An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
for the record, i think we did go to the moon.
but, puzzlingly, there are many things that point to the fact we did not.

Thanks for posting this, it's great proof that we went to the moon, actually. The first images you posted were from the same mission, apollo 15 if memory serves. They were indeed taken a distance apart, hence the different foreground, but "identical" background. If you match them up though, you quickly find the backgrounds are NOT identical. They were not taken by probes, they were taken by astronauts, you can even see the LM in one picture. If you put the two side by side and cross your eyes slightly you'll find they make a perfect stereo pair because of the distance apart that they were taken, proving that this wasn't some scam "reusing" the same background; it's really there in 3 dimensions, and because it's still there with a completely different foreground, it must be very distant.
Luckily, I've already done the work on this exact pair of pictures. Here they are, side by side. Just do the "magic eye" trick of crossing your eyes until the images overlap to see the mountains in all their 3d glory.



Alternatively, here it is for those who have those red/blue 3d glasses. Turn them upside down if it looks funky at first.


[edit on 27-1-2008 by ngchunter]

was a bit blatant on it being 'evidence' of cut and paste, twas
...will just try to put forward a case (for study)

Originally posted by ngchunter

Thanks for posting this, it's great proof that we went to the moon, actually. The first images you posted were from the same mission, apollo 15 if memory serves.

that's more information than what i have, and gives me a place to look, so thanks.

They were indeed taken a distance apart, hence the different foreground, but "identical" background. If you match them up though, you quickly find the backgrounds are NOT identical.

yes, i know.
i stated as such.
.

They were not taken by probes, they were taken by astronauts

i have to disagree with being an accepted fact, as yet.

you can even see the LM in one picture.

um, yes, yes you can.

If you put the two side by side and cross your eyes slightly you'll find they make a perfect stereo pair because of the distance apart that they were taken, proving that this wasn't some scam "reusing" the same background;..

who said there was?
i said they have used two almost identical backgrounds.
the fact that they are/may be a stereo pair suits fine.
(n will look into that when have image no's)

it's really there in 3 dimensions, and because it's still there with a completely different foreground, it must be very distant.

i thouroughly agree.
those mountains are effing miles away.
(and suits my theory of them being taken from low orbit at a distance
... as well as yours, your theory relies on it.
as in to have the "second" photo taken apparently IN FRONT of the lander, and for the view NOT TO OF dramatically changed.

Luckily, I've already done the work on this exact pair of pictures. Here they are, side by side. Just do the "magic eye" trick of crossing your eyes until the images overlap to see the mountains in all their 3d glory.

muchos gracias for that, and the enlargement.

********************************

as stated, i think this appears to be a 'cut' line




*************************


and also, please let me know which of these images you think was taken in front of the other?








[edit on 28-1-2008 by liv074_v.2]

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
was a bit blatant on it being 'evidence' of cut and paste, twas
...will just try to put forward a case (for study)
and also, please let me know which of these images you think was taken in front of the other?

[edit on 28-1-2008 by liv074_v.2]

Why would that be a cutline instead of just a minor variation in distant terrain? Are you saying the images were photoshopped with different foregrounds over a slightly different background in case anyone should ever try to verify the images by making a stereo pair? I'm not understanding where you're going with this. The topography of the area would make it impossible for a probe to fly that low to the surface at orbital speeds without having hit mountains behind where this photo was taken. Are you saying they landed the probe, flew it again to a different place, and took another photo to photoshop some backgrounds? The last two images look like more of the same to me, taken a distance apart with different foregrounds being the result. In fact they were obviously taken by two different cameras, just a guess but one looks like a hassleblad was used while the other looks like it was from a tv transmission. I don't know what mission this was from though, so I can't investigate further without knowing which pictures these are from apollo. Can you cite them, please?

[edit on 28-1-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature

Third- your numbers for appollo fourteen are completely WRONG- the mission log states the number of man minutes- so your attempt to DOUBLE the amount of time they had is nothing more than bogus.By the way- satistically speaking- apolla 14 had the lowest # of photos per minute at right aorund 1- the rest being much higher- with apollo 11 being the highest at 4 photos per minute.

Apollo 14 CDR - Alan B. Shepard Jr....

Rear Admiral Shepard has logged a total of 216 hours and 57 minutes in space, of which 9 hours and 17 minutes were spent in lunar surface EVA.

Official NASA biography - Shepard

Apollo 14 LMP - Edgar D. Mitchell....

Other Apollo 14 achievements included: first use of Mobile Equipment Transporter (MET); largest payload placed in lunar orbit; longest distance traversed on the lunar surface; largest payload returned from the lunar surface; longest lunar surface stay time (33 hours); longest lunar surface EVA (9 hours and 17 minutes).

