Patrick, why did you quote Laton's article demolishing your claim of "military-style gridding" and then not talk about the coordinate system at all? The alleged military origin of the coordinate system for LAM-2 was an important premise in your argument that that map had been doctored by the military as an attempt to mislead people both inside and outside NASA. And so important was
that claim that you ranted on it at length yesterday, even taking others to task for not obeying that focus.
Since you have ignored both his and my rebuttal, I assume you have no answer. Therefore your claim that LAM-2 is a military fabrication is refuted. And the subsequent claim that the doctoring was done intentionally therefore fails by subversion of support.
Moving on, then...
Isn't this the same wife you told us in a different thread was fed up with your Apollo hoax theories? You told us that as a prelude to winding up your Apollo-related activities here, back when you felt the discussion was going very badly for you. You said your wife didn't approve of your "obsession" over Apollo, and demanded you stop.
Now for some reason she's helping you. Given your propensity to invent people to help your claims along -- people who magically seem to exhibit whatever contradictory property you specifically require from moment to moment -- why should we believe that anything you're about to say is coming from anyone other than you?
Let's be clear: Unless your wife is willing to come here and speak for herself, anything you say (or don't say) about what she has done to help you is simply hearsay and carries essentially no weight beyond your own claims.
came up with a simplified approach...
What did she do to prove her approach was correct? Further -- and most important -- what did she do to prove her approach actually worked at detecting whether images were the same or different?
Do you understand that such a validation is required before you can use it on "live" data?
She may be a smart girl, but she certainly doesn't have any clue about scientific or forensic methodology. There are lots of smart people who nevertheless lack the specialized knowledge to work in specific fields. Aptitude is not the same thing as knowledge.
And I echo the concerns of the others: Why did this "smart girl" cherry-pick the available evidence in exactly the same way as you did?
she is [...] no more capable than any "Lost Bird Thread ": enthusiast,.
Given that many of us "enthusiasts" have professional training and experience in these methods, I would say that yours is a true statement. If she is therefore likely less capable than us, why is her (non-)expertise something we should pay attention to?
...and this was her very first try playing with the maps.
The argument, "So obviously wrong a novice could detect it," is popular among conspiracy theorists. Sadly it fails on his face as a creatively begged question. Your wife is new to the science and unfamiliar with the data, and working from homegrown methods. What makes her opinion worth any attention?
I'll do even more accurate calculations for this stuff later...
You haven't yet produce
any sort of discussion regarding the accuracy in your method. It is the absence of that discussion that reveals just how amateur your approach is.
As I said, you need to show us an error analysis. You need to show us to what precision you are able to measure your control network. You need to show us to what precision the camera captures features in each case. You need to show us how much error would be expected from your different lines of sight (this is not trivial).
Since you have explicitly committed to address the accuracy in your model and method, I note that any subsequent attempt to excuse yourself from the necessity of the error analysis will be intentionally disingenuous on its face.
You said your wife used a staineless steel ruler to measure. Yet the images you are using are digital. Please elaborate on your measurement method and what error analysis and validation steps you took.
...between any two points that you care to
Please show us exactly which points you used and how you proved in each case that the "points" you were using could be located to suitable precision in each photo.
Now the AS -37-5447HR image is at slightly lower magnification than the Lunar Orbiter II image.
Is that the only difference that would need to be considered between two digital copies of an image that are purportedly the same image? Since neither you nor your wife have any training in photogrammetry, how do you know you're not missing something important?
[1.1053] is the number my wife calculated as a magnification factor...
Why is that number missing its error -- you know, the "plus-or-minus" values that represent the confidence to which you know that to be the number you're looking for? Are four decimal places appropriate to the discretization of your data? Why or why not?
How was this number computed? That magic number is one of the key premises to your method, but you just pluck it out of your [anatomy]. How many times did your teachers tell you to show your work?
Now that you have that (AS-37-5447HR measurement) X 1.1053 = number, go ahead and now measure DIRECTLY the distance between the same two landmarks in the Lunar Orbiter II 2085 image. What did ya' get? The SAME!!!!! SEE!!!!!! Pretty cool isn't it?
Congratulations on having proven the distributive property of multiplication. If my suspicion is correct about how your wife computed the "conversion factor," then this outcome is practically assured regardless of the data.
It is impossible for this to occur, utterly impossible, unless the two images are NOT TWO IMAGES, BUT RATHER ARE BOTH ITERATIONS/COPIES OF THE EXACT SAME IMAGE.
This is the second of the two key premises in your claim, and you don't prove it. You simply assume it's true.
