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.

 

NASA Employed Photo Artists to Airbrush Lunar Anomolies

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'd like to thank everyone who contributed something to this thread. Finding airbrushed images is harder than it looks, but I know for a fact NASA edits their images.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Chovy]




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Yeah they do. For publicity purposes. False color images aren't anything special in astronomy. Also composites and panoramas are made.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The moon seems to be the ' secret ' of world governments of what is really going on . With all these satelites that have been launched , with little if any information revealed.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ecoparity
Since it came up in the discussion, specifically the question as to which direction would NASA go in to eliminate any photographic evidence, alter or destroy - it just so happens that Ken Johnston, former NASA Manager of the Data and Photo Control Department of NASA's Lunar Receiving Laboratory at MSC during the Apollo Program claims he was instructed by his superiors to destroy certain materials from the Moon program, the "high resolution" masters if I recall correctly.

I'm guessing he would be another of those "bad seeds" who make up stories about NASA. It's weird how all these people in pretty high level positions end up going sideways but it was the sixties. There's no telling what kind of shenanigans were going on at the Cape back then.


Dunno about the Cape. But I do know from documentation and interviews that a whole string of Johnston's self-aggrandizing claims are inconsistent with all other independent sources. Jet fighter pilot? Nope, he washed out if flight training (FOIA his military records and prove this yourself). LM test pilot? Nope, he was what we called a 'switch monkey' in the simulator, never got off the ground. Head of photo archives? Nope, he was a shipping clerk. PhD in Physics? Nope, the certificate was for a non-existent 'seminary' in Denver that you buy with a coupon and a check to a PO Box. Saved a set of unique moon pix at his alma mater? Nope, they lost track of them decades ago and didn't notice.

You can verify all these disappointing revelations yourself. Names, dates, places -- all on the public record.

He's another of your reliable experts? Who you gonna call on next -- ACORN???

Are you being PAID to pose as a gullible eager-believer to make real UFO buffs look silly?



You know what they say about organizations who always use the tactic of discrediting those who speak out against them?

What I find amazing is how all these unbalanced people were able to get such high level positions within NASA. Either NASA has an HR dept loser's dream of applying through or people lose their minds about 5 minutes after leaving there.

What about Gordon Cooper? He's gone on record as having chased UFOs as a military pilot. Are you going to tell us all his character defects and credibility issues as well?

The point I made was that Donna wasn't all alone in claiming there's something funny going on with the NASA photo group. Other people, including the guy hired to run the entire Lunar mission photo archive have also spoken out.

The problem with your position on this is taking the stance that UFO's aren't real and that everyone who says they are must be "kooky". As I stated, there's a huge list of extremely credible people including astronauts who have said otherwise. You can tear down as many of those folks as you want to but it all comes back to that central argument. Some of the public figures in the debate might have issues but that doesn't mean they are lying. Hell, the rest of the free world is going public about UFOs but here in the USA, especially at NASA it's still "nothing to see here, move along". If that's who you want to go down in history as that's your business, of course but I wouldn't be so quick to label people as acting like fools if I were in your shoes. The kooky people like me have time on our side. The facts come out, sooner or later and this too will run it's course eventually.

Aside from my own experiences there's no way I could look at the case history and the list of names / positions who have gone on record as witnesses and deny the existence of UFOs.

I hope you can at least claim to be following orders even though it's still a poor excuse just as it always has been. There must be one hell of a good reason for continuing the cover up, that's the part I'm most curious about personally.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
 

Hi, Chovy.

"Ingo Swann" having been a reliable source of informations,
in Stanford Research Institute, and CIA. . . and thinking he
would be hired to do PSY experiments for 3 months, and he did
it for **19 years** because he was SO good, he is another
good proof of photo-smudging, when you read:
PENETRATION
(c) 1998.
ISBN 0-966-7674-0-3

It is a 160 page PDF.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Dunno about the Cape. But I do know from documentation and interviews that a whole string of Johnston's self-aggrandizing claims are inconsistent with all other independent sources. Jet fighter pilot? Nope, he washed out if flight training (FOIA his military records and prove this yourself). LM test pilot? Nope, he was what we called a 'switch monkey' in the simulator, never got off the ground. Head of photo archives? Nope, he was a shipping clerk. PhD in Physics? Nope, the certificate was for a non-existent 'seminary' in Denver that you buy with a coupon and a check to a PO Box. Saved a set of unique moon pix at his alma mater? Nope, they lost track of them decades ago and didn't notice.

