Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

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.

Other than your "belief", what do you base this claim on?...the LM's were designed to be piloted. You don't just modify it with a few "things" right before launch...

...and there is no evidence for this "modification". If you took the time to educate yourself, you would UNDERSTAND that a lot of things happened right before launch, NONE which match your "non-manned LM" claim.

When are you going to start providing evidence for your claims???...or will you ever??


How about this, Patrick...what evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong??

It's a rational, reasonable question, and I expect a rational, reasonable answer, Patrick.

Are you up for that, or will you just "dodge" again?

 

[Patrick1000]

Your point as regards orthorectification does not apply to these photos Laton....

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.

Your point with regard to orthorectification simply does not apply to the images we are subjecting to study and discussing here Laton.....


This image, AS-37-5447HR is a raw image and was not said to be, has never been said to have been, orthorectified. AS-37-5447HR is claimed by NASA to be a raw image Laton, an image taken from the Eagle on 07/20/1969.

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

This second image, Lunar Orbiter II 2085 is claimed by NASA to be a raw image Laton and is not orthorectified;

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

Your point as regards orthorectification has absolutely nothing to do with these two images Laton, both raw images, both of the Tranquility Base area.

Measure the distance between any two points in the first image, the AS-37-5447HR imgage. Then proceed to measure the distance between the very same two points on the Lunar Orbiter II 2085 image. Divide the second number by the first and the answer will always be 1.1053, or a number close to that depending on how carefully you measure things, the precision of your equipment and so forth.

The number 1.1053 in and of itself is not important. The fact that it consistantly comes up every time one calculates the aforementioned ratio is what is important. It reflects the degree to which the Orbiter image appears magnified with respect to the AS-37-5447HR image. It simply reflects the fact that one image, the Lunar orbiter image, is magnified a bit, 1.1053 times, relative to the other image, the AS-37-5447HR image. What is MOST important is that the number, 1.1053, is a CONSTANT and this means both images, AS-37-5447HD and Lunar Orbiter II 2085, were taken from the EXACT SAME VANTAGE POINT.

These are raw images Laton, at least NASA tells us that. Maybe you should write to them and suggest they tell a big fat pus filled lie Laton. Suggest to the incompetent NASA aerospace bozos now that they should tell everyone the images were othorectified so as to keep this weird guy in San Francisco from continuing with his quotidian NASA chops bustings. Whoops! Space cat's already out of the space bag, too late for that, every one knows already Apollo is big time FAKE, and now, these very photos and this analysis contributes to the pile, the mountain of FAKE BOGUS JIVE NASA PITCHED TO US AND WHICH WE NOW TUIRN AROUND AND LAY AT THEIR SMELLY PHONY AEROSPACE DOOR WITH A BIG FAT SMILE....

I would say nice try Laton, but it really was a rather pathetic argument on your part to be honest. Furthermore, it seems to expose your lack of familiarity with these phony missions and their "legendary photos".

So not a very good nor a very nice try for you Laton, and most decidedly NO CIGAR FOR YOU MY FRIEND, NO CIGAR....

At any rate, to make the point again, as these raw and so very very very very much NOT ! orthorectified images relate to one another in this sense, any linear measurement made between landmarks on AS-37-5447HR multiplied by 1.1053(give or take) yields the exact same linear measurement made between those same landmarks on Lunar Orbiter II 2085, one may conclude with absolute certainty in the case of these raw and very nuch NOT ! orthorectified images that indeed the two shots were taken from the same vantage.

Given the fact that we know for a fact the Eagle was no where near the point in three dimensional space from where both of these photos were taken at the time that AS-37-5447HD was allegedly shot; altitude 51.37 kilometers, latitude 0.80 north and 23.71 north, and as we know for a fact that Lunar Orbiter II 2085 was taken on a November day in 1966 from altitude 51.37 , latitude 0.80 north and 23.71 east, one may conclude with a not unexpected sense of great shame and loss of pride and faith in his/her country that AS-37-5447HD WAS A PHOTO SHOT IN 1966 AND NOT 1969 AS AS-37-5447 MUST BE, CAN ONLY BE, NONE OTHER THAN THE LUNAR ORBITER II SHOT 2085 ITSELF AS VERIFIED BY AS-37-5447'S SPATIAL PROPRETIES BEING IDENTICAL WITH THE LUNAR ORBITER 2085 SHOT'S SPATIAL PROPERTIES.

