Doctored Moon Landing Photos

[highdobb]

I am shocked and apalled by the attitude received by all this. To me this is activity to smear and categorize history research as conspiracy theory. I have seen similar attitude on other public messageboards, but I didn't realize no place is safe from it.

Maybe you should seriously start thinking about why you saw it on other boards also, instead of blaming us for simply asking you to prove what is fake exactly and how.

No I was not on the moon with the lucky 12 who were there, I wish! Now your turn:

You still have yet to answer me really about the discrepancy in data between 1967 and 2009. With Kaguya's highest resolution topographical data ever available, how can all these images and panoramas and videos from Apollo all look so precise in scale and contour?

Even with the Lunar Orbiter photos and data from Surveyor landers to help the early Apollo missions, Neil still had to overshoot 11's landing to the point of almost crashing because they didn't expect such big boulders. Why? NASA couldn't see them before we actually got there. Sea of Tranquility was picked for what was thought a mostly flat/smooth surface based on our best data of the time.

How can you justify comparing terrain data from Kaguya, with photos from any Apollo site if the terrain matches waaay beyond a good guess from NASA's set designers? You have no case to me! :lol:

 

[netarch]

STILL WAITING...

Calli, aphh - how about we go back to square one:

apph - I asked earlier: I didn't see any attribution of where you got the original images you strongly suspect of being faked. Until we know where you got them, then for all we know is that they are indeed fakes - and actually meant to be. Their original source at NASA could be for some internal class, or some instructional material. For all we know, they could be source material from NASA on how to detect doctored photos!

Please, please - show us where you got them so that any experts here can look at the source.

I'm still waiting - as are others, I assume...

 

[origin]

You guys realize he has you by the short and curlies on this one, right?

I have won the first round here. I have offered several people a big cup of reality in this thread, when pressing for concrete evidence to back historical claims.

Essentially this is in no way different from pressing evidence from religious people, who easily turn hostile and angry when questioned. The level of testifying gets all the more intense, yet only conceptual evidence is offered. Never anything concrete.

People, look in the mirror and ask yourself a few hard questions, are you religious fundamentalists or scientists? What is the main difference between these two from your perspective? Does a scientist stop asking questions or finding answers when there are none readily available?

I feel sorry it had to get down to this, but I can not be held responsible for anybody else's attitude and behavior.

Amazing...

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think damskov said it vey well, in a short and succinct post.

 

[aphh]

Aphh, if you'd "won", you would have convinced people to at least take your claims seriously. But so far your condescending attitude and lack of response to the issues brought up in this thread by other posters have simply resulted in you dragging yourself firmly into the Hoaxter category, to which no one listens seriously.

I've pretty mych labeled most people in this thread perpetrators of false claims that none of you could back, so I think we're even.

I would have enjoyed spending the hours on correlating images and doing the analysis if I had the expectation that some kind of rational dialogue with you (at least on the technical issues) would come up. But looking at your responses so far, I get the impression that you really aren't interested in the technical issues, instead focusing on semantics to "prove" your point.

I didn't even bring up the semantics element, others brought up that, so please. The problem is not my attitude, you just want an excuse to avoid responding in a constructive way. You know you don't have the evidence to back your claims, so this is your way out.

In other words, discussing with you is a waste of time.

Will the attack never end? I don't remember calling anybody anything, except perhaps MeteorWayne a little bit, but he begged for it. When the gloves come off, do not expect everybody to take the punishment like a teenage girl.

 

[CalliArcale]

I've pretty mych labeled most people in this thread perpetrators of false claims that none of you could back, so I think we're even.
....
Will the attack never end? I don't remember calling anybody anything, except perhaps MeteorWayne a little bit, but he begged for it.

*mod hat on*
All right, that's it. You have, in one post, confessed to making accusations of misconduct (making false claims) against several other members, which you have failed to back with evidence. You have futhermore done so in the thread itself rather than via appropriate channels (PM to mod, abuse reports, etc). Then, you have the gall to claim, within the same post, that you haven't called anybody anything! Yet what is it when you "label most people in this thread perpetrators of false claims"?

There was a valiant effort on the part of several members to get thsi thread back on track. aphh has unfortunately chosen not to participate in that and has instead attempted to carry on attacking the character of other members rather than having an actual discussion.

This thread will now be closed; I do not feel there is any chance of it gaining a reasonable footing again, which is unfortunate because it is quite possible to discuss these things reasonably, provided all those involved are really interested in a discussion rather than a private rant.
*mod hat off*

Oh, and on a more personal note, aphh, you claim to have won the argument. I refer you to Danth's Law (sometimes referred to as Parker's Law): If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly. The reason for this is because you would only have to insist that you've won if you have persuaded no one. I have one last word of advice, before I close this thread: the reason people laugh when someone says they've won the argument is usually because you're the only one perceiving it as some sort of contest. To the others, the truth is what matters, not who "wins".