You can verify all these disappointing revelations yourself. Names, dates, places -- all on the public record.

He's another of your reliable experts? Who you gonna call on next -- ACORN???

Are you being PAID to pose as a gullible eager-believer to make real UFO buffs look silly?



I wanted to address this one separately so please forgive the double post.

Does NASA make a habit of hiring shipping clerks with Bachelor's degrees in Engineering and PHDs from a seminary, especially if it's a fake PHD and then allow them to work the simulators? He worked there a long time for someone pimping a fake PHD. I'm just completely amazed at the hiring practices there. Wow.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 


What is so amazing about that? If I was interviewing candidates for a shipping clerk position, I'm sure I wouldn't be looking for any PhDs in their qualifications, and they might not even show that on their resume (Why show it, you don't need a PhD to get a shipping clerk job right?) I may have hired shipping clerks before who had fake PhDs they didn't even tell me about, as long as they did the clerk job well, why would I care? I would only care if they applied for a job as a senior research scientist and tried to use the fake PhD for a qualification, but apparently nothing like that happened. No PhD required for that switch monkey position either, right?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
I think Zorgon your example here "about one or other sides making money" is not relevant...


It sure is...

Phil Plait from Bad Astronomy charged to do lectures and sell books on DEBUNKING what we talk about so without our side he would have no income. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... For you to say its okay for one side to profit and not the other is stupid...


You see, i guess NASA charge you with 110 not because wanting to make money on you, but because that is a service done to you.


No actually you DON'T see... like usual you just 'guess' and 'assume' your data... The fact is that NASA deals exclusively with a PRIVATE company, Bay Area Imaging who get the money.. no other company is allowed to do this... so its a monopoly


I mean, if they have a public free (internet or else )archive, you can get whateved you want for free, but if you want something putting some guys to work....


If they had it on a free public internet archive I would NOT have needed to buy it... only the low res is available. So before you keep 'guessing' and 'assuming' you should have your facts straight



you can on the other hand ask "why do they -NASA- spent our taxes to so many employees?"
Actually it was ONE employee who works next door to Bay Area Imaging who simply runs the negative over to them so they can sell it

A MUCH better question would be " "Why do they -NASA- spent our taxes to fund a RELIGIOUS order and University? Like the latest 11 million dollar grant to Wheeling Jesuit University, the same people who run the National Technology Transfer Center (the agency responsible for which companies get which released technology)

But those questions don't have BOKEH's so perhaps beyond your field


(ussually i guess),


That's five times you have used "I guess" in one post...

:shk:



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And let's all give kudos to Nancy Evans, a true American Heroine who stored these huge machines in her own garage for decades to make this data recovery project possible!


You want the real story on those machines and tapes? Afterall we broke that story here at ATS from an insiders tip.





posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg Saved a set of unique moon pix at his alma mater? Nope, they lost track of them decades ago and didn't notice.


Now Jim... how could his alma mater have lost track of them if he never gave them the pics?




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And let's all give kudos to Nancy Evans, a true American Heroine who stored these huge machines in her own garage for decades to make this data recovery project possible!


You want the real story on those machines and tapes? Afterall we broke that story here at ATS from an insiders tip.




Of course I want the real story! You mean that wasn't the real story in the LA Times?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Of course I want the real story! You mean that wasn't the real story in the LA Times?


Not the whole thing
Not even close...

On the first image right click to view the whole picture... I used the ATS tags without the scroll...

Caused quite a stir with this... in fact I am still in contact with the team and it opened another awesome door for me that was errrr unexpected. But that is for later in another thread...

This thread is also proof on how many skeptics react before they know the facts... and in the end only ONE apologized... though via U2U not in the thread... the rest scurried back under their rocks


Missing Lunar Orbiter Tapes Found
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can get the rest here without the BS...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

The NASA press release that they scrambled with to save face

www.thelivingmoon.com...

The LOIRP team's official website, created after the release

Image Collection: From a Garage to NASA
www.moonviews.com...


