It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another "nail" in Hoagland's "coffin"! - Hoagland makes HUGE mistake in assumption.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Title: Another "nail" in Hoagland's "coffin"! - Hoagland makes HUGE mistake in assumption.

This is for the record to confirm my discovery.

I'm reading Richard C. Hoagland's and Mike Bara's book "DARK MISSION: THE SECRET HISTORY OF NASA" which I borrowed from the public library. I'm presently on Chapter Four, page 171, and Hoagland has been talking about his alleged discoveries/findings of crystalline structures above the surface of the Moon and which, he alleges, appear in photos taken by Orbiters and astronauts. He particularly mentions astronaut Alan Bean who after retiring from NASA has become an acclaimed artist. Hoagland says that Bean paints real events and "imagined depictions" of his fellow astronauts doing things they didn't get to do on the "real" Moon. Hoagland points out that Bean paints a black lunar sky when imagining and when he paints memories of his own visit to the Moon he paints the sky in an odd bluish tone "we have come to expect from all the 'shattered, geometric glass' in the un-retouched surface images to which we've now had access."

Hoagland continues on page 162: "Of all Bean's fascinating paintings, one in particular stands out above the others. Titled 'Rock 'n Roll om the Ocean of Storms,' [sic] it depicts Bean and the Mission Commander, Pete Conrad, horse-playing on the surface of the Moon. Not only does it display the bright, refractive color scheme which has become the hallmark of the Bean-interpretation of the lunar surface - the sky above the astronauts unmistakably depicts not only Hoagland's 'battered lunar dome' but its specifically 'inclined buttresses' as well." The painting is shown in the color photo section as Color Fig. 12 with this caption: "'Rock and Roll on the Ocean of Storms' [sic] by astronaut Alan Bean (left). Note pink lunar regolith and 'structured reflecting slanted, inclined buttresses seen in Apollo 14 frame AS14-66-9301 from Ken Johnston collection (right)."

Well folks, when I saw the painting and what Hoagland calls "structured reflecting slanted, inclined buttresses" the "buttresses" triggered something in my memory and I searched my sources (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazines I was looking at this afternoon and my NASA lunar books yesterday) and I realized that I had caught Hoagland in a big blunder. You see, those "buttresses" in the painting are NOT "structured reflecting slanted, inclined buttresses" but an astronaut's lunar footprint! Alan Bean painted the iconic image as a "transparent" (no pun intended) background to the main images of the astronauts on the lunar surface.

I will bring this to Hoagland's and Bara's attention so that they can get ready to eat crow [Eating crow is an English idiom meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proven wrong after taking a strong position].

I do not see a box to upload the 2 photos so just go to Alan Beans art gallery and look for the painting and then use google images to find the astronaut lunar footprint, the full footprint.

I love debunking!

Skeptical Ed

P.S. I posted this on another forum and NASA spokesman Jim Oberg replied that I was correct except that Alan Bean did not paint the footprint on the painting, he took his astronaut lunar boot and pressed it onto the painting possibly leaving a little bit of lunar dust on the canvas.




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Here is Rock 'N' Roll on the Ocean of Storms. Other pieces from his "Ocean of Storms" have the footprint in them as well.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
How is this a “nail in Hoagland’s coffin”? Let’s assume that you are correct; and that the painting is nothing more than an astronaut’s footprint, all this really proves is that he misinterpreted a work of art. This is supposed to discount over a quarter of a century of investigations? Really? This post speaks to your rushed assumptions of Hoagland and it indicated that your overwhelming need to be ‘skeptical’ has clouded your ability to process data. IMO you seemed to be a poor investigator if you’re jumping to conclusions this quickly. According to Hoagland’s own admissions this is not an exact science (we are assuming that you are correct, I’ll give you that). I admire Hoagland and Bara as well as the countless people that are aiding him in his personal quest to reveal what he believes is the truth. Hoagland goes about what he does scientifically, he formulates his theory, and then he builds a testable model to strengthen it. You should try a similar system, perhaps more people will take you seriously. BTW, I am in no way in line with all of Hoagland’s thoughts, I simply feel that he has provided more than his fair share of quantifiable models and deserves a better detractor than yourself.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
For those who are interested in looking at more of Alan Bean's paintings, this is his gallery online. Well worth a look, his work is both interesting and beautiful. (I bet some of you also will notice the color of the moon behind Alan Bean in the welcome page):

www.alanbeangallery.com...

It is also correct that Alan Bean often uses the the imprint of an astronaut boot to create texture in his paintings.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ziggystar60]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Those who think outside the box tend to make bigger mistakes... but also bigger breakthroughs. One misinterpretation is hardly a "nail in the coffin" considering the other stuff he's discovered. Still, good find though. Bravo.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Hardly a 'nail in the coffin'. You're talking about paintings here. I smell a troll. please move to Skunkworks. Its getting stinky round here.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Thanks for the link Ziggy, good stuff.

