Deuems Research Findings

[Deuem Profile]

there are some stills in here Id love to see analysed..

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Moon_Images_Menu.html#1


http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS14_66_9279/AS14-66-9279.jpg

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS14_66_9295/AS14-66-9295_b.jpg

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS12_48_7071/AS12-48-7071.jpg

Hi phaeton,
Here is some work on the visor reflection photo you requested.

In this first photo the white has been pushed to the limit and dramatically shows of the light plume surrounding the Astronaut. This plume extends onto the background very evenly. I can not explain it with the sun nor an extra light. There is no way a light source would do that. It has to be a problem with the digitized or scanned photo. Light leaking in or something. Sorry but I am lost for a better explanation.

Photo 1 - white pushed


In the next photo I ran the Deuem process on the original print and you can see the results below.
Photo 2, Deuem processed


I did some on line research on this photo and there was an instance where a researcher said the top shadow/light marks on his helmet visor looked like a light can. The kind they use on stage. I guess you are wondering if that is correct or not. First of all I can not find a light source from that area so if it is a can, it must be off. What I did find is that the helmet cover seems to be bent up pretty bad right over that spot. The 2 black dots are mine. I masked out the 100% white, then I turned off the rest of the high white to see what would happen. If you look at the top of his head on the right there is something wrong there. The cover is upset quite a lot. It is possible that there is an overhang of this material that is causing the reflection you are talking about. It would prove interesting if you could locate several more photos of him and look at this section for problems. Underneath is a glass helmet, so this is the cover we are talking about. If the reflection you are pointing out is not associated with the helmet cover then it is coming from off photo. In that case it would be rather large. I will keep an open mind on that one. The other shadows in the visor left are the 2 Astronauts and some gear. They appear to be correct and I see nothing wrong yet. They follow the suns light and curved to match the visor.

Photo 3 White omitted


So I will ask for you to research the helmet problem and see if you can find a match to the problem. Did I answer all of your questions, if not remind me and I will take another look around. Thanks

Deuem

Much obliged for you efforts Deuem.
Im gasping for enough time to research these inconsistencies, I seem to not be able to limit my interest to one specific aspect - anomaly - like these moon pics..

Could you link us to [some parts of] your toolset? The software you use to analyze these photo's? That would kickstart my efforts effectively, I do think.

Both you and Welcomechange asked this question.

Most of the programs I use are off the shelf or free online. All except DEUEM which is propitiatory software written in house and has never been released to anyone. Even if released it, it would need a users manual to go with it and I never wrote one. But that is just one.

In the photo above with just the helmet and the white removed, that is done through photo shop. Image>adjust>select color, remove white. pretty simple to do. I also use the standard Microsoft Office Picture manager. Snapshot, xVST from DTV, Falco Gif Animator, edit divX and Auto Cad for the Math.

All my movies are made with power point then converted to flash or AVI. It just takes time to do this. many hours need to be lost in the work. A movie can take 100 hours, just for a few minutes depending on what is in it. A photo can take from minutes to hours depending on the complexity.

Learn to use what you have been taught in other trades to the best of your ability in your own research is a big key. Think of it as, every thing you have done up to this moment is training for what you are going to do next. That works for me. Maybe you have training you can cross over and you never tried. Like I did with the Math program. I never used that program to study photos but it worked. If you are real good at Excel then you can crunch some numbers and make pie charts and post the results. Good at Inventory Control, chase down the components that make up a space suit and calculate the costs and run against other suits. Just use your best talents to your favor.

There are a lot of good JPEG Free programs on line to use. Go get one or buy one.

I have also done some of my best work with just a piece of transparent paper, ruler, calculator, marker and my computer screen. It is a way of calculating distance, size and trails for almost free. You can then scan it and post it.

When ever I write an article like this one I usually write it in Word Processing and then copy and paste it to the forum. That includes the links to photos and gifs. Do it off line first. Look it over then paste it to the forum.

One more trick, I have at least 20 or so A5 spiral notebooks hanging around. On the cover of each is a topic of my interest. If I see anything of interest I will write it down in its book for later. Web page, article, photo number, what ever is needed to get back to it again. These books become a library of my interests.