The LOIRP website with the LO Images as released

www.moonviews.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ecoparity
 


What is so amazing about that? If I was interviewing candidates for a shipping clerk position, I'm sure I wouldn't be looking for any PhDs in their qualifications, and they might not even show that on their resume (Why show it, you don't need a PhD to get a shipping clerk job right?) I may have hired shipping clerks before who had fake PhDs they didn't even tell me about, as long as they did the clerk job well, why would I care? I would only care if they applied for a job as a senior research scientist and tried to use the fake PhD for a qualification, but apparently nothing like that happened. No PhD required for that switch monkey position either, right?


SO even the shipping clerks at NASA have engineering degrees then I suppose, cause Jim had one and it's not being challenged AFAIK. If you're seriously putting forth the notion that a shipping clerk would be given second duty on the simulator feel free to take that position but it's not making you look any more honest than certain attempts to discredit people have been.

I'm still waiting for any of the skeptics to explain why Gordon Cooper would make up UFO stories. . .



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I said in those posts what common sense tells to me..now i see that what is in reality (as you describe it), regarding photos, is not so different for what i guessed.

let's see:

"

Originally posted by zorgon
Phil Plait from Bad Astronomy charged to do lectures and sell books on DEBUNKING what we talk about so without our side he would have no income. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... For you to say its okay for one side to profit and not the other is stupid...


I commented on you putting NASA, the organization, on the "making money issue", but i didn't support the skeptic/debunker side (like your example Phil Plait ). It is different. If Phil Plait make money and tells and sells BS, is not different in comparison with con-men feeding the believers side. If he is not streching and mislead, then is OK
Also, i don't have a problem with somebody making money if skeptic or believer (more exactly "mistery promoter", story teller), but i have a problem on guys doing this no matter how badly twisting the facts and streching the data, ignoring even common explanations, just on purpose itself to make money (or other personal interests) on the people's hunger for cool things.



Originally posted by zorgon
No actually you DON'T see... like usual you just 'guess' and 'assume' your data... The fact is that NASA deals exclusively with a PRIVATE company, Bay Area Imaging who get the money.. no other company is allowed to do this... so its a monopoly


So the money don't even go to NASA where is one single man hired for answering to the public, but to a private monopolyst company where we don't know how many people works to fulfill your request. So should they, the private company, to do the work for free? Or if you don't want a private company to be monopoly, maybe you want ALL the data to be available for free, so, somebody should do the work. With what money?
Like i said, what common sense speaks to me, i think past missions are just OVER, finished, ended, and nobody (except enthusiasts or good reasosns) will not spend anymore time, resources or money to organise and put online for free the raw data or to answer the requests for free...just to please some Hoaglands searching for scratches.



Originally posted by zorgon
A MUCH better question would be " "Why do they -NASA- spent our taxes to fund a RELIGIOUS order and University? Like the latest 11 million dollar grant to Wheeling Jesuit University, the same people who run the National Technology Transfer Center (the agency responsible for which companies get which released technology)

But those questions don't have BOKEH's so perhaps beyond your field


Of course there are not one, but many other MUCH BETTER questions to be answered, instead ridding the scratches and glitches and selling them on DVD new documentaries.
And, of course, those other much better questions don't have bokeh like NASA videos have, and of course these questions are beyound my field. But also, bokeh appear to be beyound your field, so why ridding it? Political reasons, opening hidden doors or what? But bokeh is just bokeh, no matter how people want to use them in their purposes.





(ussually i guess),

That's five times you have used "I guess" in one post...

typical...

I see you never guessed, and everything you say is not a guess/hunch, but only the truth. Or not?








[edit on 17/9/09 by depthoffield]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chovy
I was going to post a related YouTube video but alas, it was banned. Atleast you can see the editing in the pictures.


If you recall what the British hacker who hacked NASA said, he said they do employ airbrushers and other artists and have tons of doctored photos in the archieves which he found (he also said NASA knows that aliens/UFOs exist).



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenflt

Originally posted by Chovy
I was going to post a related YouTube video but alas, it was banned. Atleast you can see the editing in the pictures.


If you recall what the British hacker who hacked NASA said, he said they do employ airbrushers and other artists and have tons of doctored photos in the archieves which he found (he also said NASA knows that aliens/UFOs exist).


People seem to forget the parameters of the scenario based on the prejudices of living in our modern society. They didn't have photoshop or any other desktop photo editor back then - any touch ups had to be performed by hand an art that is close to completely lost today. Secondly the quality of the photos in question was not great - in most cases these were second or third generation photos of photos - it didn't take a great artist to airbrush things out and the obvious blobs fit the parameters (other than the development errors from the photos that were developed in space, the difference is pretty obvious, IMO).

