Proof that the Moon Mountains were Backdrops to a Movie Set/MOD WARNING

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Apr 4, 2015.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  2. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    92,484
    Likes Received:
    28,175
    Trophy Points:
    113
    can't believe some still think this was faked, ranks right up there with those that think 911 was a nuke attack
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're still wrong....

    - - - Updated - - -

    NONE of you conspiracy nuts need any help looking silly,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c....
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How so? How does this unknown "Russian expert" manage that when he fails to do a number of basic things to establish his baseline?
    Surely as a truther you would have sought out alternative explanations for why this useless analysis falls over!

    http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=79.5;wap2

    I wonder what kind of obfuscation you have to wave away the observations of an actual expert.

    There is no proof, only spam. Your stubbornness, inability to take basic correction, persistence while demonstrating wanton ignorance, refusal to remove dead links, answer questions, or any natural requirement of a truther, leads to the inevitable conclusion that you yourself have an agenda.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The entire 911 truther movement looks "silly" - you should feel at home amongst them.

    But surely you are one of those highly unobservant folks who believe the Pentagon was hit not by a passenger plane, but by a missile?


    By his own hand, he admits he isn't a truther.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I've debated with Jay Windley* and he says some pretty lame things. I'm FatFreddy88 here.

    I said this to Jay Windley.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

    Here's his response.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326

    There's more on Jay Windley here.
    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

    Some of the links went dead in the above thread so I took the trouble of finding the new ones. Here they are.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=147&p=7712820&viewfull=1#post7712820


    Do you still think that Jay Windley has credibility?


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You know good and well that the no-plane theory refers to the twin towers. It doesn't refer to the Pentagon. You're really groping if you stoop to tactics such as this.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have no interest whatsoever in your pathetic and obvious ad-hominem diversion. The man is an expert in the field that your useless claim pertains to. You are not. Therefore your only resort is to avoid his response.

    Kindly explain why the points he raises do not totally dismiss those from your unknown "Russian expert".

    As for the BS about no planes, I am not up on the moronic claims of so called truthers, but if you wish to split hairs and claim that your no plane theory about the pentagon isn't a no plane theory, well who am I to argue with that level of delusion.
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A quick summary:-

    1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.

    2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.

    3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.

    4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.

    5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.

    6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.

    7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.

    8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).

    9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

    10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

    11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

    12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

    13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.


    I await your standard avoidance, obfuscation, diversion or other spammed response.


    I attribute all 13 items to the expertise of Mr Windley.
     
  11. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    84,745
    Likes Received:
    10,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ironic, as Truthers who believe in the "No Plane Theory" think those Truthers who attack them, are govt. shills and agents.
     
  12. bloomoon

    bloomoon Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it's on the aulis.com website then it must be true :)
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You said that Jay Windley's* analysis was correct and that he could be trusted so you brought up the subject. Now I'm going to address it.

    Jay Windley totally destroyed his credibility with his analysis of the dust-free sand issue. I'm FatFreddy88 in this discussion.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

    Start reading here at post #28.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326


    You support Jay Windley so how can you expect us to see you as an objective poster here.

    You also destroyed your credibility here.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979

    How canyou expect the viewers to take your analysis in post #10 seriously after that?


    This anomaly is simply too clear to obfuscate.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    The bottom line is that in figures #7 and #10, if those mountains were as far away as they say they are, they would not be moving back and forth in the gif. They would be as still as the smokestacks in figure #4 are. Your analysis in post #10 is a bunch of technobabble designed to confuse people.


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
     
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No. You are simply using your own inept experience with him as an ad-hominem. You are failing totally as you always do, to address what he actually says. Point by point, you have no answer and everyone who comes across your useless debating knows this.

    Irony. The spammer says the dismissal of his technobabble is technobabble. The reason we see movement in the gif is from the "Russian expert" misaligning the pictures, whilst ignoring that a different position from the camera position makes this very difficulty.