For phaeton. Just pick 1 item, and go for it. The rest will wait. If you get scattered all over the place you might miss the opportunity to do one thing you love. Put aside a few hours and run one item. When doing research you have to turn off the world till you are done. The world wants to interfere with you. Just keep it waiting at the door while you work. Pick a time when no one will bother you. Start with something simple and then move up. Try to gif 2 photos. Remember they have to be less than 700 pixels wide for the forum. That is where Microsoft Office Picture manager comes in. Size your photos than gif them. If you down load Falco, it has a lot of functions for you to use. Join a free online photo web site like IMGUR or Photobucket. Place your work there and then copy the IMG information to the forum."[img]place_photo_info_here[/img]"
Easy to do and very quick.

Most of all, never stop asking questions and keep an open mind.
Deuem

[Phaeton Profile]

Both you and Welcomechange asked this question.

Most of the programs I use are off the shelf or free online. All except DEUEM which is propitiatory software written in house and has never been released to anyone. Even if released it, it would need a users manual to go with it and I never wrote one. But that is just one.

In the photo above with just the helmet and the white removed, that is done through photo shop. Image>adjust>select color, remove white. pretty simple to do. I also use the standard Microsoft Office Picture manager. Snapshot, xVST from DTV, Falco Gif Animator, edit divX and Auto Cad for the Math.

All my movies are made with power point then converted to flash or AVI. It just takes time to do this. many hours need to be lost in the work. A movie can take 100 hours, just for a few minutes depending on what is in it. A photo can take from minutes to hours depending on the complexity.

Learn to use what you have been taught in other trades to the best of your ability in your own research is a big key. Think of it as, every thing you have done up to this moment is training for what you are going to do next. That works for me. Maybe you have training you can cross over and you never tried. Like I did with the Math program. I never used that program to study photos but it worked. If you are real good at Excel then you can crunch some numbers and make pie charts and post the results. Good at Inventory Control, chase down the components that make up a space suit and calculate the costs and run against other suits. Just use your best talents to your favor.

There are a lot of good JPEG Free programs on line to use. Go get one or buy one.

I have also done some of my best work with just a piece of transparent paper, ruler, calculator, marker and my computer screen. It is a way of calculating distance, size and trails for almost free. You can then scan it and post it.

When ever I write an article like this one I usually write it in Word Processing and then copy and paste it to the forum. That includes the links to photos and gifs. Do it off line first. Look it over then paste it to the forum.

One more trick, I have at least 20 or so A5 spiral notebooks hanging around. On the cover of each is a topic of my interest. If I see anything of interest I will write it down in its book for later. Web page, article, photo number, what ever is needed to get back to it again. These books become a library of my interests.

For phaeton. Just pick 1 item, and go for it. The rest will wait. If you get scattered all over the place you might miss the opportunity to do one thing you love. Put aside a few hours and run one item. When doing research you have to turn off the world till you are done. The world wants to interfere with you. Just keep it waiting at the door while you work. Pick a time when no one will bother you. Start with something simple and then move up. Try to gif 2 photos. Remember they have to be less than 700 pixels wide for the forum. That is where Microsoft Office Picture manager comes in. Size your photos than gif them. If you down load Falco, it has a lot of functions for you to use. Join a free online photo web site like IMGUR or Photobucket. Place your work there and then copy the IMG information to the forum."[img]place_photo_info_here[/img]"
Easy to do and very quick.

Most of all, never stop asking questions and keep an open mind.
Deuem

Duly noted and much appreciated.
I will plan this in as soon as Im able to.
Im affraid you wont find an anlysis from me any time soon. Id first have to familiarize myself with the named software. Might take a couple of weeks if not more, seeing the limited time I have.

[Welcomechange Profile]

"The world wants to interfere with you. Just keep it waiting at the door while you work. Pick a time when no one will bother you."