Wow, this is really geting interesting, is it not?????????!!!!!?????!!!!!

 

[R.A.F.]

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...

Unwarranted assumptions...when you start from a false premise, you will ALWAYS arrive at the wrong conclusion.

 

[Laton]

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'd say there is about a 99% chance they aren't orthophoto's.
A few reasons:

1. They aren't published in their rectified position (not always needed but that brings me to my second point)
2. Usually when a rectified image is provided digitally it is in a format such as GeoTIFF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoTIFF for use with GIS systems; or
3. It is accompanied by some sort of header or data file containing the information used in the rectification process.

I posted these earlier in the thread but just for fun & because Patrick seemed to ignore them at the time:

Orbiter camera runs specs and a tasking/overlap diagram.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.



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?"

I have provided a link to the Repository and a couple of samples. Patrick seems not to have had a look.

it details all the samples and what work ahs been done on them by what scientists over the years with refs for all the Papers published.

I will repeat it here



Here is a description and analysis of one sample, it includes it's mineral make up, chemical composition, micrographs of prepared samples and a list of all the Papers that have been preapred from it.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/12002.pdf

Here is the link to the main index of the Sample Compendium. it lists all the samples and has links to a PDF of every one of them similar to the one above.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm

If you can make a good case they will even send you a sample to work on.

Thousands of scientists from all around thw world from dozens of universities have recieved samples and tested and analyzed them in all kinds of ways.

Were they all fooled?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/12017.pdf

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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 say frame 2085 was taken about 30 miles up above a certain point "X" on the moon, 2088 was also taken at about 30 miles up above a point about 7¾ miles away from X and the Apollo photo was taken about 60 miles above a point 3.8 miles from X.

My quick calculation says that, viewed from point X, frame 2058 was taken from exactly overhead and the Apollo photo was taken from just 3.6° away from overhead, but the Orbiter had moved 14.5° away before frame 2088 was taken.

Now you say you can measure differences between 2058 and 2088 but not between 2058 and Apollo.

So now all we are waiting for are your calculations showing that this is meaningful.


<tumbleweed>


In the meantime, we can deal with your incredulity that the Apollo picture could have been taken from exactly the same place and pointing in exactly the same direction, you have not demonstrated that the position was exactly the same, nor that the cameras were aimed at exactly the same point.

The only remaining reason to be impressed by the similarity of the views would be if you had chosen the two pictures at random. I feel safe in assuming you did not.

 

[matt.tansy]

This second image, Lunar Orbiter II 2085 is claimed by NASA to be a raw image Laton and is not orthorectified;

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

You assume without question the Lunar Orbiter images are authentic. Maybe the Lunar Orbiter missions were faked and they were copied from the Apollo missions. You have to prove to us the Lunar Orbiter missions were genuine before you can say the Apollo missions were faked.

... multiplied by 1.1053(give or take) yields the exact same linear measurement

An exact ballpark figure!

That's a Stundie!

 

[Andy_Ross]

When were the modifications made to the LM?
How long did they take?
Who designed the Mods?
Who installed them?
How and where were they tested?

 

[Patrick1000]

The images are most decidedly NOT orthorectified....

I'd say there is about a 99% chance they aren't orthophoto's.
A few reasons:

1. They aren't published in their rectified position (not always needed but that brin fun & because Patrick seemed to ignore them at the time:

[qimg]http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd313/Ash51a/LORdetail.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd313/Ash51a/LRO2.jpg[/qimg]

Orbiter camera runs specs and a tasking/overlap diagram.

The images are most decidedly NOT orthorectified....And inded this very feature of non-orthorectification is a feature that helps in proving my point.

Lunar Orbiter II images as referenced above; 2085 and 2088, show distances between landmarks such as craters which are NOT THE SAME and so by definition, the images are not orthorectified. Were these Lunar Orbiter II images orthorectified then in that case, the measurements made between various landmarks would be equal/identical as measured on both of them, 2085 and 2088.