The error analysis I asked you to perform earlier would have told you (and us) just how possible or impossible it would be for features photographed from slightly different circumstances to exceed the tolerance in your model, data, and measurements. You hand-waved vaguely about fields of view, but never drew a quantitative conclusion. You never presented a lens model. By your allusion to those concepts I gather you realize they are essential to your claim. Therefore you agree that you are most decidedly on the hook to complete those computations to the point where they are quantitatively useful.
This is actually getting easy now. Wish I had started to bully and "pick" on the photos earlier.
Me too, because it's predictably shaping up to be one more topic on which it's painfully obvious you have absolutely no clue, training, or aptitude.
You are the
second worst armchair photo analyst I have seen in my ten years of listening to amateurs prattle on about Apollo photos. The absolute worst was a guy named Piper. He held a magnifying glass up to his monitor to "enhance" the picture. You're only slightly less inept.
Once again your entire line of reasoning boils down to suppositions. You write gobs of distractionary text around them, but at their core they're just your uninformed, naive beliefs. You try to measure reality against them, and when it fails to conform, you blame reality. Tsk tsk!
You've clumsily and crudely reinvented what we call a control network. There are vast papers written about the real ones -- including one that you yourself unwittingly cited (but obviously never actually read). The properly validated methods for using control networks in photogrammetry are out there, should you care to see how the pros do what you and your wife have attempted. And you'll find that you're looking for results in all the wrong places.
Unfamiliarity with existing techniques is one of the ways we identify pseudoscientists. They don't know what others have done in the field, just that those others are somehow wrong.
So you think you've used a control network to verify that the geometry presented in two photos of the same subject is exactly identical. You provide no error analysis. You're so naive that you don't realize that the error analysis
is the argument. This is the case with almost all quantitative science. The investigator bears a very prominent burden to identify, quantify, and control for all the factors that affect his measurements and conclusions.
But even if the error analysis works out in your favor, it's not proof that two photos derive from an identical exposure. Why do you think that geometric coherence alone establishes a common origin? At
most it would identify an identical projection, which can arise in other ways.
An argument for common origin must address all the ways in which two photos can be identical or different, not just the ones you favor or know how to work with. As has been laboriously presented, there is plenty of data in each photograph to estimate the respective phase angles, and they clearly differ by a very large margin.
Second, the LO-II photo retains expected artifacts of its handling. It exhibits artifacts of trackwise assembly: specifically, discontinuity at the seams in geometry and optical density -- expected stitching errors. It exhibits raster-related errors in some of the strips. Leaving aside that you do not account for them in your analysis (and they are factors), you do not explain how these artifacts are missing from the Apollo photo you say was derived from it.
Further, you offer a specific claim: that the Apollo photo derives from the Lunar Orbiter "negative," and that the CSM was composited in. That's testable, and in your case it fails the test.
First, I asked you where the negatives from the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft are stored. That was a trick question, since the negatives never left the spacecraft. They were exposed, developed, and scanned onboard, and the electronic versions transmitted to Earth. The negatives were destroyed when the spacecraft de-orbited and impacted the lunar surface in 1967. So your theory needs to explain how your hypothetical military authorities got the exposed negative that never left the vicinity of the Moon. Another unparsimonious appendage to grow out of your theory.
Second, I asked you about the Apollo "negatives." You obviously didn't know that color photography from Apollo was on reversal film, which does not involve negatives. The Ektachrome E-3 emulsion on the Estar polyester base is a wholly different process. The only way to get from a black-and-white negative image to a color transparency is via an intermediate exposure -- no contact printing or anything. And that still doesn't provide color information, only luminance.
Now when you make a copy of a copy of a photo by means of optical exposure, you lose contrast and detail. That is, the difference in luminance in adjacent shades is lost, and therefore image detail that relies on those subtle differences is lost. However, the Apollo photo actually exhibits a larger spectrum of luminance and greater detail than the LO-II photo. This is the opposite of the effect we should see if the Apollo photo were made from the LO-II photo.
And, while subtle, there is coherent chromatic information in the Apollo photo. That is, color. The Apollo photo is a
color photo and contains color information that isn't (and cannot be) present in the alleged source image.
So in summary all the factors but one conclusively prove a separate origin for the photographs. The one factor that appears to disagree is argued to disagree only by virtue of a homegrown, uncontrolled, unvalidated method. Any questions?
As for the alleged composition of the CSM into the Apollo photo, you've provided
zero evidence that this is how the CSM got into the photograph, instead of simply having been photographed normally. Do you understand what evidence of composition ordinarily entails?
