A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon - photogrammetric rectification

I just finished watching the video "What happened on the Moon" on
Google videos which seriously challenges whether the moon landing(s)
really occurred. I found the evidence very convincing. Yet I was rather
disappointed that one major piece of evidence was completely missing
altogether. This piece of evidence which I would like to explain below
is the most damning piece of evidence that virtually any engineer or
scientist can ascertain themselves if they are acquainted with optics,
calculations of orbits and a good background in math. So if you've
never come across this before, here it is...

Several years ago, the National Geographic magazine published an
article showing how a complex mathematical technique was used to
scientifically verify that Robert Peary really did reach the North
pole. See
http://www.pearyhenson.org/dougdavie...ionreport2.htm

While the article could not verify that he was the 1st to reach the
pole, it did layout the evidence that he really was where he claimed he
was. The technique, as you probably know, is called photogrammetric
rectification. The Navigation Foundation based in Rockville, Maryland
carried out the calculations and was able to verify mathematically that
Peary really was on a certain latitude close to the North Pole. Some of
the parameters required to do this a

* A photograph showing an object with more than one shadow
* The known (or assumed) time of year and time of day when the
photograph was taken
* The focal point of the camera lens
* Probably a few other parameters (but I'm not a mathematician - read
the NG article for more info)

By using photogrammetric rectification and having all of these
parameters available, it was demonstrated that Peary really was close
to the North Pole. The technique can only determine latitude and not
longitude. So what if we use the exact same technique and determine at
what lunar latitude the astronauts were on when they landed and the
photographs were taken. If they really were on the moon when they said
they were, we would have the following information:

* the exact latitude where they were relative to the moon's north pole
* the position of the sun at the time
* the time of year and time of day
* the focal point of the camera is known
* plenty of photos with shadows

By applying photogrammetric rectification, you can verify whether the
astronauts really were on the correct latitude (where the Sea of
Tranquility is located) or any of the other locations they said they
were on subsequent landings. In fact, using photogrammetric
rectification with a few other parameters that are also available, it
is even possible to calculate the longitude.

I submit this challenge to the scientific community. I urge anyone who
is capable of carrying out this challenge to do so as soon as possible.
If the results indicate that the moon landing was a hoax, the three old
astronauts (Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins) may still be alive to answer
to these results.

For those of you with the ability and courage to carry this out and
have your results published in a reputable scientific publication, we
salute you as one of the greatest scientists/thinkers of our time. I
say, Go For It!

Elijah Rosenburg

wrote:
I just finished watching the video "What happened on the Moon" on
Google videos which seriously challenges whether the moon landing(s)
really occurred. I found the evidence very convincing. Yet I was rather
disappointed that one major piece of evidence was completely missing
altogether. This piece of evidence which I would like to explain below
is the most damning piece of evidence that virtually any engineer or
scientist can ascertain themselves if they are acquainted with optics,
calculations of orbits and a good background in math. So if you've
never come across this before, here it is...

Several years ago, the National Geographic magazine published an
article showing how a complex mathematical technique was used to
scientifically verify that Robert Peary really did reach the North
pole. See
http://www.pearyhenson.org/dougdavie...ionreport2.htm

While the article could not verify that he was the 1st to reach the
pole, it did layout the evidence that he really was where he claimed he
was. The technique, as you probably know, is called photogrammetric
rectification. The Navigation Foundation based in Rockville, Maryland
carried out the calculations and was able to verify mathematically that
Peary really was on a certain latitude close to the North Pole. Some of
the parameters required to do this a

* A photograph showing an object with more than one shadow
* The known (or assumed) time of year and time of day when the
photograph was taken
* The focal point of the camera lens
* Probably a few other parameters (but I'm not a mathematician - read
the NG article for more info)

By using photogrammetric rectification and having all of these
parameters available, it was demonstrated that Peary really was close
to the North Pole. The technique can only determine latitude and not
longitude. So what if we use the exact same technique and determine at
what lunar latitude the astronauts were on when they landed and the
photographs were taken. If they really were on the moon when they said
they were, we would have the following information:

* the exact latitude where they were relative to the moon's north pole
* the position of the sun at the time
* the time of year and time of day
* the focal point of the camera is known
* plenty of photos with shadows

By applying photogrammetric rectification, you can verify whether the
astronauts really were on the correct latitude (where the Sea of
Tranquility is located) or any of the other locations they said they
were on subsequent landings. In fact, using photogrammetric
rectification with a few other parameters that are also available, it
is even possible to calculate the longitude.

