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

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

PS Independent reconstruction of an accurate and reliable
NASA chronology for those Apollo photos which reveal
with reasonable certainty a single light source "Look!
the sun looks just like a giant spotlight!" etc., that
would be the obvious place to start building your case.

If enough "manned" Apollo photographs can be positively
identified to have been taken at an approximate time GMT,
and from -which- of the aforecited six allegedly "manned"
landing locations on the (1969-1972) surface of the Moon,
then it would be a relatively simple task to key in the
data into any good astronomy program--and see who's who,
and what's what. Better astronomy programs, like Astrolog,
can show at light-geocentric positions from other planets.
Some may even include topocentric positions from the Moon,
complete with her librations, etc., for maximum accuracy?

It'll be interesting to see if any capable lurkers out
there take you up on your interesting challenge. Given
all the other glaring mistakes NASA made with the hoaxed
"manned moon" photos, it's very doubtful that they went
to the trouble of synchronizing the terrestrial shadows
cast on their top-secret sets under powerful spotlights
with what would have actually occurred on the Moon, i.e.
at the lunar surface coordinates and times entered into
the official NASA Apollo program record. One, does such
a record exist? And Two, is it available to the public?

But of course, the NASA shills are likely to cherry-pick
any photos that by coincidence apparently match the date,
time -and- place alleged. Conversely, those like me who
are 100% certain that all allegedly "manned" segments of
the Apollo Moon missions beyond ~450 miles above sealevel
were obviously staged, we might cherry-pick only the most
patently impossible photos from the list. That's why this
would need to be an independent, scientific investigation,
where those leading the investigation have no axe to grind.

Otherwise, any findings predominantly pro or con would be
immediately suspect, and called into question by opposing
forces, as with all other evidences that have already been
presented and published by renowned experts on the subject.

Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRLALVJljD7YrHM/nEQLnFQCg6ADKNMjwtMf/ZVyZ5rlG7+2iam4AoJZb
n/E/fgA8C4oxZeGXkZPEfRte
=XARa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com