Official NASA Biography - Mitchell

Total man-hrs in lunar EVA for Apollo 14 was approx 18 hrs.

To recap- yes- I was very slightly off when i recalled those numbers from my head but most of them I recounted were erred on the side of caution. But even then I was closer than you were after you obviously looked it up. Your blatant attempts at falsifying these numbers- as if nobody else can check them(we are ALL on the internet right now RIGHT?)

Funny that you accuse me of lying and and suggest that my "lies" are easily disproved by using the internet while you provide no proof of anything you say, and expect people to believe it's true only because you say so.

Is this the website where you got your funny ideas about total Lunar EVA time and time spent taking snapshots?

aulis.com...

I tend to think so, since you parrot it's author regarding Apollo 14 generating the least number of photographs per minute of any Apollo mission.

Jack White was incorrect regarding the total man-hrs spent in Lunar EVA (as proven here) and you just took his work and presented it here as your own.

Sloppy.





[edit on 1/28/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 1/28/2008 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
was a bit blatant on it being 'evidence' of cut and paste, twas
...will just try to put forward a case (for study)
and also, please let me know which of these images you think was taken in front of the other?

[edit on 28-1-2008 by liv074_v.2]

Why would that be a cutline instead of just a minor variation in distant terrain?

"it would be" if the foreground was filmed seperately, say on a soundstage.
and they needed a long distance background, hence the 'cut and paste'.
(as to WHY, i have no real idea.)

Are you saying the images were photoshopped with different foregrounds over a slightly different background...

yes.

...in case anyone should ever try to verify the images by making a stereo pair?..

no. wasn't.
(unsure as to any "reasoning behind it" if any.)

I'm not understanding where you're going with this.

i just find the images more and more interesting each time i look at them.

The topography of the area would make it impossible for a probe to fly that low to the surface at orbital speeds without having hit mountains behind where this photo was taken.

i have no doubt that they would then eventually smash into the mountains.
(..as to whether they would of hit the mountains behind first, i'll have to take your word on that!)

will say that it doesnt necessarily require the image to of been taken from a low flying orbiter.. it could just as well of been taken from landed probes
(...is just that the 'look' of the image itself allowed/implied that possibility, for me, so ran with it, for now.)

Are you saying they landed the probe, flew it again to a different place, and took another photo to photoshop some backgrounds?

well, no. was saying a very low flying probe cruised along taking long-range snap-shots.
(..untill they inevitably smashed into whatever mountains.)

The last two images look like more of the same to me, taken a distance apart with different foregrounds being the result. In fact they were obviously taken by two different cameras, just a guess but one looks like a hassleblad was used while the other looks like it was from a tv transmission.

thankyou for your thoughts.
and i concur. hope is correct.

I don't know what mission this was from though, so I can't investigate further without knowing which pictures these are from apollo. Can you cite them, please?

[edit on 28-1-2008 by ngchunter]

Nope.
but will as soon as i find them.

***************

and, still, do you have any thoughts as to which image was taken in front of the other?

anyone..?

meet AS15-82-11057 and AS15-82-11082.

************************

AS15-82-11057.

it is taken from a multi-image panoramic series of photos.
(from AS15-82-11047 to AS15-82-11064)
www.lpi.usra.edu...

it shows the entire landing site standing next to the lunar buggy, about 50 meters away from and behind the lunar lander.


* * * * * * *

...now, as for AS15-82-11082
this is also taken from a multi-image panoramic series of photos.
(from AS15-82-11066 to AS15-82-11092)
www.lpi.usra.edu...

this is a series of photos taken standing about 100 meters away from the lunar buggy, (..where the last series of images were taken.)


and, so..

1. not only does my point stills stand, about the image being 'cut' (foreground/background), but seemingly also 'appears' to be existant in every image!!

2. where is the lunar orbiter..? (in images AS15-82-11066 to AS15-82-11092)

3. and, a reason they may have they resorted to cut and paste for AS15..

because the earlier images really were sh@t. you cannot see more than 100 meters. literally.
.

************

um, did we fake the moon missions..? cuz..

[edit on 29-1-2008 by liv074_v.2]

and the 'cut and paste' apparent in the entire panoramic set of images.

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

..??

reply to post by liv074_v.2


I dont believe anyone has ever been to these locations in Vietnam, China, Wyoming, or Greenland, since the cut and paste lines in these photos are so apparent....

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
and the 'cut and paste' apparent in the entire panoramic set of images.

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

i244.photobucket.com...

..??

I'm sorry, but that's not proof of "cut and paste" that's proof of a horizon. Proof of cut and paste would be something like, a fiducial suddenly "broke" and became misaligned to itself. All this shows is that the terrain creates the appearance of a horizon at a great distance before it reaches the mountains. The same effect can be seen here:

You could make a "cut line" before the huge mountain in the background, that doesn't mean it was faked though.