It’s been sometime since I finished Dark Mission but if I recall correctly the authors were not trying to use Bean’s artwork as proof of their theory. I believe they were noticing the choice of colors Bean used (along with transcripts of the mission) to purpose the theory that the Moon’s hypothetical glass domes effected the astronaut’s perception of the lunar surface. They found it to be coincidental that he painted in the same pastel colors that one of the astronauts (I can’t remember who he was but I will look it up) claimed to see. The authors also offered Bean’s paintings as POSSIBLE evidence of subconscious manipulation or hypnotic suggestion enabling the astronauts to forget key parts of the mission. I do not remember Hoagland or Bara using Bean’s art to strengthen the argument of lunar structures.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
Those who think outside the box tend to make bigger mistakes... but also bigger breakthroughs. One misinterpretation is hardly a "nail in the coffin" considering the other stuff he's discovered.


What exactly has he discovered, again?

Hoagland hasn't made just one misinterpretation; he has made false claim after false claim. The one that sticks out most prominent in my mind is his claim that there would be a major landings in the late 1990s.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDarkHorse
Hoagland goes about what he does scientifically, he formulates his theory, and then he builds a testable model to strengthen it.


Key words to remember - Model & Theory. Neither of them equal the Truth. They are just jazzy word substitutes for Assumption.

The only true testable model is to go back to the moon and take clear, hi-res pictures of it (if it does indeed exist) to share with the entire scientific community.

I don't believe everything Hoagland says just like we should never believe everything the average Joe says. But one important thing to remember is that Hoagland has books to sell, (that's how he earns a crust). We all want to make more money and the way Hoagland achieves that (or any other author in these esoteric fields of study) is to up the ante, push the limits and be controversial. If you know a better way to sell a book, let me know!

Hoagland also does it another way. Just listen to C2C. Whenever he is booked as a speaker at a conference, he comes on air and alludes to some new 'finding' or "proof that will blow your mind" that he won't disclose on air because he wants you to pay your entrance fee (which he gets a percentage of).

Dark Mission = Buyer Beware!
(It's the first law of Hyper-Dimensional Physics


Edit to fix my plethora of typos

[edit on 8/7/08 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by TheDarkHorse
Hoagland goes about what he does scientifically, he formulates his theory, and then he builds a testable model to strengthen it.


Key words to remember - Model & Theory. Neither of them equal the Truth. They are just jazzy word substitutes for Assumption.

That’s exactly what I said. The reality is; Hoagland (nor any of us for that matter) are in a position to PROVE anything. How can we? I haven’t gone to the Moon; I haven’t gone to Mars, have you? I personally applaud Hoagland for his efforts, especially in the face of people who seem to want to jump on his every ‘prediction’ as proof of his dishonesty. I also credit Hoagland for discovering evidence that NASA has tempered with images before they were released to the public. Dark Mission goes into great detail of these events. It’s insane to think that every single theory will proven, that’s a standard that is unattainable. I’m just glad that he and others are out there, doing the hard research so that people like us can have friendly debates about it. New ideas open new doors, regardless of whether or not they prove to be fact. I also believe that Hoagland serves as a voice of accountability for NASA. I think that is a great service to the public.


[edit on 8-7-2008 by TheDarkHorse]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Can't blaim a man for making a living. If just 1% of what he says is true, then it is worth every penny he charges.

I don't understand why people have to have such an "in your face" attitude about a discovery. Bring it to his attention but you don't have to smear his nose like a dog in poo.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDarkHorse
 


Yeah, I'm more than happy to submit to that. He has kept NAZA accountable for a few things over the years. As I said " I don't believe everything". That doesn't equate to "Nothing" so I'm with you on those points 100% TDH!

But... the points I make about selling books and making money are valid and always things to keep in mind when weighing up the probabilities.

IRM



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bismarcksea
Can't blaim a man for making a living. If just 1% of what he says is true, then it is worth every penny he charges.

If 99% of what he says is shown to be bull, then you probably shouldn't trust the other 1% either. In fact, if even a significant amount is conclusively shown to be bull then I wouldn't trust the rest either unless someone else with integrity supported it with real evidence. What's the old saying? Fool me once... Hoagland once had me fooled about the infamous "face" - never again.


I don't understand why people have to have such an "in your face" attitude about a discovery. Bring it to his attention but you don't have to smear his nose like a dog in poo.

