Duane Daman Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) Apollo-gist /Virtual Apollo Part Five From Apollo image # 10075955, an example of more conventional razor knife cut and paste. The original, above, and processed, below. Both shown as negatives. Looks terrible, I know, but the intent on this one is to illustrate their technique. They did the pasting with reversed images, to disguise the edge contrast, so processing to bring out the background root image makes the pasted astronaut look even worse. If you reverse the picture, you can see the top one is indeed "normal". Note the real, gradient shadows in addition to the fake absolute-solid ones they added. According to what NASA says about such things as shadows, that means atmosphere where the picture was taken diffracted the light. I don't think there is any air on the lunar surface. Here's a section of that background, showing the wall of a structure nearby, not the Fra Mauro hills at a distance. Of course, the scale doesn't matter- the astronaut was standing somewhere else anyway. How about an image (a14_66_9302, in the original nomenclature) that Richard C. Hoagland noticed a long time ago? There is, as he has pointed out, something more than an empty black sky in the background. I think there is more than the crystal lattice he found, but that's due to the difference in our processing techniques- I was less concerned about preserving the astronaut as an image element. In my view, this is one of the ones from the training time in Antarctica, and had a space-suited figure added later. You've seen enough pasted-in astronauts already, so we'll just look at the processed version. This is the background area around the spot noticed by RCH. Cool building. Note the Mayan sort of snake along the base of the wall just left of the dark area. Here's more of it . Here's one of the ones that are just plain enigmatic. What we see there in 200128992 definitely has the look of the Old Culture, but the image itself looks more like a photo of a framed piece of a wall decoration or something, maybe a metal sculpture. There is far too much detail, like the very Mayan designs on the right side of the thing, or the various faces scattered around (look along the lower of those two arcs, just above the split), for it to be merely a case of weird imaging flaws. Yet on the left side, the way the detail merges with the frame makes it hard to imagine it as anything other than a photo of something relatively flat, not a view out a window. It is certainly strange enough to be something on the Moon, but is still reminiscent of things Atlantean. The extreme left edge, which is where any software processing artifacts would be, by the way, according to the technical data from Jasc (about Paint Shop Pro, not this picture!) shows instead what looks almost like evidence of (modern-type) hinges. Perhaps it is a "metal fresco", for want of a better description. But I can't say where. By default, I'll have to opt for thinking of it as another Antarctic picture, but it could also be taken as evidence of a real Lunar expedition (not necessarily an Apollo one, you realize). Or a close-up of a Martian belt buckle. http://www.rongtolas.com/chap_19.htm A Martian belt buckle ? ... I'm thinking more like a Man in the Moon astro-NOT belt buckle ! The End . Edited January 7, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) Although you put a link at the end, you really should make people aware that this entire series is simply a cut & paste from the Rongtolas website (http://www.rongtolas.com/page2.html). You wouldn't want people thinking it is your original work. Now, this website was discussed on the Bad Astronomy website over 18 months ago. http://64.207.216.12/showthread.php?t=16662 You can read the discussion there, and I am happy to discuss any points raised, either from the website or the BABB discussion of it. I'll go through the rest of the earlier posts, and point out the major errors. Edited January 7, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) I posted the source link at the END of the article , where it belongs .... It was too long and this forum doesn't allow but five pictures to one post , and those are the reasons I divided it into five parts .... I already posted to Steve Ulman that I would never under any circumstances, plaigerize anyone's work or copy anyone's words without giving them the credit . I just bet this web site and it's articles were discussed on the Bad Astronomy site of nasa disinformation .... I would think that Mr. Plaitt , who is on nasa's payroll to defend the Apollo lie , would never allow this one to slide by without putting his spin on it .. How about the clavius site ? .... Didn't Jay attempt to rip apart this damaging evidence also ? ... Or is nasa not paying him as much as Phil ? Edited January 7, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Any proof that they are being paid by NASA? Oh that's right, you don't because there isn't any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) No , I don't have any proof that Jay and Phil are paid nasa stooges ... I guess they could be spending all their time online 'debunking' and ridiculing the hoax believers just for the hell of it .... but then who needs proof ? ... nasa doesn't have any technical proof that they landed men on the moon almost 40 years ago , but that hasn't stopped them from making that outrageous and fantastic claim . Extraordinary claims should be able to provide extraordinary proof ... but I guess that never did apply to nasa , one of the main organizations of the American military / industrial complex ... After all , those boys are running the entire show ... So who are we to question their almighty authority ? President Lyndon Johnson , the guy who was one of the founders of the American military /industrial complex , and the guy who ordered the Apollo info classified until 2026 , once claimed that Americans would not sleep very well under the light of a communist moon ! ... and he , and the boys at nasa made sure we would never have to do that , didn't they ? ... That's right folks ... If you can't make it to the moon , then fake it to the moon ! ... After all , FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION ! ... and we all know the rest of that sad story , don't we ? Edited January 7, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Since the scientific community of the world accepts that Apollo landed on the Moon, the extraordinary claim is that they didn't. If it was faked then why didn't the Russian call them on it? You have been provided with a link before showing the Russians tracked them to the Moon. Remember, the one in Russian that you refused to read because you didn't want to run it through one of the many online translation programs? Also, since they had their own program, they would have known first if it was possible, and second if the US had the equipment to do it. So why didn't they call the US on it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 Russia never tracked Apollo to the moon ... No one tracked Apollo to the moon , not even Jodrell Bank , who had been under contract with nasa for all of their missions , until Apollo ... If the Russian article claimed to have tracked Apollo to the moon , then it is nothing but current disinformation .. and God knows there's plenty of that going around the internet ... Russia has never claimed to have tracked Apollo except for the audio transmissions ... So the artilce posted on the UM site is full of it ... I never had a chance to even properly reply to any of that crap posted there because the hateful moderators and the nasa stooges, like MID , were too busy personally insulting me ... and I have had enough of their insults...... Then they lock all the Apollo threads on that "spit in your face" web site .... It looks like the moderators there don't want Apollo discussed on their forums because nobody knows how to behave and discuss this subject like rational adults ... Even on this site , insults are the only means that some members know how to use when trying to debate this topic . I don't know where that Russian article came from , but why don't you translate it for us and post it here if you think it has any merit to it , or any proof to offer of them tracking Apollo to the moon ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Sorry, I won't do your work for you. Even if what you claim is true, that they only listened to the radio transmissions, then that is still a kind of tracking. If the audio transmissions are coming from teh direction of the moon and do not disappear over the horizon every few minutes, then they are not coming from a craft in low orbit. Instead they must be coming from a craft on its way to the moon. Now let's see. You claim n obody tracked Apollo to the Moon but provide no references. The opposing claim is that Russia did track them and an article is provided describing such. Hmmm, who are we to believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 I posted the source link at the END of the article , where it belongs .... I Wrong again - Since the cut and pasting took more than one thread, you really needed to post the link in each thread. One more example of your laziness. You have posted in each thread that Evan and I posted responses, but you didn't even try to discuss the issues we raised with the validity of the information you posted. You posted this stuff here, so it’s incumbent upon you to defend it, or at least provide a reason for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 So the artilce posted on the UM site is full of it ... I never had a chance to even properly reply to any of that crap posted there because the hateful moderators and the nasa stooges, like MID , were too busy personally insulting me ... and I have had enough of their insults...... Then they lock all the Apollo threads on that "spit in your face" web site .... It looks like the moderators there don't want Apollo discussed on their forums because nobody knows how to behave and discuss this subject like rational adults ... For those who are interested, some examples of the "hateful moderators" who are "...busy personally insulting..." Duane (AKA Straydog): http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=84915 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=84783 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=85109 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=84491 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=83397 Have a read for yourself, and make up your own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Just making sure, I noticed that Duane edited his 1st post on this thread AFTER Steve pointed out on the 1st thread of this series that it was a cut and paste job*. Did anybody actually see the link before hand? Evan replied that there was a link 15 minutes after Steve's post so I think it is unlikely that Duane hastily added it but you never know. * And yes I noticed the edit was made long after but the forum only lists the most recent edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 Len , Evan and Steve .... It seems like your only line of defence against me is going completely off topic again , as usual ... Is trying to make me look deceptive in some way , by posting this article , your only way of 'debunking' this authors work ? .... And then linking my posts on other web sites too ? ... How typically disingenuous ( oh no, there's that word again ) of all of you ... I edit posts for one reason only .. to correct any typos or mis-spellings after re-reading my posts . If it would make you all happier I will post the source link at the bottom of all five posts .... My not posting it at the bottom of every post has nothing to do with being "lazy", as Steve Ulman suggested .... The reason I posted the link at the end is so that one , or possibly all of you, couldn't attack the article information until all of it was completed ... I already explained why it was broken down into five different posts ... How typically hostile and annoying it is of all of you to continue to try to discredit the messenger because you don't like the message .... Now THAT is what I would consider "boring" Steve . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 It seems like your only line of defence against me is going completely off topic again , as usual ... Is trying to make me look deceptive in some way , by posting this article , your only way of 'debunking' this authors work ? .... And then linking my posts on other web sites too ? ... How typically disingenuous ( oh no, there's that word again ) of all of you ... No, you complained that you were mistreated on another board (insults, not being given a chance to properly reply). I responded to that claim with examples of that alleged mistreatment, giving people the chance to draw their own conclusions. And I am responding to the article, point-by-point, starting at the begining (i.e. Part 1). BTW, why did you have to start five threads on the same topic? If the number of images was the limitation, why didn't you make a post with the maximum number of images allowed in a single post then make another post in the same thread with further images, etc? IMO, it just clutters the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 Just because I complained about the "spit in your face" stupidity that takes place on the UM site was no reason for you to go off topic by bringing it here ... I didn't think about posting that long article in one thread but that makes sense ... I tried to post it all in one shot but it wouldn't take all the photos ... That's the only reason I split it up the way I did ... I didn't do it to intentionally spam the board . I didn't even bother to look at the UM threads you posted here but what I mean about the "spit in your face" kind of attitude of the members and moderators there , is my being called stupid, childish , ignorant , uninformed etc . following almost every post I ever wrote there .... Many members have left that web site because of the BS that takes place there on almost every thread ... It is despicable how some of the members are treated on those forums .... especially if their "worldview" is that of a "conspiracy theorist " .... I posted there against my better judgement because I wanted the truth about Apollo to be known by as many people as possible ... but of course the nasa geeks and misinformation agents working overtime on the internet , make sure that the truth about Apollo will never come out . Another creepy thing I never understood about that site was how did the moderators post a reply , including copying some of my post back to me , immediately after I hit submit , when there wasn't even enough time to do so ? .... Then last week one of the members on the UM posted a thread called " Watchers... are we being watched ?" ... He said that a friend of his was banned BEFORE his "bad post" was even completed and submitted ! .... That's when I realized how my posts were always attacked so quickly by the mods ... They were being read AS I wrote them ! .... Talk about some scary stuff ... After reading that , I decided there was more reason to leave that forum than just the verbally abusive moderators and members there . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Just because I complained about the "spit in your face" stupidity that takes place on the UM site was no reason for you to go off topic by bringing it here ... I didn't think about posting that long article in one thread but that makes sense ... I tried to post it all in one shot but it wouldn't take all the photos ... That's the only reason I split it up the way I did ... I didn't do it to intentionally spam the board . I didn't even bother to look at the UM threads you posted here but what I mean about the "spit in your face" kind of attitude of the members and moderators there , is my being called stupid, childish , ignorant , uninformed etc . following almost every post I ever wrote there .... Many members have left that web site because of the BS that takes place there on almost every thread ... It is despicable how some of the members are treated on those forums .... especially if their "worldview" is that of a "conspiracy theorist " .... I posted there against my better judgement because I wanted the truth about Apollo to be known by as many people as possible ... but of course the nasa geeks and misinformation agents working overtime on the internet , make sure that the truth about Apollo will never come out . Another creepy thing I never understood about that site was how did the moderators post a reply , including copying some of my post back to me , immediately after I hit submit , when there wasn't even enough time to do so ? .... Then last week one of the members on the UM posted a thread called " Watchers... are we being watched ?" ... He said that a friend of his was banned BEFORE his "bad post" was even completed and submitted ! .... That's when I realized how my posts were always attacked so quickly by the mods ... They were being read AS I wrote them ! .... Talk about some scary stuff ... After reading that , I decided there was more reason to leave that forum than just the verbally abusive moderators and members there . That's right Duane - we're all after you. Better keep looking over your shoulder; one of our operatives is probably monitoring you this very second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now