Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[nomuse]

Here ya' go nomuse, I shall make it ever so easy for you....

Here again is the image of our old friend, the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown Map of Michael Collins taken from a Lunar Orbiter image made long before Armstrong's Saturn V ever pretended to leave the smell of the earth.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

Here now is the blown up image of the command module taken from AS-37-5447HR.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ALS-2_vertical_w-ellipse.jpg

Like the Apollo 11 Flown LAM-2 Map, this image along with many others can be found at the Apollo 11 Image Library website;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Maps

The site was last updated November of 2011, so everything is quite current.

Back to business......


<snipped for space>

No.

I will not chase you around to your claim de jour.

I hold you to the claim made in the post I quoted. To the specific images at the specific links in that post.

 

[Loss Leader]

Landing the Eagle without Neil would have been and was more or less just like landing Surveyor VII. The bird is bigger, but it is not a big deal, no big difference, piece of cake really landing the Surveyor probes and the unmanned Eagle.

Patrick, are you now saying that the LM landed, took off from the moon and rendezvoused with the CM in lunar orbit?

 

[Patrick1000]

Not at all.......

Patrick, are you now saying that the LM landed, took off from the moon and rendezvoused with the CM in lunar orbit?

Not at all.......My view is that more likely than not, the LM, the Eagle itself, was the piece of military equipment which landed on the moon. It was unmanned, but for the most part, it was the Eagle as Grumman had designed it and built it. Since the mission was unmanned, a few toys needed to be added, the thing was modified before launch. This is my view at this time.

 

[JayUtah]

Landing the Eagle without Neil would have been and was more or less just like landing Surveyor VII.

Not in the least. The two methods have absolutely nothing in common. They are as different as they can possibly be.

Photos that have the dudes are fake, at the very least shopped.

"'Shopped?" Are you a teenager? Please explain why you keep referring to image manipulation technology that wasn't invented until long after Apollo.

Photos without the dudes may well be real, even real in real-time some of the time...

Then explain how interleaved shots with and without astronauts appear on the same camera original longrolls.

Landing dudes on the moon was more likely than not too dangerous and so impossible given 60s technology.

You know nothing of that technology. Every single qualified expert soundly disagrees with you. Explain that.

NASA is incompetent, just read what Feynman has to say about those chumps....

Asked and answered. Why have you failed to address the rebuttal?

 

[JayUtah]

THE LANDING ELLIPSES DO NOT COVER THE SAME TERRITORY IN THESE 2 CASES LAM-2 AND ALLEGED EAGLE SHOT...

Why do you expect them to?

WITH ELLIPSE PHOTOSHOPPED IN.

Adobe Photoshop did not exist in 1969. The CM is present in the camera original.

See if there is any way that you can convince yourself that these shots covering roughly 170 square miles were taken from separate vantage points.

Okay, I've convinced myself. Will you now retract your claim?

Go ahead and try it nomuse with these two images.

Try what: your broken method, or the real way?

 

[JayUtah]

The claim is we have hundreds of pounds, no?

Well over 800 pounds, yes. But not just a pile of rocks: samples collected by various discriminatory and specialized geology methods. Any hypothesis you offered about robotics would have to account for those observations.

My theory is that Harrison/Jack Schmidt was a no good commie Apollo Mission Fraud PLANT from the get go.

Do you have any proof for this accusation beyond name-calling? Or is this just one more of those things you need to be true, ergo it's suddenly "true?"

 

[JayUtah]

Since the mission was unmanned and a few toys needed to be added, the thing was modified before launch. This is my view at this time.

No, Patrick. You aren't getting away with this backpedal.

You insisted that the LM was used as-delivered from Grumman. You made a big deal about Thomas Kelly not needing to be in on the deal.

Now you're claiming that some unnamed group modified the lunar module in some and flew it unmanned. Who do you think was in the NASA backroom during the missions, monitoring the LM? Why it was Thomas Kelly and his senior engineers -- the guys who built the thing. You don't think they're going to notice changes in behavior of the machine they've worked on for several years!?

This is a major change in your argument. It now requires a whole new body of evidence.

First, please acknowledge that you were wrong in claiming that the LM could have been flown unmanned as delivered, and that we told you this all along. Please confirm that this undermines your claim to know more about Apollo than your critics.