That is so the same with art Ive dabbled in photoshop started off with corel then tried Serif, i do prefer ps but serif page plus is super simple to use but more the illustration side.

not sure if you can see my avatar but it started on ps then i painted it on canvas with acrylic then put it back on photoshop to tweak-yes i love pscs5 (again)

[Deuem Profile]

From phaeton:
Duly noted and much appreciated.
I will plan this in as soon as Im able to.
Im afraid you wont find an anlysis from me any time soon. I'd first have to familiarize myself with the named software. Might take a couple of weeks if not more, seeing the limited time I have.

Take your time and start small and build up from there. In no time at all you will start to show results. Think of it, as giving yourself an education. Self schooling in the art of researching.

From welcomechange
That is so the same with art Ive dabbled in photoshop started off with corel then tried Serif, I do prefer ps but serif page plus is super simple to use but more the illustration side. Not sure if you can see my avatar but it started on ps then I painted it on canvas with acrylic ( I miss doing this ) then put it back on photoshop to tweak-yes I love pscs5 (again )

You guys are lucky to have the latest software. Corel will also work well. Any of these types of photo programs can get you started. I would have to use PS, ACAD or Power point for illustrations, all of which are more then 10 years old. By the way, today your avatar did not show up on my screen. It could be me. Working here has its internet problems. The internet today is so slow I can watch a program load. Ever since they added the cameras on line, a great deal of people sit on the net for hours on end chatting to family far away. The band width gets sucked up fast and we have to fit through the cracks.

Good luck to both of you on your adventures.
Deuem

[Jetski Profile]

Thanks for your help and kind words. Oh, and I'm looking forward to reading the story behind the pyramid. (I did wonder why you had added that your pyramids sitting on your desk will start a conversation, lol. I had a feeling there was a story behind them but thought it might be a tad rude to ask.)

Have a nice day/night, whichever it is with you!

The simple version of the story started with an English friend of mine that stopped by the office to have a few beers. (at night) and we got into talking about the pyramids. He told me he just saw a video about how they might have used an interior ramp to get the stones in place. We are talking about the 2 million stones and not the chamber stones. I was reluctant on the idea because of all the corning involved but said inside should be cheaper than outside. After a few beers he looked at me and said " Ok, your an Engineer and have designed and built buildings, How would you do it?" Interesting, no one had ever asked me to figure that one out before. I know there has been many Engineers explain it in hundreds of ways but I said " I would use water. Why not they had the Nile to work with." That stopped him for a minute. Neither of us had seen a plan for water. Maybe they are out there, I don't know. So I used some time and drew some sketches on my blackboard of how I thought it was done. The drawings were left on the board for several days and later seen by a student and then the paper pyramid started. As for my research on how to do it, I did start to draw up my idea. Rather it would work or not would depend on how to float a block. I do not have that data. We all have heard that they floated them down the Nile. What I need is the smallest possible container that would make it float and I could go from there to finish the work. Of course if I was in Egypt, I wold just try it. They say they needed 1 per minute. But 80% of the pyramid in in the lower 30% so the work had to be faster at the bottom and slow way down at the top. The system I designed would follow that rule. I am sorry I will not release it as of yet. I might get cut up into pieces and deserve it. Without all of the functions bullet proof I could look foolish. If you can make an ocean going freighter out of concrete, we can float a rock. Need to work on displacement. Maybe one of the readers is better at that part and can help out.
Deuem:cheers:

Hi Deuem. Thanks for sharing that story. You sure do know your stuff. I'd definitely be interested in hearing, or reading rather, the results of any experiment you undertake in the future regarding the pyramids. Good Luck!

[Deuem Profile]

Hi Deuem. Thanks for sharing that story. You sure do know your stuff. I'd definitely be interested in hearing, or reading rather, the results of any experiment you undertake in the future regarding the pyramids. Good Luck!