So we have a Lunar Orbiter II image from Nobvember 1966, 2085, which is not orthorectified AND its spatial perspective is IDENTICAL to that of AS-37-5447HD(1969 allegedly taken from the Eagle), egro AS-37-5447 IS LIKEWISE NOT ORTHORECTIFIED AND INDEED IS THE VERY SAME IMAGE AS LUNAR ORBITER II 2085 FOR REASONS PREVIOUSLY MENTION.

AS-37-5447HD(1969 ALLEGED) WE MAY CONFIDENTLY CONCLUDE IS THE SAME IMAGE AS LUNAR ORBITER II 2085(1966) AND IS VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY FRAUDULENT.....

 

[JayUtah]

Your point with regard to orthorectification simply does not apply to the images we are subjecting to study and discussing here Laton...

Yes it does, for the reasons he gave you and the reasons I alluded to when you first brought up your silly "method." The fact that your photos are not rectified means your method is worthless. I asked you what your rectification method was, and you predictably didn't answer.

Divide the second number by the first and the answer will always be 1.1053, or a number close to that depending on how carefully you measure things, the precision of your equipment and so forth.

And the backpedaling begins.

The fact that it consistantly comes up every time one calculates the aforementioned ratio is what is important.

Except for the fact that it doesn't consistently come up. Now, under pressure, you admit that there is imprecision in your method and that your "exact" scaling factor is actually a spectrum of closely-related numbers. That's the first step toward a proper error analysis: you've determined that equipment and technique affect the precision of your data. Now you have to examine your geometric model and prove that the different vantage points would produce error that statistically exceeds the noise created by your measurement tolerance.

Thank you for amply proving that you are not any kind of scientist.

What is MOST important is that the number, 1.1053, is a CONSTANT...

No. By your own admission it's a set of values. Until you can prove (not just insist) that the error is insignificant, your case remains in a state of failure.

...and this means both images, AS-37-5447HD and Lunar Orbiter II 2085, were taken from the EXACT SAME VANTAGE POINT.

No. It means they were taken from a line of sight within a certain tolerance from each other. It is up to you to compute that tolerance, if you know now.

These are raw images Laton, at least NASA tells us that.

No, they aren't raw images. They're digital copies provided as convenience resources for general interest, and therefore uncontrolled and unrectified. You, as the putative image analyst, have the burden to prove that they are suitable in all respects for the analysis you propose to conduct. "But they came from NASA's web site!" is not that proof.

Maybe you should write to them and suggest they tell a big fat pus filled lie Laton. Suggest to the incompetent NASA aerospace bozos now that they should tell everyone the images were othorectified so as to keep this weird guy in San Francisco from continuing with his quotidian NASA chops bustings. Whoops! Space cat's already out of the space bag, too late for that, every one knows already Apollo is big time FAKE, and now, these very photos and this analysis contributes to the pile, the mountain of FAKE BOGUS JIVE NASA PITCHED TO US AND WHICH WE NOW TUIRN AROUND AND LAY AT THEIR SMELLY PHONY AEROSPACE DOOR WITH A BIG FAT SMILE...

I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking to an adult.

Furthermore, it seems to expose your lack of familiarity with these phony missions and their "legendary photos".

Really? You're going to be this arrogant about your claims?

Let's sum up. You admit now that your control network has unaccounted error. You admit that "photoshopping" would need to be done in order to "fix" the shadows, texture, and color. How does this not amount to an admission that there is no evidence whatsoever that these are the same photo?

Wow, this is really geting interesting, is it not?????????!!!!!?????!!!!!

No. It's just sad.

 

[Patrick1000]

You are missing everyone's point here Jay, sorry 'bout that....

Yes it does, for the reasons he gave you and the reasons I alluded to when you first brought up your silly "method." The fact that your photos are not rectified means your method is worthless. I asked you what your rectification method was, and you predictably didn't answer.



And the backpedaling begins.



