Originally posted by astronomine
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?
OP here. I did not get involved with the reason that Alan Bean may have used his boot print on that particular painting or on his other artworks.
What I tried to get across was that when I read that section of the book and looked at the painting in the book with the caption, something triggered
a memory and that was that the image in the painting RESEMBLED to me the image of a footprint on the moon. Since neither Hoagland nor Bara specified
that Bean had used his bootprint, I had no reason to suspect anything and I thought my matching the footprint image with the bootprint was quite a
feat of detective work.
IF H&B had mentioned in the book that it was their assumption that Bean had used his bootprint to unconciously indicate that what he was trying to do
was cryptically tell us that this is what he saw on the moon, I would not have bothered researching. But they failed to do this even though they
included Bean's website in the back of the book. I don't bother with sources unless something said in the book requires verification.
Bara has made a big deal about my views on his DARK MISSION blog and no matter how I tried to tell him that he and Hoagland made an error of omission,
he won't admit that leaving out this vital information makes the reader not aware of their intent.
And to those who credit Hoagland with this and that, I've always found his lunar claims to be without merit.
His "castle" hanging 9 miles in the air is pure b.s. Overhead high-resolution Lunar Orbiter photos do not show such a structure and I don't accept
that NASA airbrushed them out. In the appropriate L.O. photos a similar looking NATURAL feature can be seen and it was just the time of day that the
phot was taken that gives it such illumination. There are other similar looking photos where a far-off natural feature SEEMS to be in the air instead
of just sitting on the dark lunar surface.
His b.s. UKERT CRATER claims also. He uses photos taken from earth-bound telescopes to tell us that the crater has some meaning becauseof the
triangular center peak. Again, L.O. photos show a natural looking much smaller center peak.
His "L.A." area is, again, major b.s. It's just nothing but lunar surface. There is no city remnants there and it doesn't look like there ever
was a city there.
His straight shaft in Mare Crisium is, again, based on awfully-reproduced photos. He selects highly contrasted, awfully reproduced photos to make his
claims when all kinds of high resolution photos of the same areas exist. He wouldn't be able to make his claims if he used the high res photos for
they show nothing but good ol' Luna.
And, finally, for his crystalline structures, etc., claims as seen on NASA photos: b.s.! Look at the photos he uses. Over-exposed, multi-enhanced.
And, the photos were gained using emulsion film resulting in negatives and prints. And as an old-time photographer (since the 1950s) the one thing I
know for a fact and that is that negatives and prints are processed by machines and those machines scratch the hell out of the negs and prints. When
you enhance these multi-handled negs and prints you wind up with crystalline structures! Yeah, right.
I'm not a Hoagland or Bara enthusiast. Bara has a Lunar Anomalies website that I laugh at and for what he claims he is as far as his work, past and
present, he has one of the worst attitudes which others have commented upon.
I don't accept bull# and they supply it beyond mondo.