I submit this challenge to the scientific community. I urge anyone who
is capable of carrying out this challenge to do so as soon as possible.
If the results indicate that the moon landing was a hoax, the three old
astronauts (Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins) may still be alive to answer
to these results.

For those of you with the ability and courage to carry this out and
have your results published in a reputable scientific publication, we
salute you as one of the greatest scientists/thinkers of our time. I
say, Go For It!

Elijah Rosenburg

Aldrin was asked to swear on the bible that he went to the moon... and
surprisse surprisse .. He REFUSED to answer the question, if they realy
went up there... the only place where they have been is the dessert of
neveda... POINT for the Moon File... Let them now proof to me that
right now the Astronuts are in the international space station ISS...
even that they cant proof... ALL SPACE PROGRAMS are FAKE...

and let them also proof that they sent Robots to Mars... Ha Ha Ha all
fake illusion for god believers eyes... what you see is not always the
truth ... try to remember that.

The Ancient of time called this Magic... and I call it fake Religion.

You Are Full of **** , says Yoda ! The moon landing wasn't about space
exploration asshole ! It was about beating the Russians . How in hell ,
if the moon landings were faked , did we bribe the Soviets to keep
quite about a moon landing that didn't happen ? They had just as good
sensors , to tell , who was where at what time , although always
bulkier than ours , they knew we went to the Moon and even admitted
defeat in this area , by scapping their own mission . To say we didn't
go to the Moon requires a real COWARD , ASSHOLE , LEFTIST and TRAITOR
of the first degree . Your article proves only that some people would
sell their souls , for the tail end of an anchovy . Tom Lowry


Professor Min wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006, wrote:
I just finished watching the video "What happened on the Moon" on
Google videos which seriously challenges whether the moon landing(s)
really occurred. I found the evidence very convincing. Yet I was rather
disappointed that one major piece of evidence was completely missing
altogether. This piece of evidence which I would like to explain below
is the most damning piece of evidence that virtually any engineer or
scientist can ascertain themselves if they are acquainted with optics,
calculations of orbits and a good background in math. So if you've
never come across this before, here it is...
Several years ago, the National Geographic magazine published an
article showing how a complex mathematical technique was used to
scientifically verify that Robert Peary really did reach the North
pole. See
http://www.pearyhenson.org/dougdavie...ionreport2.htm
While the article could not verify that he was the 1st to reach the
pole, it did layout the evidence that he really was where he claimed he
was. The technique, as you probably know, is called photogrammetric
rectification. The Navigation Foundation based in Rockville, Maryland
carried out the calculations and was able to verify mathematically that
Peary really was on a certain latitude close to the North Pole. Some of
the parameters required to do this a
* A photograph showing an object with more than one shadow
* The known (or assumed) time of year and time of day when the
photograph was taken
* The focal point of the camera lens
* Probably a few other parameters (but I'm not a mathematician - read
the NG article for more info)
By using photogrammetric rectification and having all of these
parameters available, it was demonstrated that Peary really was close
to the North Pole. The technique can only determine latitude and not
longitude. So what if we use the exact same technique and determine at
what lunar latitude the astronauts were on when they landed and the
photographs were taken. If they really were on the moon when they said
they were, we would have the following information:
* the exact latitude where they were relative to the moon's north pole
* the position of the sun at the time
* the time of year and time of day
* the focal point of the camera is known
* plenty of photos with shadows
By applying photogrammetric rectification, you can verify whether the
astronauts really were on the correct latitude (where the Sea of
Tranquility is located) or any of the other locations they said they
were on subsequent landings. In fact, using photogrammetric
rectification with a few other parameters that are also available, it
is even possible to calculate the longitude.
I submit this challenge to the scientific community. I urge anyone who
is capable of carrying out this challenge to do so as soon as possible.
If the results indicate that the moon landing was a hoax, the three old
astronauts (Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins) may still be alive to answer
to these results.
For those of you with the ability and courage to carry this out and
have your results published in a reputable scientific publication, we
salute you as one of the greatest scientists/thinkers of our time. I
say, Go For It!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

