|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 24, 2009 1:50:53 GMT -4
There is a cone in the wasteland of Haleakala on Maui that looks like that trapezoidish looking mountain.
Many mountains look like many other mountains because that's how the definition of "mountain" works. If it isn't identical, then similarity alone is not grounds for a claim of fraud. If you claim they are identical, then you have the burden of proof.
Interesting that Maui is the prankster demigod in legend......
Interesting that "inconceivable" is the catch-phrase uttered by a lackwit villain in modern legend.
|
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on May 24, 2009 21:04:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on May 26, 2009 6:13:35 GMT -4
okay, they look similar. Hmm i think we've got a tabletop at the local motocross track that looks almost exactly like it too. Anyways, i did an overlay in Paintshoppro (try it yourself if you think i fudged it) - i used magic wand which accurately removed the black background, so i could paste it over the earth photo. It's deliberately placed slightly lower that the one on earth. While i admit it's quite similar looking overall when viewed separately, the gradients on the left side are clearly different.  (edited to correct typo) |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on May 26, 2009 6:41:19 GMT -4
Cheers Alex04
Wow. I'll can hardly wait to see the back peddling, goal post moving and possible 10 part Youtube expose by the HB camp on this one.
Then again, we might be blessed with complete silence. Damning evidence like this seems to do that.
But on second thoughts if I shut my eyes the both the Hadley mountain and the Hawaiian one do look identical.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 26, 2009 11:32:16 GMT -4
There is a cone in the wasteland of Haleakala on Maui that looks like that trapezoidish looking mountain. Interesting that Maui is the prankster demigod in legend...... How is that interesting? Are you suggesting that a whistleblower used a mountain in Maui as lunar scenary in order to suggest that the landing was a hoax almost forty years later when some internet woo-hoo would be able to positively identify a mountain in a lunar photograph as being one in Maui? That's...a bit of a stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on May 26, 2009 17:13:33 GMT -4
Cheers Alex04 Wow. I'll can hardly wait to see the back peddling, goal post moving and possible 10 part Youtube expose by the HB camp on this one. Then again, we might be blessed with complete silence. Damning evidence like this seems to do that. But on second thoughts if I shut my eyes the both the Hadley mountain and the Hawaiian one do look identical. No probs, only took a minute or two. I just don't understand. These guys would rather argue (if you want to call it that) to death, then objectively test their own claims. Not worried about back-pedalling - to me, a discussion with a conspiracy theorist is a complete waste of time. If they want to believe their BS, that's fine by me. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 26, 2009 21:15:44 GMT -4
Interesting that "inconceivable" is the catch-phrase uttered by a lackwit villain in modern legend. |
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on May 26, 2009 23:04:19 GMT -4
It is known that these areas are geologically unstable. So , the gradiant may have changed. Photos from the 1960's would be better to use.
To erase all of the vegetations in a mountainscape, could they have possibly used SAR synthetic aperture radar? SAR shows no vegetation and would show up the same as rocks because the radar reflections are so similar. This is what I've heard from HBs.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 26, 2009 23:53:11 GMT -4
This is what I've heard from HBs. Well there's your problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on May 27, 2009 1:08:14 GMT -4
It is known that these areas are geologically unstable. So , the gradiant may have changed. Photos from the 1960's would be better to use.Not believing every crackpot theory you hear from some HB, read on some ridiculous CT website, or watch on some ludicrous YouTube video would actually be a much better thing... Cz |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on May 27, 2009 3:41:19 GMT -4
It is known that these areas are geologically unstable. So , the gradiant may have changed. Photos from the 1960's would be better to use. To erase all of the vegetations in a mountainscape, could they have possibly used SAR synthetic aperture radar? SAR shows no vegetation and would show up the same as rocks because the radar reflections are so similar. This is what I've heard from HBs. So...You are saying that there is absolutely no way that you can prove that the features are the same. I thought so. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 27, 2009 7:27:59 GMT -4
To erase all of the vegetations in a mountainscape, could they have possibly used SAR synthetic aperture radar? SAR shows no vegetation and would show up the same as rocks because the radar reflections are so similar. This is what I've heard from HBs. It's amazing that HBs will quite happily suggest such complex scenarios. They used SAR to image the mountiains, but quite clearly used video to record the astronauts in the foreground. Then they somehow knitted together the SAR and video outputs in real time. How is that simpler than actually going to the Moon, or finding a landscape with no vegetation in the background to begin with? A hill looks like a hill. Well whoopee. Given that they are formed by pretty similar mechanisms, why should that be a surprise? |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on May 27, 2009 11:04:21 GMT -4
What would really make the whole scenario complete would be finding out the alleged TV crew while using the SAR were all infected with SARS which they got from drinking from the same can of Sars. Perhaps that would also account for the lack of sars (sic) in the photos?
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 27, 2009 12:11:36 GMT -4
What would really make the whole scenario complete would be finding out the alleged TV crew while using the SAR were all infected with SARS which they got from drinking from the same can of Sars. Perhaps that would also account for the lack of sars (sic) in the photos?  Wiping my monitor clean and hoping my boss wasn't nearby. |
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on May 28, 2009 5:46:29 GMT -4
It is known that these areas are geologically unstable. So , the gradiant may have changed. Photos from the 1960's would be better to use. To erase all of the vegetations in a mountainscape, could they have possibly used SAR synthetic aperture radar? SAR shows no vegetation and would show up the same as rocks because the radar reflections are so similar. This is what I've heard from HBs. Inconceivable - i agree - maybe the landscapes have changed, and maybe a photo from the 60's would be more helpfull. Unfortunately, the pictures shown as they are, will not convince anyone - other than people who want to be convinced. If anyone still disagrees, i'd recommend (in fact encourage) they research the location (if possible), and search for some older photos. If i felt that strongly about it, that's what i'd do. |
|