    Now, address the points he raised.
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ...says the person who maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979

    ...and agrees with Jay Windley on the dust-free sand issue.
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spam, that has been repeated almost a dozen times on this forum alone. In response to a list destroying your argument, you have no option but to try your useless ad-hominem attack on the author. When I pull you up about it, your next line is to post your truly pathetic insinuation that the Chinese spacewalk was faked and use it as another toothless ad-hominem against me. You have no argument, not here, or on any of the hundreds of forums you spam to. Hell man, if you think misshapen pieces of ice rotating in space, are bubbles in a swimming pool, you have no hope whatsoever of ever grasping any truth. As a truther, that is somewhat of a hindrance.

    The geologists who you use to "prop up" your claim, make two contributions to the argument, neither of which are of help to you. Firstly, they are not qualified to talk about aggregate transport, geology does not cover this, but strangely engineering does. Secondly, the geologists ridiculed your position about the rocks being faked.

    Now, address the 13 points he raised.

    P.s. Your pathetic thread on the basketball forum only serves to direct any(?) interested parties to responses that destroy your claims. I find it both disturbing and hilarious that you think you are being censored.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Anyone who reads all of my posts will see that I gave numerous examples of censorship.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201736

    You're trying to sway those viewers who haven't looked at what you're referring to. I can thwart you by showing it to them.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spare me your irrelevant diversion. It is truly pathetic how you think you are being censored and more importantly, that one single person here or over there cares at all.

    Now, address the 13 points he raised. So far we have ad-hominem, diversion and arm waving. What is it you spam about debating halls and getting laughed out of them?

    You failed to respond to this point:- The geologists who you use to "prop up" your claim, make two contributions to the argument, neither of which are of help to you. Firstly, they are not qualified to talk about aggregate transport, geology does not cover this, but strangely engineering does. Secondly, the geologists ridiculed your position about the rocks being faked.

    I'll ignore any response you make about the rotating ice being a bubble, despicable dishonesty is not worth a reply.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You know that only someone with a high science degree could address those points. All laymen can do in a case such as this is look at the record of the person who made those points.

    Jay Windley refused to address an issue that was too clear to obfuscate here in this thread.
    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1584/question-jay-windley

    He made a complete fool of himself when he maintained that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust when the sand is driven over.
    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1094

    You destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him. You also destroyed your credibility by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.

    Both you and Jay Windley are known obfuscators. When a known obfuscator gives an explanation for something that uses language that only a university science graduate would understand, only a simpleton would take it seriously.


    This guy has a Ph.D and he's not a known obfuscator.

    by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
    Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
    Kharkov State University, Ukraine


    Who do you think a layman is going to take seriously?


    This issue is really just as simple as the dust-free sand issue anyway.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    Any layman can just visualize it.

    In figures #7 and #10, if those mountains were as far away as NASA says they are, they would not be moving back and forth in the gif. They would be as still as the smokestacks in figure #4 are.

    This is simply too clear to obfuscate. If you think you're going to convince thinking people with your sophistry, you're flogging a dead horse.


    Tell us why you think Jay Windley refused to answer the question I asked him in the first link I posted above. While you're at it, you answer the question that he refused to answer.
     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your digitally manipulated lies STILL don't impress...
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I just noticed an error I made.
    I meant to say this.

    He made a complete fool of himself when he maintained that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.


    Sometimes I drink too much coffee.
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Tell us what you think of Jay Windley's refusing to answer that quesion I asked him. Also, why don't you answer the question while you're at it?
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Refusing to indulge your fantasies is all.

    There comes a time when you've spammed the same garbage so many times,answering your bogus charges becomes pointless
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's not bogus. You can read what he says.
    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1584/question-jay-windley

    Please tell us why you think he refused to answer a legitimate question. Please answer the question he refused to answer too. You are a truth-seeker, aren't you?
     

Share This Page