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

**[email protected]** · #1 July 8th 06, 03:44 PM posted to alt.astronomy

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

**Warhol[_1_]** · #2 July 8th 06, 04:15 PM posted to alt.astronomy

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.

**Phineas T Puddleduck[_1_]** · #3 July 8th 06, 07:56 PM posted to alt.astronomy

**Warhol[_1_]** · #4 July 8th 06, 08:14 PM posted to alt.astronomy

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.

**Phineas T Puddleduck[_1_]** · #5 July 8th 06, 08:18 PM posted to alt.astronomy

**Warhol[_1_]** · #6 July 8th 06, 09:16 PM posted to alt.astronomy

Phineas T Puddleduck schreef:

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.

--

Just connect the dots... the criminals remain the same tru history
anyway...

The famous "first human path on the moon" in the Warhol World...

Is impossible! For to print a foothprint like that in the moon dust,
you need moisture and there is NO moisture on the moon!

Here is the picture from "moon landing " expedition.

http://www.primeline-america.com/moon-ldg/

Personally, I like the best the moon scooter with that radial (inverted
parasol-like) antenna, wow, that's cute... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Halo
alpha papa tango charly we are riding on the Moon... hi hi hi the
American dream... you take your car everywhere with you...even to the
moon... aint that a funny joke.

**Art Deco[_1_]** · July 8th 06, 11:19 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.usenet.kooks

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...

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/

Eat it, naziboi.

--
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

**Art Deco[_1_]** · July 8th 06, 08:49 PM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.usenet.kooks

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

**[email protected]** · #9 July 11th 06, 08:10 PM posted to alt.astronomy

Simple experiment: try flying to the Moon,
Result they cant even get out of low Earth orbit,
Conclusion how in the World did they get to the Moon 40 years ago when
they cant seem to do much of anything right even now.
No wonder the Apollo Astronauts have all gone into hiding.Well you all
have got decades to figure it out, the only thing stopping you is your
crude pig ignorance, so try thinking for a change instead of mindlessly
parroting whatever Bull**** you are fed. After all if you can be made
to believe in the Man on the Moon, is there anything you cant be made
to believe in.

**Double-A[_1_]** · #10 July 11th 06, 11:37 PM posted to alt.astronomy

wrote:
Simple experiment: try flying to the Moon,
Result they cant even get out of low Earth orbit,
Conclusion how in the World did they get to the Moon 40 years ago when
they cant seem to do much of anything right even now.
No wonder the Apollo Astronauts have all gone into hiding.Well you all
have got decades to figure it out, the only thing stopping you is your
crude pig ignorance, so try thinking for a change instead of mindlessly
parroting whatever Bull**** you are fed. After all if you can be made
to believe in the Man on the Moon, is there anything you cant be made
to believe in.

The Iraqis hailing us as liberators?

Double-A

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Space Calendar - March 23, 2006	[email protected]	News	0	March 23rd 06 04:17 PM
Space Calendar - February 22, 2006	[email protected]	History	0	February 22nd 06 05:21 PM
Space Calendar - February 22, 2006	[email protected]	News	0	February 22nd 06 05:20 PM
Space Calendar - December 21, 2005	[email protected]	History	0	December 21st 05 04:50 PM
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004	[email protected]	Astronomy Misc	0	December 23rd 04 04:03 PM