That's a bright idea. Only one minor problem, and that is many
of NASA's alleged "men-on-the-moon" photos reveal non-parallel
shadows. If nothing else, this proves that more than one light
source was present when said photos were taken. I suppose that
we could pick through the NASA photos, and use only those that
show one consistent parallel light source, for what it's worth.

Here're the six *alleged* locations of "manned" lunar landings:

* Mare Tranquillitatis 0.67 N 23.49 E
* Oceanus Procellarum 3.20 S 23.38 W
* Fra Mauro 3.67 S 17.47 W
* Hadley Rille 26.10 N 3.65 E
* Descartes 8.99 S 15.51 E
* Taurus-Littrow 20.16 N 30.76 E

But we could also look up the 'Farmer's Almanac' for the dates
given, and see which way the wind was blowing around the domes
of Area 51 NV, where most of the "manned" segments were filmed
and photographed, to see if the American flag is fluttering in
the right direction...

And speaking of MOVIES, recall the controversial 'FOX'
network production of 'Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land
on the Moon?' which first aired on February 15th 2001
(and was shown again some days later). I'd videotaped
this at the time, and made some DVD copies and passed
it around to skeptic friends. It was pretty well done,
albeit only cursory treatment was given to the myriad
and glaring discrepancies prevalent throughout NASA's
patently impossible "men to the moon" fish story (as
would become entertaining fodder for 'Capricorn One').

It's a proven fact NASA's six allegedly-manned half-million
miles per round-trip(!) missions to the Moon (1969-72) were
at best unmanned flights in competition with the U.S.S.R.'s
contemporaneous Soviet Luna/Lunakhod unmanned Moon missions.

"They couldn't make it so they faked it." Thus, the "manned"
portions of the missions were actually filmed under the top-
secret, heavily-guarded domed soundstages in the high desert
of Area 51, NV, perhaps around Pine Gap, AUS and maybe other
remote and publicly-inaccessible locations around the world.
__________________________________________________

Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
buggies & actors running along in their deflated
monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
brazenly obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.
__________________________________________________

Here it is 2006, and NASA *still* has enough headaches trying
to cope with the challenges (remember the Challenger shuttle?)
of low-earth orbit manned spacecraft. But things were "easier"
generations ago, back in the bygone era of sliderules, hippies
and flower children. Yupp! Back then, the laws of physics were
a lot easier to deal with than they are now and that's obvious.
Our technology was far more advanced back then, than it is now.

The Moon is FAR BEYOND the reach of manned spacecraft, to wit:

ALTITUDE COMPARISON CHART
SHUTTLE VS. MOON & MANMADE SATELLITES
(not to scale)

x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| |
| |
| |
| |
~ ~214,000 MILES ~
~ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ~
| |
| |
| |
x------High-altitude orbit ~25,000+ miles altitude------x
| |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
x------JPL/NASA Space Shuttle orbit ~300 miles altitude-x
x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude |
x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x


To give you an idea of the scale involved, if each hard line
break in the chart below equals roughly 10,000 miles, to wit:

x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| 230,000 |
| 220,000 |
| 210,000 |
| 200,000 |
| 190,000 |
| 180,000 |
| 170,000 |
| 160,000 |
| 150,000 |
| 140,000 |
| 130,000 |
| 120,000 |
| 110,000 |
| 100,000 |
| 90,000 |
| 80,000 |
| 70,000 |
| 60,000 |
| 50,000 |
| 40,000 |
| 30,000 |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x