Second, I want a detailed list of the modifications that were done (not a speculative list, but the modifications you have evidence for). I want the name of the company, organization, group that did them. I want to know the dates on which they occurred.

Please supply that evidence immediately, or else I will be forced to conclude that this is just your typical question-begging.

 

[Garrison]

Landing the Eagle without Neil would have been and was more or less just like landing Surveyor VII. The bird is bigger, but it is not a big deal, no big difference, piece of cake really landing the Surveyor probes and the unmanned Eagle. Piece of space cake COMPARED with landing a dude, mostly because if you crash, who really cares.....?......You haven't killed the dude........

Except of course since you've told the world he was onboard that would be rather awkward, oh and of course not only would this unmanned LM have to land by itself but deploy all those instruments you've claimed Apollo was a cover for, and then pick up rocks, drill for core samples, and then launch them back to orbit to rendezvous with the CSM. Of course to date you haven't provided a shred of evidence this super machine existed.

Photos that have the dudes are fake, at the very least shopped. Photos without the dudes may well be real, even real in real-time some of the time.........

Shopped? In 1969?

Landing dudes on the moon was more likely than not too dangerous and so impossible given 60s technology. That is, you might have pulled it off, but the odds would be so way way way insanely over the tippy top against you. The dudes would more likely than not have died. Would you rather have a live Neil trotting around here giving his bad acting performances Captain_Swoop, or a dead Neil who go suckered into doing something insanely stupid? Armstrong is not dumb. He opted for the acting job, too bad they did not give him lessons.

You have demonstrated no engineering knowledge or physics education, on what do you base the above claim that Apollo was too dangerous?

Anyhoo, even today, 2011, I imagine more likely than not they could not do it, could not pull off a manned lunar landing. WAY TOO DANGEROUS. NASA is incompetent, just read what Feynman has to say about those chumps....

Again Patrick no one cares what you can imagine, we want to know what you can prove.

 

[Garrison]

Not at all.......My view is that more likely than not, the LM, the Eagle itself, was the piece of military equipment which landed on the moon. It was unmanned, but for the most part, it was the Eagle as Grumman had designed it and built it. Since the mission was unmanned and a few toys needed to be added, the thing was modified before launch. This is my view at this time.

So the LM as designed, plus military hardware, plus rock collecting gear;

a few toys?

Again please provide evidence that these 'toys' actually existed.

 

[nomuse]

Sigh. Yes, I agree, the principle is important. The principle being, that the difference between two images can fall within the margin of error of the method(s) used to differentiate them.

On the shallowest scale, though, Patrick is falling into the well-worn footsteps of Jack White and others; falling for a superficial similarity.

On the most precise scale, there are professional methods which can achieve the most precise differentiation (as in, being able to numerically categorize the actual differences and/or numerically define the margins of what can be determined in the comparison).

On the specifics of Patrick's claims, he appears to be making two claims; first, that the circumstances of the pairs of images he wishes to compare are such that no gross resemblance should exist (to within some arbitrary and undefined standard); second, given a failure to find the expected divergence, the two images share a common origin.

I should note -- although he has not -- that in principle one could continue to manipulate the copy until even Jack White was unable to recognize the common origin. So any divergence is not by itself evidence against the claim of duplication -- it simply makes it more and more unlikely.

But back to that second claim. It should be a non-starter. Each item of the pair has a different solar angle. One of each pair is a stitched mosaic and the other is not. These should be enough for anyone to recognize they are not the same image.

In reference to the first claim, without a rigorous photogrammatric method you will be unable to define if the expected difference fall within detectability. However the obverse is not true; any method that can show a difference will disprove the claim that the images are impossibly close.

And as for that latter, a simple blink comparison is all that is needed. Easily detectable differences in "projection" (given that one is comparing, again, a stitched mosaic to a single frame) are seen. Either the location of the "photographer" (again...satellite mosaic...) is not the same, or more sophisticated manipulation than has been described was applied.

And for that, why not go whole hog? Why not allow the conspiracy to construct a highly detailed 3d model from photographic and radar height data and then render whatever images at whatever angle, distance, lens model, and so forth is called for by the script. Since you've given the conspiracy access to PhotoShop decades before it was available, why not throw in 3ds Max as well?

The specifics of the claim, really -- as they sneak through the cracks of Patrick's general presentation -- is that the conspiracy casually cropped and rotated an existing photograph and slapped a cut-out of a CM on it. That, in short, they spent very little time attempting to hide their tracks, and the resulting fake can be easily spotted by an intelligent observer.

This claim, stated more precisely than is Patrick's wont, is clearly incorrect.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Here is the easiest and my favorite way Laton to show that the November 1966 Lunar Orbiter II image 2085;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/2085_med.jpg

is the very same image as the Apollo 11, AS-37-5447HR image alleged to have been taken July 20 1969 from the simulated Eagle before its pretended descent to the imaginary lunar surface.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5447HR.jpg.

I had my wife do this tonight as an experiment. she is a smart girl, handy with a camera, compass and ruler, but no more capable than any "Lost Bird Thread ": enthusiast,. As such, you all will be able to very easily get to the bottom of Apollo by way of the very same results more or less my Shanghai girl did tonight, and this was her very first try playing with the maps. I'll do even more accurate calculations for this stuff later, but this is too too too too good to pass up our taking a quick shot now.

Get out your favorite measuring device(ruler and compass, whatever). My wife did best ultimately with a stainless steel ruler of all things, so if you've got one handy, use that. But anything will do. Measure the distance between any two points that you care to on the AS-37-5447HR image you like, the image featuring the Command Module. The further apart the points are, the more accurate your measurements will be and the better overall result you'll get. The only requirement is the pair of landmarks that you choose to measure must be present on both images, the 1966 Lunar Orbiter II 2085 image and the 1969(NOT) AS11-37-5447HR image.

Now the AS -37-5447HR image is at slightly lower magnification than the Lunar Orbiter II image. Once you get your measurement between the two landmarks, and please do the measurement as downright precisely as you can, multiply that AS-37-5447HR image measurement by 1.1053. That is the number my wife calculated as a magnification factor for AS-37-5447HR image to slightly larger Lunar Orbiter II 2085 shot. 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?

So I used this method with two images of Sydney, Australia, one of them being a satelite image, and one taken by a high altitute plane. I took four different points and measured the distance between the two sets of pair with a plastic ruler (so best I could get was within 0.5 mm based on the ruler's 1mm markings) and I got a expansion of 7.7 ± 0.2 for the first and 7.7 ± 0.2 for the second, which is exactly the same number. I guess by this standard these two images are the same as well, right?

Pair One:
Satellite Image -> 20.0 ± 0.5mm
Plane Photo -> 154.0 ± 0.5mm

154/20 = 7.7 ± 0.2

Pair Two:
Satellite Image -> 27.5 ± 0.5mm
Plane Photo -> 213.0 ± 0.5mm

213/27.5 = 7.7 ± 0.2

 

[Patrick1000]

This will blow your mind Loss Leader.......

And this technique is easily observed in magic tricks in which large objects are made to disappear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ga5fYxVo0

Without proper close reference points, the inexpert viewer cannot tell that his position and even his angle has shifted just be viewing things far away.

The differences between the distances as measured for Lunar Orbiter ll shots 2085 and 2088 are greater than the separation distances between landmarks for the Lunar Orbiter ll 2085(1966) and AS-37-5447HR(1969 alleged) images. (In the latter case the magnification issue must be taken into account and so corrected for before comparing distances.)

I carefully examined Lunar Orbiter II 2085;


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/2085_med.jpg

And Lunar Orbiter II 2088;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/2088_med.jpg

I measured the distances between widely separated landmarks that were common to both images and found relatively small, but easily measurable differences in the landmark separation distances for the two different Lunar Orbital shots(2085 and 2088). Quantitatively I was getting 3 mm, 4 mm, sometimes even a half centimeter difference in these distances when comparing the measurements derived from the two different photos.

Note the following;


The Lunar Orbiter is not hovering. At shot 2085 we note per the Lunar Orbiter Photo Gallery data given that he bird is at; altitude 51.37 km, latitude .80 north degrees and longitude 23.71 east. 2088 is taken from altitude 51.96 kilometers , latitude 0.70 north and longitude 24.11 east.

The distances between the vantages for shots 2085 and 2088 are ostensibly trivial. Altitude wise the shot vantage differs by .59 kilometers or .37 miles. Latitude wise the difference is 0.1 degrees. Each one degree on the surface of the moon at the equator covers about 18.86 miles and so 0.1 degrees is roughly 1.87 miles. This high up it would be a bit more, but 50 kilometers as compared with the moon's diameter is still trivial given the point being made here, so I'll go back and do an exact calculation later. For the sake of simply getting this important point out now, I'll use this relatively good estimate for now. The longitude difference for the two shots is .4 degrees or 7.544 miles. Not much at all.

Now, one can easily measure a difference between the distances on the two orbiter images 2085 and 2088. This, despite only .37 miles difference in altitude, 0.1 degrees in latitude and 0.4 degrees in longitude.

If the Orbiter couldn't snap 2088 just after 2085 in such a way that the spatial quantities/landmark separation distances as we have been discussing were not indistinguishable, HOW EVER COULD ONE SUGGEST THAT THE EAGLE COULD ACCIDENTALLY ACCIDENTALLY ACCIDENTALLY JUST HAPPEN TO FIND THAT EXACT EXACT EXACT SPOT ABOVE THE MOON AT AN ALTITUDE OF 51.37 KILOMETERS, LATITUDE 0.80 NORTH AND 23.71 EAST AND TAKE A PICTURE WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER POINTING THE CAMERA IN THE EXACT SAME ANGLE AS THE LUNAR ORBITER II'S CAMERA WAS POINTED IN AT THIS TIME???????

Impossible!!!!!!! Proof Positive of FRAUD!

If measurable discrepancies can be found in distances measured from one landmark to the next for 2 Orbiter shots taken less than a moment apart and so from virtually the same vantage, how ever could it have been possible for the Eagle to take a picture featuring a lunar surface perspective identical to that of the perspective found in Lunar Orbiter shot 2085? The answer is of course that the Eagle never could have accidentally found altitude 51.37 kilometers, latitude 0.80 north and longitude 23.71 east in a gadzillion phony NASA manufactured pretend years.

The Command Module over the lunar surface photo features an image of that lunar surface captured in a photo taken during the month of November in the year 1966.

Everyone may relax now in their states of perpetual anxiety. Apollo has once and for all been proven very very very very very very very FRAUDULENT!

 

[JayUtah]

I measured the distances between widely separated landmarks that were common to both images...

Do you realize that each of those photos are not single exposures from a single vantage point?

 

[nomuse]

The differences between the distances as measured for Lunar Orbiter ll shots 2085 and 2088 are greater than the separation distances between landmarks for the Lunar Orbiter ll 2085(1966) and AS-37-5447HR(1969 alleged) images. (In the latter case the magnification issue must be taken into account and so corrected for before comparing distances.)

Thank you at least for stating your claim in a topic sentence. It makes it easier to follow the rest of the argument.

I still admit to some confusion. Obviously there will be differences of scale between different platforms. Less obviously, there will be changes of projection. Take a simplistic pair of checkerboards projected on to a plane, one normalled to the plane and the other an an angle to it. In that case, there will exist a line where the two projections can be made to scale in every respect, but that relationship will not hold anywhere else within the image plane.

Your claim, then, if I must re-state it, is that measurable changes in one pair of projections that are known to be from different locations is greater than the measurable changes in a different pair of projections that geometrically should be expected to be larger.

The underlying problem here is you don't have a tested method. You can't clearly state the kind of observations or quantify the observations or mathematically show whether they fit expectations.

But so be it. For the moment, I wish to contest the assumption that your own method -- as strange and incorrect as it is -- is revealing what you think it reveals.

I carefully examined Lunar Orbiter II 2085;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/2085_med.jpg

And Lunar Orbiter II 2088;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/2088_med.jpg

I measured the distances between widely separated landmarks that were common to both images and found relatively small, but easily measurable differences in the landmark separation distances for the two different Lunar Orbital shots(2085 and 2088). Quantitatively I was getting 3 mm, 4 mm, sometimes even a half centimeter difference in these distances when comparing the measurements derived from the two different photos.

/QUOTE]

Thus the need for actual professional methods. I show a complete lack of differences on features I select. How is this possible? Because a single arithmatic transform fails utterly to describe the difference in projections.

Note the following;

The Lunar Orbiter is not hovering. At shot 2085 we note per the Lunar Orbiter Photo Gallery data given that he bird is at; altitude 51.37 km, latitude .80 north degrees and longitude 23.71 east. 2088 is taken from altitude 51.96 kilometers , latitude 0.70 north and longitude 24.11 east.

The distances between the vantages for shots 2085 and 2088 are ostensibly trivial. Altitude wise the shot vantage differs by .59 kilometers or .37 miles. Latitude wise the difference is 0.1 degrees. Each one degree on the surface of the moon at the equator covers about 18.86 miles and so 0.1 degrees is roughly 1.87 miles. This high up it would be a bit more, but 50 kilometers as compared with the moon's diameter is still trivial given the point being made here, so I'll go back and do an exact calculation later. For the sake of simply getting this important point out now, I'll use this relatively good estimate for now. The longitude difference for the two shots is .4 degrees or 7.544 miles. Not much at all.

Now, one can easily measure a difference between the distances on the two orbiter images 2085 and 2088. This, despite only .37 miles difference in altitude, 0.1 degrees in latitude and 0.4 degrees in longitude.

If the Orbiter couldn't snap 2088 just after 2085 in such a way that the spatial quantities/landmark separation distances as we have been discussing were not indistinguishable, HOWEVER COULD ONE SUGGEST THAT THE EAGLE COULD ACCIDENTALLY ACCIDENTALLY ACCIDENTALLY JUST HAPPEN TO FIND THAT EXACT EXACT EXACT SPOT ABOVE THE MOON AT AN ALTITUDE OF 51.37 KILOMETERS, LATITUDE 0.80 NORTH AND 23.71 EAST AND TAKE A PICTURE WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER POINTING THE CAMERA IN THE EXACT SAME ANGLE AS THE LUNAR ORBITER II'S CAMERA WAS POINTED IN AT THIS TIME???????

Impossible!!!!!!! Proof Positive of FRAUD!

If measurable discrepancies can be found in distances measured from one landmark to the next for 2 Orbiter shots taken less than a moment apart and so from virtually the same vantage, however could it have been possible for the Eagle to take a picture featuring a lunar surface perspective identical to that of the perspective found in Lunar Orbiter shot 2085? The answer is of course that the Eagle never could have accidentally found altitude 51.37 kilometers, latitude 0.80 north and longitude 23.71 east in a gadzillion phony NASA manufactured pretend years.

The Command Module photo over the lunar surface features an image of that lunar surface captured in a photo taken during the month of November 1966.

Everyone may relax now in their states of perpetual anxiety. Apollo has once and for all been proven very very very very very very very FRAUDULENT!

The Apollo photograph exhibits a completely different projection. (Sorry for using that term...I'm a comic book artist, set designer, and 3d wrangler and that's the way we describe these things when we actually put them in words).

Here's an essential clue you are missing, and why your method is fantasy. In the orbiter series, the orbiter camera is pointing more-or-less straight down (it isn't necessary to assume that but it makes it easier to describe). Thus, objects other than directly below the orbiter are further away. Without correction of some kind, the projected distances between landmarks will appear to shrink as you move towards the edges of the picture.

Now, I don't know the flight path, or how these were taken and scanned; whether a film interstage or a progressive scan or what, nor do I know how the lens was designed to correct. But it is very, very clear there that there exists a possibility for measurements to be dependent on where in the field they are taken.

And that is my direct measured experience. If you generate a single number, you are cherry-picking.

And the same goes double when comparing with the Apollo photograph, which is clearly taken at an angle to the ground (in reference to the equivalent image from the orbiter).

I can, merely by being selective, show the Apollo photograph as being either nearly-identical, or strongly different (yes, I could put numbers on these, but they would be arbitrary, arising as they would from working on a computer screen on a manipulated image that was derived through many steps from the original).

 

[Laton]

LOLocaust from Patrick there.

Tell me Patrick have those Orbiter photos been orthorectified to produce an orthophoto?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthophoto

An orthophoto, orthophotograph or orthoimage is an aerial photograph geometrically corrected ("orthorectified") such that the scale is uniform: the photo has the same lack of distortion as a map. Unlike an uncorrected aerial photograph, an orthophotograph can be used to measure true distances, because it is an accurate representation of the Earth's surface, having been adjusted for topographic relief,[1] lens distortion, and camera tilt.

(Bolding mine).

If not, all your talk of measurements and scaling and distances and rotations are completely and utterly wrong.

This is (another) great example of you taking something that may appear correct to your 'common sense' approach and making massive errors due to being completely unfamiliar with the technical details and techniques used by professionals in their field.

 

[haibut]

Everyone may relax now in their states of perpetual anxiety. Apollo has once and for all been proven very very very very very very very FRAUDULENT!

When you've finished reverberating with pleasure because you've proven that you can't read a map OR interpret a photo, how about answering where the rocks came from?

 

[nomuse]

LOLocaust from Patrick there.

Tell me Patrick have those Orbiter photos been orthorectified to produce an orthophoto?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthophoto

(Bolding mine).

If not, all your talk of measurements and scaling and distances and rotations are completely and utterly wrong.

This is (another) great example of you taking something that may appear correct to your 'common sense' approach and making massive errors due to being completely unfamiliar with the technical details and techniques used by professionals in their field.

My suspicion is not, because when I line up and do a blink comparison between two consecutive medium-camera images I perceive a notable "barrel" distortion at the top and bottom (as oriented by flight direction).

I do not have the skill (or tools) to make any judgment beyond that.

However, since the distortion is, of course, different in different parts of the image pair compared, I have enough to show that Patrick's method is purest fantasy.



BTW, been reading up on the Lunar Orbiter (at first I thought Patrick was referring to the LRO!). I'm still unclear on the described movement of the film to compensate for spacecraft movement but I wonder if that helps or hinders understanding the geometry of the pictures. In any case, there's a fascinating story which is still playing out about the recovery of the original data tapes and a new series of images created from them. Worth a read.

 

[abaddon]

I measured the distances between widely separated landmarks that were common to both images and found relatively small, but easily measurable differences in the landmark separation distances for the two different Lunar Orbital shots(2085 and 2088). Quantitatively I was getting 3 mm, 4 mm, sometimes even a half centimeter difference in these distances when comparing the measurements derived from the two different photos.

What are your qualifications in photogrammetry?

Note the following;
The Lunar Orbiter is not hovering.

OK

<SNIP>

Once again what exactly are you photo analysis qualifications?

If the Orbiter couldn't snap 2088 just after 2085 in such a way that the spatial quantities/landmark separation distances as we have been discussing were not indistinguishable, HOW EVER COULD ONE SUGGEST THAT THE EAGLE COULD ACCIDENTALLY ACCIDENTALLY ACCIDENTALLY JUST HAPPEN TO FIND THAT EXACT EXACT EXACT SPOT ABOVE THE MOON AT AN ALTITUDE OF 51.37 KILOMETERS, LATITUDE 0.80 NORTH AND 23.71 EAST AND TAKE A PICTURE WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER POINTING THE CAMERA IN THE EXACT SAME ANGLE AS THE LUNAR ORBITER II'S CAMERA WAS POINTED IN AT THIS TIME???????

You seem to think that repeating adjectives somehow adds weight to your argument. Please stop. It doesn't. It simply demonstrates your youth.

Impossible!!!!!!! Proof Positive of FRAUD!

Nope. No proof provided.

If measurable discrepancies can be found in distances measured from one landmark to the next for 2 Orbiter shots taken less than a moment apart and so from virtually the same vantage, how ever could it have been possible for the Eagle to take a picture featuring a lunar surface perspective identical to that of the perspective found in Lunar Orbiter shot 2085? The answer is of course that the Eagle never could have accidentally found altitude 51.37 kilometers, latitude 0.80 north and longitude 23.71 east in a gadzillion phony NASA manufactured pretend years.

No proof provided.

The Command Module over the lunar surface photo features an image of that lunar surface captured in a photo taken during the month of November in the year 1966.

No proof provided.

Everyone may relax now in their states of perpetual anxiety. Apollo has once and for all been proven very very very very very very very FRAUDULENT!

And finish with an unfounded claim.

 

[abaddon]

Oh, lets get more basic.

"Parallel projection preserves equipolence."

Care to refute that patrick?

 

[R.A.F.]

The photos were SAID TO HAVE NOT BEEN taken from the same vantage, that is the whole point....

It's a point rehashed and debunked almost a decade ago...are we to take it that you'll just be "regurgitating" already debunked claims fro here on out?

Of COURSE THESE IMAGES WERE IN REALITY TAKEN FROM THE SAME VANTAGE POINT.

...and posting it in caps won't make it real...


Problem is that we know these "claims" inside and out...you are not fooling anyone here by posting the same old "garbage" that we are VERY familiar with.

You "almost" had something "new" with the map "claim", but it has been throughly debunked.

Do you have a claim to offer that isn't a "rehash" of almost 10 year old claims???

Well, do ya??