "moon ship." Why?

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

Why? Your answer is quite revealing as to why. To get the most aggresive response possible. To provoke. To defend the claim into absurdity.

In the end I find the WR claim fails. Still, it is quite an imaginative story.

As to the burden of proof there is an anomaly in A15 pix.

An anomaly is a departure from expectation. State your expectations, justify why they are good and valid expectations, and discuss what exactly about the feature in question departs from them.

That is your burden of proof when claiming anomaly.

It has upper structure and strong suggestion of left right symmetry.

A "strong suggestion" of left-right symmetry is insufficient. Craters, for example, are symmetrical and yet known to be of natural causes. Near symmetry is insufficient to establish the feature in question as artificial, especially when in all other visible properties it resembles the surrounding terrain.

Symmetry is a matter of measurement, not of vague handwaving. If you wish to argue symmetry, I expect to see a quantitative discussion of measurement upon a photgrammetrically-rectified version of the Apollo 15 photograph.

You have not met a burden of proof either for anomaly or for symmetry, and symmetry alone is not sufficient to establish artificiality.

Controversial A20 pixs from an unknown source show it to be something other than a natural formation. This is evidence.

An observation is not evidence until it is shown to relate to the circumstances. The so-called Apollo 20 pictures are from a highly discredited source. If you wish to present those as actual photographs of the lunar surface, there must be a detailed provenance. I do not accept as proof of their validity your cherry-picked "expert" correlations, and I have explained why.

Either make your case entirely from evidence of known and accepted provenance, or prove that the Apollo 20 photographs are real.

To refute evidence requires showing better evidence.

No. An affirmative rebuttal is one possible method of refutation, among many that are possible and applicable. The proper method here is simply to show that the proposition has not met its standard of proof. You have presented insufficient evidence.

You have not proved anomaly. You have not proved symmetry. You have not proved artificiality. You have not provided anything that rises even remotely above the null hypothesis. Therefore the null hypothesis stands.

Just because the majority of opinion goes against the evidence does not make it evaporate.

You may not confuse the evidence with your interpretation of the evidence. If the majority of competent interpretation goes against your interpretation, and for defensible reasons, then your interpretation is less likely to be true. Since you have not bothered to defend your interpretation is except by repeatedly begging the question, there is little more to say.

I have not seen irrefutable better evidence yet.

I have not seen sufficient evidence of your claims. You present two sets of pictures -- one from a completely discredited source -- and make handwaving assertions about them from a nebulous position of expertise. When those assertions are questioned upon evidentiary grounds, you try to play a martyr-to-the-cause, backpedal away from the methods you first introduced, and dump the burden of proof on everyone else.

That is classic polemics.

Strong and well educated opinion is not physical evidence.

Irrelevant. You raised the issue of interpretation (i.e., that derives from well-educated positions) when you styled yourself as a well-educated and experienced photographic interpreter and implied that such expertise was material to your case. Now your interpretation is being challenged according to good evidence, and you have simply tried to shift the burden of proof in order to compensate for your unwillingness to meet the challenge. You cannot at the outset say your case is based on expert interpretation, and then backpedal and say that "physical" evidence must be presented by those who disagree.

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

Why? Your answer is quite revealing as to why. To get the most aggresive response possible. To provoke. To defend the claim into absurdity.

No, why that particular hypothesis?

And I think it's disingenuous of you to play both sides of the fence. Here you admit to intentional provocation, yet above you try to admonish people for giving you such strongly-positioned responses; and you even try to argue that such "aggressive" responses are invalid (i.e., by not being "physical proof").

If it was your goal all along to "get the most aggressive responses possible," then kindly thank us for providing aggressive responses, apologize for having misled us, and withdraw your admonishment.

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

Too often the public is left in doubt because science often addresses issues in termonology and data that only other scientist understand. Gives rise to all that conspiracy BS.

I find the evidence of science in this most credible and the WR claim most increadable.

Thank you for your patience and most informed opinions.

Its the little parables like the frog shape in a tree stump things that make the general public feel they are being denegrated to. You give absolutly valid opinions formed of experiance and education. The uneducated need a little more explenation and less criticism. Lack of education is not lack of intelligence. Too often that is not recognized.

The need to feel that they are making up their own minds and not just accepting learned opinions.

Still amazed at the scope and effort that went into the WR claim. Still are a couple of unanswered questions. However the evaluation of hoax still stands as the most viable answer.

Willing to take a few bumps on the nose in this to find as many facts as possible. And I did. Stuck my neck out far enough to get my head lopped off, and I did.

Thank you again for your time and patience. I got what I came for. You have been most patient with my stubborn tenacity.