Thus the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between
the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at
all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any
manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length
of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't
want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence:

*Apollo Moon Missions 1969-1972 Were At Best *Unmanned*:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...amesh-frog.org

*Quasi-Uncensored Apollo Moon Hoax Bookmarks:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...amesh-frog.org

Far Out, Man!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?...rch=0x2B1CCFE7

*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/

*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ymous.pos ter

*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ymous.pos ter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRK/UlJljD7YrHM/nEQJM2wCff9zMeRP7RYC90vrRAWTaynzC1NQAoMV/
OOj8FTO79tiD93Y/PypifmcE
=r29r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article . com,
"cdddraftsman" wrote:

You Are Full of **** , says Yoda !

That would be quite out of character: it must be a misquote.

"Full of ****, you are" I'd believe.

--
Odysseus

It's nothing but a TROLL.And by one of the biggest usenet Dipsticks there
is, Dim the min.



--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/




..

On 8/7/06 16:15, in article
, "Warhol"
wrote:

Aldrin was asked to swear on the bible that he went to the moon... and
surprisse surprisse .. He REFUSED to answer the question, if they realy
went up there... the only place where they have been is the dessert of
neveda... POINT for the Moon File... Let them now proof to me that
right now the Astronuts are in the international space station ISS...
even that they cant proof... ALL SPACE PROGRAMS are FAKE...

and let them also proof that they sent Robots to Mars... Ha Ha Ha all
fake illusion for god believers eyes... what you see is not always the
truth ... try to remember that.

The Ancient of time called this Magic... and I call it fake Religion.

You're such a useless ****wit its unbelievable.

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TomGee proves his physics education is beyond measure...
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddle**** tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Phineas T Puddleduck schreef:

On 8/7/06 16:15, in article
, "Warhol"
wrote:

Aldrin was asked to swear on the bible that he went to the moon... and
surprisse surprisse .. He REFUSED to answer the question, if they realy
went up there... the only place where they have been is the dessert of
neveda... POINT for the Moon File... Let them now proof to me that
right now the Astronuts are in the international space station ISS...
even that they cant proof... ALL SPACE PROGRAMS are FAKE...

and let them also proof that they sent Robots to Mars... Ha Ha Ha all
fake illusion for god believers eyes... what you see is not always the
truth ... try to remember that.

The Ancient of time called this Magic... and I call it fake Religion.

You're such a useless ****wit its unbelievable.

--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost of the Lies and the Price of Truth

http://warfolly.vzz.net/costoflies.html

Most people can't figure out
that what other people say
all depends on who they work for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary....

For lies - you would be 'handsomely rewarded' by the ZOG in Washington.

For truth - you would be put in jail (unless you're a Jew) and the key
thrown away by the ZOG in Washington.

On 8/7/06 20:14, in article
, "Warhol"
wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary....

For lies - you would be 'handsomely rewarded' by the ZOG in Washington.

For truth - you would be put in jail (unless you're a Jew) and the key
thrown away by the ZOG in Washington.


Welcome to WarholWorld. Its like Disneyland, but even less believable. Plus
the characters aren't funny.

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TomGee proves his physics education is beyond measure...
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddle**** tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

"Usenet Dipstick"

I'm going to have to reuse that one at some point.


"Starlord" wrote in message
...
It's nothing but a TROLL.And by one of the biggest usenet Dipsticks there
is, Dim the min.



--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/




.

wrote:

I just finished watching the video "What happened on the Moon" on
Google videos which seriously challenges whether the moon landing(s)
really occurred. I found the evidence very convincing. Yet I was rather
disappointed that one major piece of evidence was completely missing
altogether. This piece of evidence which I would like to explain below
is the most damning piece of evidence that virtually any engineer or
scientist can ascertain themselves if they are acquainted with optics,
calculations of orbits and a good background in math. So if you've
never come across this before, here it is...

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...uchdown_photos
_010427.html

or

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K53D664D1

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development