And here if you remove the trees and houses, there's a nice straight "cut line". Once again, real, not faked.

I don't see any evidence of faking here at all. And do you realize how complicated it would be to fake this without photoshop and without powerful computers to know how far to photograph the mountains in the distance so as to make the stereo effect of every single image seem continuous from the "soundstage" to the mountains without showing any evidence of alteration?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
reply to post by liv074_v.2

 

I dont believe anyone has ever been to these locations in Vietnam, China, Wyoming, or Greenland, since the cut and paste lines in these photos are so apparent....

Thanks, same story as mine. Sorry I missed your post before posting.

reply to post by darkbluesky


i am not saying for one second that horizon lines do not exist in nature.

I don't see any evidence of faking here at all.

fair enough.

And do you realize how complicated it would be to fake this without photoshop and without powerful computers to know how far to photograph the mountains in the distance so as to make the stereo effect of every single image seem continuous from the "soundstage" to the mountains without showing any evidence of alteration?

would be complicated.
...could be done of course, would have to be prepared in detail.
(but, is not as complicated as it may initially appear, as the bulk of images only have a cut/straight line at the horizon, and the foreground and backgrounds have no relation at all, if any.



......and, as stated, where's the lander?

highest res found, so far. (about 1meg)

"..This up-Sun picture of the LM is from a pan Jim took at the ALSEP site at the start of EVA-3 .."
history.nasa.gov...



now, the second panoranic set.

"..Dave begins a pan at Station 9 with this down-Sun picture. He is standing on the north rim of a 15-m diameter crater..."
history.nasa.gov...

*************
source: history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by liv074_v.2

If I took a picture of a tree 25 meters in front of me, with mountains 3 km beyond, I would see the mountains and the tree (obviously). If I then moved to my left 50 meters and took a picture of those same mountains, the look of the mountains would be basically the same, but the tree would no longer be in that picture -- maybe now there is a rock 30 m in front of me instead of a tree.

I would end up with two pictures with practically the same background, but two different foregrounds.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
If I took a picture of a tree 25 meters in front of me, with mountains 3 km beyond, I would see the mountains and the tree (obviously). If I then moved to my left 50 meters and took a picture of those same mountains, the look of the mountains would be basically the same, but the tree would no longer be in that picture -- maybe now there is a rock 30 m in front of me instead of a tree.

I would end up with two pictures with practically the same background, but two different foregrounds.

That's a nice example. You can take it even further -- you can move 26 meters in the direction of the tree and thus move beyond it, then take a pic of a distant hill. The hill will look identical but there won't be the tree in the pic anymore.

Originally posted by liv074_v.2

would be complicated.
...could be done of course, would have to be prepared in detail.
(but, is not as complicated as it may initially appear, as the bulk of images only have a cut/straight line at the horizon, and the foreground and backgrounds have no relation at all, if any.



......and, as stated, where's the lander?

The lander is somewhere else, you do realize that the astronauts journeyed around the landing site, right? All one would have to do is a walk a distance parallel to the mountains till the lander was behind them, turn towards the mountains again and take the second picture. Voila, same mountains, no lander, without "faking" anything. If there was deception involved, especially such as the primitive techniques available back then, you ought to see something like obvious alpha channeling in the images, regardless of how straight the "cut" was. In fact, in the picture with the LEM, the cut isn't "straight" at all, there's a LEM in the way! That would have to be masked, and the techniques to do masking back then were very primitive and resulted in nasty fringes around the object - alpha channeling. There is no alpha channeling here, thus, no deception. And contrary to your assertion, the mountains are very related to the local surroundings. The color and more importantly, lighting, have to match so well that it fools expert geologists. Impossible without CG.


[edit on 30-1-2008 by ngchunter]

To illustrate what the Soylent, Buddha, and NGC have each described very clearly.....



Notice that the highest point of the central mound (red line) moves to the right in relation to the "V's" (yellow lines) between the left and right pictures. The left picture (Image 1) was taken from the general area shown on the sketch below. The right picture (Image 2) was taken from the general area shown below.

You can also use the shallow smooth crater (A) as a reference....



[edit on 1/30/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 1/30/2008 by darkbluesky]

Had trouble with posting the side by side, here it is again...

left




right

test

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by liv074_v.2

 

If I took a picture of a tree 25 meters in front of me, with mountains 3 km beyond, I would see the mountains and the tree (obviously). If I then moved to my left 50 meters and took a picture of those same mountains, the look of the mountains would be basically the same, but the tree would no longer be in that picture -- maybe now there is a rock 30 m in front of me instead of a tree.

I would end up with two pictures with practically the same background, but two different foregrounds.

of course, i agree.