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

Professor Min wrote:
-----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

I I sure as hell wish there were more intelligent people like yourself
responding to this post. You are correct in that several reputable
sources would be required to carry out the analysis and have them
published. This is required in order to keep biasing checked. A
possible solution is to submit it to various universities around the
world (preferrably not in America) where photogrammetry is taught. It
could be given as project to test their skills. It wouldn't have
anything to do with proving or disproving the moon landing. What it
will accomplish is to see whether the students really have mastered
photogrammetric rectification. If however it does turn out to prove
that landings did not occur where NASA said they did, then what will
the professor say?

Did it ever occur to you pea brains what a great propaganda coup it
would be for the Russians or Chinese to prove the moon landings were
faked?

Oh, I forgot, they are in the conspiracy too, trying to help their
biggest enemies and belittle their own advanced space programs. Or
maybe they don't have the technology to analyze photos??

Nutcases!!


Professor Min wrote:
-----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

wrote in message
ps.com...

If however it does turn out to prove
that landings did not occur where NASA said they did, then what will
the professor say?

How can anyone with enough of a brain to turn on a computer even entertain
the notion that the moon landings were faked? If you seriously consider
what would be involved with such a scheme, you'd soon come to the idea that
it would be simpler just to land on the damned moon.

I personally witnessed every Saturn V launch. Had you seen it, you'd know
that sonofabitch was headed someplace. Thousands saw it with me. Shuttle
launches pale in comparison. My dad was an engineer involved in the ARIA
aircraft, and though he never saw a launch he did see many of the re-entries
and was probably the first to hear "Houston we've had a problem." He would
have had to have been in on the "hoax." He was not. He is just one of
thousands of people who would have had to have been "in on it." The
government can't even keep a small secret about listening to phone calls -
do you really believe they could have faked 6 landings and 2 lunar orbital
flights with thousands of people involved?

Have you been to JSC or KSC and seen a Saturn V? Have you seen all the
infrastructure at these faculties? Was all that created as part of the
ruse? Do you understand that getting into orbit (which I trust most will
allow as actually happening) is the hard part and going to the moon is just
more of the same?

People who believe that this was all faked are village idiots, and had
"Capricorn One" never been made they would never have had the smarts to come
up with the "hoax" theory on their own. No self-respecting scientist would
waste a minute of his or her time (much less precious funding) pandering to
the ravings of stupid people. Please be better than they are and accept the
obvious.

PS - evolution and plate tectonics are real too.

wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm always trying to figure out if these folks are true nutcases or are
just folks with one or two nutty ideas?

Pretty interesting when you ask them point blank how they arrived at
their conclusion that Men never went to the Moon...

None of them ever respond!


They're all true nutcases.

Steven,

I have a strange feeling that these days, the nutcases are running the
world?

Tim,

You are very lucky!

I've been to "The Cape" a couple of times.

Yeah, really all you have to do is to walk over to the Vehicle Assembly
Building..just try,
as I did, to look up to the roof...

It's so darn tall that you start to get sick.

It is so very huge that if you turned off the air
conditioning....Clouds form and it would rain!

Brad,

Why don't you answer my questions:

How old are you?

Translation:

Are you very young in that you were not born before Apollo 11?

If you were born much before Apollo 11 so that you should remember it,
why don't you?

And if you can't answer my questions reasonably, you've just lost any
kind of credibility
that you ever had.

On 9 Jul 2006 16:36:48 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Brad,

Why don't you answer my questions:

Because he's a troll.

And if you can't answer my questions reasonably, you've just lost any
kind of credibility
that you ever had.

He's never had any. Please stop feeding the troll.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006 16:36:48 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Brad,

Why don't you answer my questions:


Because he's a troll.


And if you can't answer my questions reasonably, you've just lost any
kind of credibility
that you ever had.


He's never had any. Please stop feeding the troll.

Unless You have some troll poison.