No problem Jetski, I did start to do a functional Cad layout of the Pyramid blocks for the first 2 levels. There are 210 levels. On the first few levels there is a mountain top or stone hill that the great pyramid was built upon. No one know exactly how large or tall it is inside the building. But all of my math is worked out as if it was not there and just a flat stone foundation. So far I calculated and drew in 18,700 blocks for the first level. I am having difficulty laying in the second level so that it would be structural all around. Not knowing exactly how they placed the blocks can either give you a load bearing surface or nothing. With the angle of 52 degrees it will take some time to figure out. No matter how I lay it out the corners, they are weak. They would have needed a different stone inside the corners to make sense. Maybe I also need the 10 years they took to figure it out. I can imagine that some guy must have had a few hundred miniature wooden blocks on his desk for a long time. Trying all sorts of layouts. With today's tech, we can do this with a drafting board or Computer Cad programs. I imagine they had neither. Somewhere they had to model or draw this first. If I had to do this with out CAD, I would make models, maybe several hundred of them. One model for every blueprint I would do today. On a building this big, today the Architect would have models made for the owner to approve. At least the final product and maybe the 2 chambers. They could either be real or 3D projections. Since most likely all the models were made of wood, they are long gone or given to children to play with as toys.
Deuem

[Deuem Profile]

Back to NASA for a quick post.

I feel very sorry for the Astronauts at NASA. It seems like the entire world of fools are on a witch hunt with out any rules. I constantly run into people that make stuff up just to get their 15 minutes of fame. They say fantastic things and print garbage with technical terms and names so the average Mr/Mrs Joe Smith can't refute it. The old saying, " If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit." This seem to be the way of these people. They just make it up. Give you a show, they bow, take your money or applause and leave laughing.

In this latest one I have found. I can't believe what I see. There is a video on Boobtube that claims a photo is wrong and they have a Physicist state all sorts of facts and figures saying how wrong it is. When most people listen they will believe him because he says he is a Physicist. Wow, I am impressed all ready just by his title. First clue, just because he is a Physicist does not mean he knows anymore about photos than you do. He does not have a doctorate in photography.

This is the photo I am talking about. As you watch the vid, keep it in mind.


The videos title is "Apollo Moon Hoax, Dr David Groves Analysis" He claims to be a smart guy. You decide. Run the video first.


In this video there are a couple of photos.




In the first photo he is trying to show you that the center line of the Astronaut is over his left leg.
In the second photo a workup of his to show the camera height position.

I am sorry that I don't have enough time to post all of the pictures needed to show what is really happening. If Buzz calls me I will send them to him. In the beginning of this thread I posted many photos of how I get to the Math of the photo. Also how I can determine the distance of an object in a photo if at least one dimension is known.

When you look at the photo you see cross hairs. They are part of that camera. Printed in the interior optics. If you took that camera and turned it 45 degrees to the right or left and clicked a photo, the cross hairs stay with the camera and turn with it. Anything in the photo would look like it was falling over but in reality it was the camera. The cross hairs do not balance out to the horizon, they are fixed. This photo was taken when the camera was tilted to the left by 13 degrees. Everything in the photo is off the cameras perpendicular by that amount. If you want the photo to be perpendicular, you must rotate it clockwise by 13 degrees. When rotating the photo by 13 degrees you will see that the horizon comes true and the Astronaut is now more realistic. If you draw a line from the center of his visor to the center of his crotch after rotating you will see that he is standing straight up and down to the ground towards the camera.

The center line of his helmet visor is approximately 4.4 meters from the camera lens. His feet are at 4.86 meters from the lens. This puts him on an angle of 23 degrees. He is leaning forward. Taking a step. His head is closer by 300mm.

I have calculated that they are on the same plane. Meaning the height is almost the same but the ground is not perfectly level as you can see in the photo. If you take a section plane through the photo at his visor, that photo plane is 3.3 meters square. The very bottom of the photo is 2.2 meters away from the camera lens.

All in all I can not find anything wrong with this photo. The math did take a lot of time to do but was very conclusive. This is something you can do yourself if you wish. As always rather the photo is from the Moon or not is up to you. All I am saying is that the information these guys are shoveling out is bogus. It is so bad that NASA does not even want to refute it. So the incredible words coming out of this guys mouth I can't believe. He stated that Neil did not take the photo. The camera was 2 feet higher than it should be. All bogus statements. It is very simple. Neil pointed the camera towards the ground to try and get the LM leg in the photo with Buzz. If you look at it like I do, Neil almost got a perfect photo but he missed the top of Buzzes suit and only got a portion of the LM pad. You will also notice that they did crop the photo in their favor, they darkened it and never rotated it.