Adding to the testimony we have the NASA claim that stars don't show up in the moon photos, a weird thing about stars not being visible in a vacuum and then descriptions of how brilliant and numerous the stars were in the writings of astronauts who also made these counter statements about them not being visible.

It just seems like a colossal waste of time to argue with certain skeptics, IMO. Anyone who is willing to dedicate the time to really examine the UFO phenomenon would find it extremely difficult to counter the huge number of highly credible testimonies. You have to have a vested interest or just plan not want to see it to ignore all those people, some of whom have been very specific about NASA's role in the cover up. They do a great job of trying to discredit these people but they can't slander them all and it's been my experience that attacking the messenger usually indicates something about the character and strength of position of the people doing the attacking.

When every other country in the World is releasing their UFO files and even making statements as to the reality of them the people choosing to continue to play the denial game are standing out more and more. The age of the civilian space market is upon us, it's only a matter of time for one of those flights to bring back photos or a civilian / private enterprise rover to go to the moon. Will they disclose before then or will they make sure no such evidence is released? They're fighting a losing battle in my opinion, (whatever that's worth).



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Of course I want the real story! You mean that wasn't the real story in the LA Times?


Not the whole thing
Not even close...

On the first image right click to view the whole picture... I used the ATS tags without the scroll...

Caused quite a stir with this... in fact I am still in contact with the team and it opened another awesome door for me that was errrr unexpected. But that is for later in another thread...


Now that I see this link, I remember browsing through your thelivingmoon site a few months ago and seeing the McDonald's pictures, and I thought it was the same as the story as the LA times.

But now that you point this out to me and I looked at it again, I notice the dates of your thread here, the NASA press release, and the LA times story, and clearly the date on your story is the earliest of those 3 so congratulations for breaking the story! And the pictures provide a nice touch. I especially like the Pirate flag in the window of the McDonalds!

And yes I see so many skeptical comments in that thread, it's amazing how many people dismissed the story as false. I think part of the credibility problem was the McDonald's part of the story, and even in their press release NASA never mentioned that, instead saying
www.thelivingmoon.com...

The Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project, located at NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif., is taking analog data from original recorders used to store on tape and 1,500 of the original tapes, converting the data into digital form, and reconstructing the images.

That really doesn't give me the impression they are referring to an abandoned McDonalds!

But I think if your OP had included the location of the McDonalds as Moffett Field there would have been fewer skeptics. In fact that tidbit alone would have influenced my initial take on the credibility of the story:

www.archiplanet.org...

Moffett Federal Airfield , also known as Moffett Field, is a joint civil-military airport located 3 miles (5 km) north of downtown Mountain View, in Sunnyvale, California, USA. The airport is near the south end of San Francisco Bay, north of San Jose. Formerly a United States Navy facility, the former naval air station is now owned and operated by the NASA Ames Research Center.


Suddenly the story seems much more believable when we know the location is owned and operated by the NASA Ames research center right? I don't know if you knew that at the time you broke the story or not, but that tidbit might have made a difference to some of the skeptics.

While I can't say my search was exhaustive, I did do a quick search on Google and I couldn't find anyone who broke the story before you did! So congratulations on that, and what a scoop! And the picture is fantastic!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
You know what they say about organizations who always use the tactic of discrediting those who speak out against them?


You mean, like UFO buffs who claim opponents are paid disinformational professionals -- anybody doing that around here lately, bro?


What I find amazing is how all these unbalanced people were able to get such high level positions within NASA. Either NASA has an HR dept loser's dream of applying through or people lose their minds about 5 minutes after leaving there.


Isn't it kinda 'unbalanced' to accuse others falsely of accusing people of being 'unbalanced'?


What about Gordon Cooper? He's gone on record as having chased UFOs as a military pilot. Are you going to tell us all his character defects and credibility issues as well?


Typical. Run away from results of one investigation and throw out other names that weren't part of the original discussion. Re Cooper: Do you know how many millions of dollars people lost investing in cockamamie aerospace investment schemes Cooper promoted after being booted out of the astronaut program? I guess you'd be surprirsed -- but you're probably more comfortable making sure you DON'T know that kind of thing. I guess you fell for that NASA propaganda about astronauts being superhuman paragons of virtue -- that delusion cost a lot of people a lot of money.