Since his claim essentially accuses the astronaut of lying about his experiences for almost 40 years and secretly telling the truth in paintings, it seems justified to be "in his face" when his accusation is shown to be false.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

What's the old saying? Fool me once... Hoagland once had me fooled about the infamous "face" - never again
You may want to look into NASA and JPL for misleading you on the infamous face. Why was the "new" images of the face altered befor national release? Why alter something if you have nothing to hide? Even if it is a pile of rocks, why distort the image? Now for the record, I am not saying the face is more than a pile of rocks, I am just pointing this out as a possible motive for Hoagland's conviction.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDarkHorse
You may want to look into NASA and JPL for misleading you on the infamous face. Why was the "new" images of the face altered befor national release? Why alter something if you have nothing to hide? Even if it is a pile of rocks, why distort the image? Now for the record, I am not saying the face is more than a pile of rocks, I am just pointing this out as a possible motive for Hoagland's conviction.

They "manipulate" every single image that comes in to make it viewable by the general public (pretty good reason to "alter" something without hiding anything if you ask me), and in the case of E03-00824 they also altered it by rotating it for map projection. Such "manipulation" does not equate to wrongdoing. In the case of E03-00824 though, they also released the completely unmanipulated (and to most non-experts 'useless') raw image data:
www.msss.com...
Here's the same image, processed to 8 bits, in lossy jpg format:
www.msss.com...
So, why release the unprocessed unmanipulated raw data if you have something to hide?

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Understood, and I agree with your point. However, would you agree that there is quite a difference between “altering” an image to make it more aesthetically pleasing and “distorting” an image to intentionally misrepresent data?

I invite you to take a look at a couple of different sources for my conclusion.

Site one

and also


Site two

As you can see, I appreciate your stance on a raw image vs. a clean image but this in my opinion was intentionally done to misrepresent was is actually there. I am not about to speculate on what is really there. I simply do not know and it appears that NASA and JPL prefer it that way.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDarkHorse
Understood, and I agree with your point. However, would you agree that there is quite a difference between “altering” an image to make it more aesthetically pleasing and “distorting” an image to intentionally misrepresent data?

I have yet to see a single shred of proof that they distorted the image. Your sites, however, do just that.


Site one

Different picture than the one I mentioned above, which incidently was taken from a much higher viewing angle later in the mission. No "orthorectification" processing required. And incidently, these people are flat out lying when they say they added no data to the image. Orthorectification requires a digital elevation model, which cannot be obtained from any single image. It requires at least two images in a stereo pair to generate a 3d map of the terrain to rectify the image.

How did your friends magically pull this off with just one 2d image? They claim to have used the voyager image as their second image. The voyager image was taken with MUCH more divergence than is desireable for a stereo pair and is a MUCH lower resolution image taken in completely different lighting conditions. The two images are completely incompatible for this kind of analysis and so their processing is flawed from the start. They even admitted that matching the points between the two images suffered from a "lack of precision" - the entire thing is laughable.


and also
Site two

They make the claim that it was "processed through two filters" without ever mentioning what those filters are and without properly citing their claim. "Documented at a JPL site" isn't a proper citation. It also wouldn't apply to the raw image I already provided you with. You failed to specify what image you were referring to originally, and sure enough this is a different image than the one I was talking about; you were nonspecific in your original claim which was that images were processed before release. The image they're talking about can be found in its original raw form here, no filters were applied before publishing:
ida2.wr.usgs.gov...
I believe you'll find that the enhancements they did to the raw image brought out features, it didn't hide them. This site claims that the raw image showed too much artificiallity and that's why they processed it. Wrong.


As you can see, I appreciate your stance on a raw image vs. a clean image but this in my opinion was intentionally done to misrepresent was is actually there.

I provided you with the raw image. You originally claimed they didn't publish the raw data, now you've moved the goalposts to claiming that the raw image "misrepresents" what is there. Which do you want? A raw image or a distorted image looking to support a confirmation bias?


I am not about to speculate on what is really there. I simply do not know and it appears that NASA and JPL prefer it that way.

Neither NASA nor JPL have done anything that would prevent you from knowing what is there.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Nice job ngchunter! You have provided what appears to be a well researched and well informed rebuttal. You have also opened my eyes as I haven’t the expertise in image processing required to refute your data. This is why I love this site, thanks to you I can now research with a little more understanding of the process. You get your deserved respect. I'll see you in the next debate.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Lunatick
 


talking about stuff on the moon huh?


here's some knowledge for ya...

video.google.com...

and some vid. action for fun
www.youtube.com...


the moon=alien base

ok bye



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Another possible interpretation of the bootprint...

As was stated earlier in a previous post, the boot was used to create textures. Perhaps this is why he (Bean) may have used the patterns on his shoe to emulate the slants he saw in the sky.

And to the OP, besides the slanted buttresses, what about the hyper-color matching Hoagland's explanation of the colors on the moon?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join