Except for the fact that it doesn't consistently come up. Now, under pressure, you admit that there is imprecision in your method and that your "exact" scaling factor is actually a spectrum of closely-related numbers. That's the first step toward a proper error analysis: you've determined that equipment and technique affect the precision of your data. Now you have to examine your geometric model and prove that the different vantage points would produce error that statistically exceeds the noise created by your measurement tolerance.

Thank you for amply proving that you are not any kind of scientist.



No. By your own admission it's a set of values. Until you can prove (not just insist) that the error is insignificant, your case remains in a state of failure.



No. It means they were taken from a line of sight within a certain tolerance from each other. It is up to you to compute that tolerance, if you know now.



No, they aren't raw images. They're digital copies provided as convenience resources for general interest, and therefore uncontrolled and unrectified. You, as the putative image analyst, have the burden to prove that they are suitable in all respects for the analysis you propose to conduct. "But they came from NASA's web site!" is not that proof.



I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking to an adult.



Really? You're going to be this arrogant about your claims?

Let's sum up. You admit now that your control network has unaccounted error. You admit that "photoshopping" would need to be done in order to "fix" the shadows, texture, and color. How does this not amount to an admission that there is no evidence whatsoever that these are the same photo?



No. It's just sad.

You are missing everyone's point here Jay, both my point and your pal LATON'S point, not to mention some of the others, sorry 'bout that....

Both the Apollo Official Narrative map expert weighing in here, Laton, and I agree absolutely that the photos being discussed, Lunar Orbiter II 2085 and AS-37-5447HR, are NOT NOT NOT orthorectified. I gave the reason as above. 2085 and 2088 are not spatially identical with resect to common landmark relationships/distances between easily identified points of interest. Were they orthorectified they would be spatially identical as could be demonstrated by way of the measurement test previously referenced and discussed in detail per my previous posts..

As Lunar Orbiter II 2085 and AS-37-5447HD ARE SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE IDENTICAL for the reasons previously discussed, one may conclude the images, 2085 of the Lunar Orbiter II series and AS-37-5447 of the Apollo 11 forgery series, are indeed one and the same image. Both come from the 2085 shot taken November 1969. As such, the Apollo 11 Mission is proven fraudulent. The FORGED AS-37-5447 is but one more piece of concrete evidence one may lay at NASA's phony doorstep....

Wish they'd shut that dump down........

 

[Patrick1000]

Figure of speech.....

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



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



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



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



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

Figure of speech.....

Of course they did not use "Photoshop" TM blah blah blah

The military boys of NASA used what was available at the time to superimpose the CM image over the doctored Lunar Orbiter II 2085 image to create the forgery AS-37-5447HD.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

[...]

I measured the distances between widely separated landmarks that were common to both images and found relatively small, but easily measurable differences...

Since you didn't answer my previous question regarding this claim, let's try harder.

I'm sure you realize that each LO-II photo that you're looking at is composed of little strips that were scanned on board the spacecraft and transmitted to Earth by radio. The little numbers you see in the left-hand margin of each photo are the strip numbers, so that workers on Earth know the sequence in which they are to be assembled by hand.

Now if you had bothered to read up on the photo system of the LO-II, you'd have discovered that one of its accepted flaws was that the scanned strips would not likely line up perfectly, due to tolerance in the film feed mechanisms. And you can see the evidence of that in the geometric discontinuity at the strip boundaries -- crater edges that just don't line up right, etc. There are overlaps, gaps, and alignment problems.

Now you say you measured features in both LO-II images that were widely separated, probably spanning up to a dozen or so strips. You want to attribute the difference in those measurements to a change in camera position, thereby establishing an expectation to see commensurate differences between a LO-II and Apollo photo of the same scene shot from, according to you, from a substantially different place.

The problem is that variation in a control network that arises from a change in the optical axis obeys a set of mathematical laws derived from projective geometry. That is, just any old change in the control network isn't automatically the product of a different line of sight. Only those that fit the mathematical laws of transformations in projective space. Differences in control networks that arise from errors in piecewise assembly of the data would be random, proportional to twice the mean of the inter-strip error multiplied by the number of strips involved in each network edge, minus 1. There, I've given you the high-level description of what you need to do to bound the jitter error in your data. It's up to you to translate that into actual measurements.