We live in a world of people that lie to us and have fun doing it. Rather NASA is real or fake does not matter when I do one of these. It could have gone either way and I would have posted it if I agreed with him. I am beginning to dislike these guys. They could not even begin to do the work that NASA does but they sit back like Monday afternoon quarterbacks and say what is wrong. Using big words and Doctor titles is nothing to me anymore. I could care less who they are, I just want to see work I can back up and duplicate. When you find out it is a deliberate fake, it does take out a lot of hopes. They will call me a shill, a hoaxer, a con artist but I can't imagine why. It seems that when you are right you are wrong.

I would be more than happy to meet with this Mr. Groves and go over all the Math with him. As long as there was a neutral party doing the judging. I am sorry Mr Groves, but I could not back up anything you said.

Deuem

[Deuem Profile]

This is the workup I did from Savs thread on the moon. I am archiving it here also. There were a lot of these X shapes on the photo. I worked the shape and the results are below.

All of the data pushes towards that the X is not right on the surface but above it. The light patterns are concealing the main object which seems to be 3 items. 2 orbs out in front followed by a ship.

Yes I well understand that this X can be almost anything. If you let your mind wonder a bit, what can you make out? If I wonder into the Sci-Fi world these are the results.


A different view of the X.
1) the photo
2) close up in Deuem
3) Deuem mid range process
4) Drawing made to match light patterns

Maybe not an X ?

Deuem

[Jetski Profile]

Hi Deuem. Thanks for sharing that story. You sure do know your stuff. I'd definitely be interested in hearing, or reading rather, the results of any experiment you undertake in the future regarding the pyramids. Good Luck!

No problem Jetski, I did start to do a functional Cad layout of the Pyramid blocks for the first 2 levels. There are 210 levels. On the first few levels there is a mountain top or stone hill that the great pyramid was built upon. No one know exactly how large or tall it is inside the building. But all of my math is worked out as if it was not there and just a flat stone foundation. So far I calculated and drew in 18,700 blocks for the first level. I am having difficulty laying in the second level so that it would be structural all around. Not knowing exactly how they placed the blocks can either give you a load bearing surface or nothing. With the angle of 52 degrees it will take some time to figure out. No matter how I lay it out the corners, they are weak. They would have needed a different stone inside the corners to make sense. Maybe I also need the 10 years they took to figure it out. I can imagine that some guy must have had a few hundred miniature wooden blocks on his desk for a long time. Trying all sorts of layouts. With today's tech, we can do this with a drafting board or Computer Cad programs. I imagine they had neither. Somewhere they had to model or draw this first. If I had to do this with out CAD, I would make models, maybe several hundred of them. One model for every blueprint I would do today. On a building this big, today the Architect would have models made for the owner to approve. At least the final product and maybe the 2 chambers. They could either be real or 3D projections. Since most likely all the models were made of wood, they are long gone or given to children to play with as toys.
Deuem

*Bumpety Bump*
Hi Deuem,

Very interesting to say the least. I have to admit too, I really hadn't taken much interest in the Pyramids until I came on this site. Since then I've learnt a whole lot regarding them, thanks to you.

[Deuem Profile]

Very interesting to say the least. I have to admit too, I really hadn't taken much interest in the Pyramids until I came on this site. Since then I've learnt a whole lot regarding them, thanks to you.

Hi Jetski, The best movie I have seen lately on the Pyramids is called " The Revelation of the Pyramids" Must be seen in HD if possible. Finally a movie for Engineers. Nuggets would love it also. Don't miss this one. Rather you agree or not will be up to you but the way they lay out the film is great. If you watch it, let me know. I don't want to give it away.

You should have told Nuggets if you were on a PC or Mac. They have different ways of doing things.

Deuem: