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

I dont get it.
When I Read the first title post of this thread I didnt even scroll down to get the link to the picture that was refered to. instead I searched it on the internet myself in a hurry to see what the op was talking about.
As soon as I saw it and tried to relate it to what the op was talking about I was confused.
Honestly all I saw and continue to see is a superimposed footprint of the space boot in the lunar soil, a rather famous photograph recreated here in these works of art.
Then I scroll down and see people had allready came to the same conclusion.

reply to post by Lunatick

You're just kicking a corps. NASA has already rendered Hoagland incompetent by zooming in on his beloved pet "Face on Mars," which turned out to be what everyone in his/her right mind knew it was: a natural mesa.

NASA is a government agency, but when it speaks the truth, the conspirators scramble for ear-plugs. Who do you think supply the "evidence" for alternative explanation to those who loved to get themselves fooled? There are not too many, let me tell you.

I know that Hoagland will recover from his humiliation and will continue to offer "hard evidence" for whatever his latent mental disorder points its finger to.

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.

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?

I have not been to the moon. Neither has H&B. The thousands of photos that I've of the Moon, both from orbit and on the surface, do not show such colors as Bean paints in his artworks. I have seen photos showing orange soil with the astronaut pointing to the soil. So there is some color on the moon. But it's H&B's claim that the moon is colorful and because Bean adds "bizarre" colors to his paintings that this must be the way it really is. I highly doubt it as we would have become aware of this back in the '70s.

I don't accept H&B's claim that the astronauts were hypnotized to forget what they saw on the moon. This is one hell of a claim that they are not supplying evidence for. And as long as one doesn't have to prove what one claims, you're home free.