 

[JayUtah]

AS-37-5447HD(1969 ALLEGED) WE MAY CONFIDENTLY CONCLUDE IS THE SAME IMAGE AS LUNAR ORBITER II 2085(1966) AND IS VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY FRAUDULENT.....

This is the third or fourth time you've simply shouted your belief without addressing the rebuttal.

When may I expect your error analysis?

 

[Patrick1000]

Read the NASA publications for yourself nomuse....

Citation, please. They are both of the Moon. They are both from orbit. What documentation do you have that leads you to believe that they are being represented as being of different objects or from significantly different places?

Or is this the renowned Patrick 180?




Don't enlist me as writing in support of your delusions. The best you could say is that your fractured, near-impenetrable writing style, and your complete inability to maintain a coherent argument, might end up with you claiming something in one of your posts that is similar to the rebuttal made by someone else of a different one of your posts.



Case in point. I can't parse the above.

If I strip off the meaningless, self-congratulatory crowing, all I am left with is the semantically dubious "Of course these two images were in reality taken from the same vantage point."

In which reality, Patrick? The one you've constructed? Or the one the Apollo Program claims? And what is meant by "the same" within this context?

In any case, this is not the claim I responded to. Have you forgotten your own words, Patrick?

"NOT TWO IMAGES, BUT RATHER ARE BOTH ITERATIONS/COPIES OF THE EXACT SAME IMAGE. "

A copy of an image is not the same thing as a duplication of a scene. In the latter, two cameras are aimed at the same scene. In the former, one camera is used, and one photograph taken.

Patrick, you strongly appeared to state that the Apollo 11 image was a direct physical copy of the LRO image.

Either withdraw that claim, or disavow it.

(Bolding because otherwise you'd ignore my request. Again.)




The angles aren't the same, as you would know if you had taken more than a cursory look at the pair. Any further confusion is entirely due to your inability to read maps.

I have nothing further to say to you until you retract or disavow your claim that:

AS11-47-5447 and 2085 (LRO sequence) are identical save for scaling and rotation, and;

LAM2-CMP-flown and ALS-2-vertical are also identical to the extent that they must have shared a single original.

Read the NASA publications for yourself nomuse....

First of all, the Apollo 11 Press Kit(6 July 1969) Lunar Module Descent section clearly shows in the CSM/LM Separation Diagram that separation occurs such that the Eagle was to be at separation 0.5 nautical miles above the CSM and so it would appear to be the case more or less in AS-37-5447. The ships are roughly 60 nautical miles above the surface of the moon before DOI and so the image AS-37-5447 is alleged by NASA to have been taken from an altitude of roughly 60 nautical miles with the Eagle no more than 0.5 nautical miles above the CSM.

On the other hand, Lunar Orbiter II snapped its infamous 2085 shot at an altitude of 51.37 kilometers per the Lunar Orbiter Photo Gallery site;


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/frame/?2085

Note the details provided under the image; 2085 was shot from an altitude of 51.37 kilometers. That is equivalent to an altitude of 32 nautical miles and so according to NASA's own documents, Lunar Orbiter II 2085 was shot at an altitude roughly 28 nautical miles below AS-37-5447. Right there we can confirm AS-37-5447HD fraudulent given its identical spatial perspective with respect to Lunar Orbiter II shot 2085. Recall we have confirmed the images are raw and not orthorectified. We all agree on this point.

Let's move on.

At the time of Powered Descent Initiation per the Mission Report Table 5-III, the Eagle was according to NASA tracking at 1.037 degrees north(best estimate trajectory). The Lunar Orbiter, again per the website reference above was tracking at 0.80 north, 3.8 miles to the south of the Eagle's alleged tracking position.

So NASA's own materials tell the TALL TALL TALL TALL TALL TALL TALE that AS-37-5447HD was taken from roughly 28 miles above and 3.8 miles to the north of Lunar Orbiter II 2085.

Lunar Orbiter II shot 2085 was created from a longitude perspective of 23.71 degrees east. I do not yet know what the Eagle's alleged longitude was when it allegedly took the bogus AS-37-5447HD, but we already have adequate information to identify the shot as forged and made from Lunar Orbiter II 2085 as the spatial perspectives are identical per previous analysis. We all agree that the images are not, were not orthorectified.

The deal is now done dog gone done, and once again the Apollo 11 Mission is proven to be absolutely positively and oh so very insanely fraudulent.....

 

[nomuse]

Your point with regard to orthorectification simply does not apply to the images we are subjecting to study and discussing here Laton.....

This image, AS-37-5447HR is a raw image and was not said to be, has never been said to have been, orthorectified. AS-37-5447HR is claimed by NASA to be a raw image Laton, an image taken from the Eagle on 07/20/1969.

And here you skip over any discussion of the lenses, which are not required to show identical distortion, and replace that understanding with an assumption of identical plane projection.

Your method ALSO fails to account for the very thing orthoprojection corrects.

Measure the distance between any two points in the first image, the AS-37-5447HR imgage. Then proceed to measure the distance between the very same two points on the Lunar Orbiter II 2085 image. Divide the second number by the first and the answer will always be 1.1053, or a number close to that depending on how carefully you measure things, the precision of your equipment and so forth.

I have and they don't.

The difference between pairs of measurements taken in different areas of the frame is magnitudes greater than any possible error in the measurement.

You say any pair is identical? You are either incompetent or lying.

The same statement applies to the difference within the specified members of the Orbiter series; due to the flaws of your method, different values are reached for different landmark pairs -- again depending on where within the picture frame those pairs appear.

Your method is deeply flawed. If applied rigorously it might reveal complexity beyond what you have recognized, but your application is the sheerest cherry-picking of favorable data and is deeply dishonest.

Pointless rant deleted for space.

 

[Garrison]

Patrick1000 you do realize that even if you proved these two photographs were identical all that would prove is that there's a error on the website(s) you got them from don't you?

 

[nomuse]

I should hasten to add I am in no way either supporting Patrick's method, nor advancing a method of my own. I am doing only two things;

Showing that in the specific images under discussion, considering them by themselves without any attempt to understand the underlying processes, Patrick's method fails (you don't get a single scaling factor; you get a spread of values).

And showing that Patrick has failed to apply his own method correctly (otherwise he would have noticed it doesn't actually work.)


(A careful and honest researcher would have noticed that their values are a spread, not a single number, and would have attempted to describe that set. That would have led them to realize that there are underlying geometries to consider -- and would lead them to throw out Patrick's method as insufficient. Eventually they might actually stumble upon proper photogrammetrics. Plus realize they needed to understand how the original image was obtained and processed before they attempted any analysis on it.)

(That Patrick has either not revealed or not realized these things speaks volumes.)

 

[Laton]

I'm waiting for an astronomy thread in which Patrick measures the apparent angular coverage of the Moon & Sun in the sky and on discovering that they (are close enough to being) the same concludes that they are in fact both the same size & distance from earth (or indeed the same object just lit differently).

And yes, Patrick, from a cartographic/photogrametric point of view what you are declaring based on your 'measurements' without taking into account all the other variables really is that wrong.

 

[Patrick1000]

Fair enough, if you got different numbers from me.....

I should hasten to add I am in no way either supporting Patrick's method, nor advancing a method of my own. I am doing only two things;

Showing that in the specific images under discussion, considering them by themselves without any attempt to understand the underlying processes, Patrick's method fails (you don't get a single scaling factor; you get a spread of values).

And showing that Patrick has failed to apply his own method correctly (otherwise he would have noticed it doesn't actually work.)


(A careful and honest researcher would have noticed that their values are a spread, not a single number, and would have attempted to describe that set. That would have led them to realize that there are underlying geometries to consider -- and would lead them to throw out Patrick's method as insufficient. Eventually they might actually stumble upon proper photogrammetrics. Plus realize they needed to understand how the original image was obtained and processed before they attempted any analysis on it.)

(That Patrick has either not revealed or not realized these things speaks volumes.)

Fair enough, if you got different numbers from me.....and numbers plural, I would be the first to admit there was a problem, so I shall do it again and report back...,..