The point I made was that Donna wasn't all alone in claiming there's something funny going on with the NASA photo group. Other people, including the guy hired to run the entire Lunar mission photo archive have also spoken out.


But they haven't, you're living in a dream world of other people's delusions and confabulations. The guy you say (on his say-so alone) was "hired to run the entire Lunar mission photo archive", wasn't. He made that part up. You fell for it. Lift yourself up, dust yourself off, and edge closer to verifiable reality -- your speculations will gain credibility, not lose it, as you realize you were suckered by some bogus stories.


The problem with your position on this is taking the stance that UFO's aren't real and that everyone who says they are must be "kooky"...


You obviously have no idea about what my position on this mystery is, so you are making it up out of your own imagination. I am entirely willing to acknowledge the possibility of truly anomalous stimuli lurking out there in the 'UFO testimony', but camouflaged and masked by a torrent of noise and garble that most UFO buffs have proven themselves unable to work through. I have written and explained this numerous times -- but you choose to ignore my views and fantasize fake ones.


As I stated, there's a huge list of extremely credible people including astronauts who have said otherwise. You can tear down as many of those folks as you want to but it all comes back to that central argument.


"Tear down" is a semantically loaded term. How about, "understand the basis of testimony"? How about, "investigate reports for context and corroboration"? How about, "Don't start out believing everything you hear -- verify, verify, verify"?


Some of the public figures in the debate might have issues but that doesn't mean they are lying.


This is a "false dilemma", a top characteristic of sloppy thinkers (and of deliberate deceivers). When you use such argumentative tricks, mature and experienced people recognize that your thinking isn't yet disciplined enough to have any value in a serious discussion.




... I wouldn't be so quick to label people as acting like fools if I were in your shoes. The kooky people like me have time on our side. The facts come out, sooner or later and this too will run it's course eventually.


How long? Tomorrow? Next year? UFO enthusiasts have been saying that disclosure is just around the corner for decades, with the same fervent faith. Sort of religious, doesn't it seem?


I hope you can at least claim to be following orders even though it's still a poor excuse just as it always has been.


Hope isn't fact, although you clearly have confused the two. And your vile insinuation that I'm expressing views on the orders of (and in the pay of) some secret cabal would be insulting if I thought you really understood the loathsome historical significance of the phrase "just following orders". But I figure you're just reacting defensively and irrationally to research results you want to prevent yourself from considering fairly.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
I wanted to address this one separately so please forgive the double post.

Does NASA make a habit of hiring shipping clerks with Bachelor's degrees in Engineering and PHDs from a seminary, especially if it's a fake PHD and then allow them to work the simulators? He worked there a long time for someone pimping a fake PHD. I'm just completely amazed at the hiring practices there. Wow.


Congratulations on your imagination, it sure makes reality pale in comparison and I can see why you prefer the former over the latter.

Re Johnston: who said he was hired as a BS Engineer or a PhD? The date of what he presents as his 'deploma' (the name of the jpg that is displayed on the internet) is the 1980s, two decades after working as a contractor (not hired by NASA -- you just misguessed that) at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. At that time he was about 25 years old -- you're saying that the space program would place a guy of that age and limited schooling in charge of a vital space archive?


"He worked there a long time for someone pimping a fake PHD. "

Nobody ever said he did. Your eagerness to substitute your misunderstandings and imaginations as 'facts' is worrisome for your role as a rational consumer and citizen. Shape up.

And actually, years later -- like, 2006 -- when Johnston was an unpaid NASA volunteer school speaker who had listed 'PhD in Meta Physics' on his resume on NASA's own educational website, when he was asked for documentation of that claim, he resigned immediately. Then he claimed he was 'fired' for speaking out in favor of Richard Hoagland. You're welcome to share the credibility of that crowd, by all means be my guest.


[edit on 17-9-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg Saved a set of unique moon pix at his alma mater? Nope, they lost track of them decades ago and didn't notice.


Now Jim... how could his alma mater have lost track of them if he never gave them the pics?



Try English next time you read this, Zorg. He claimed the files were 'saved' there -- they weren't. I never disputed that he had given them a set, just his claim that they treated the material as something important worth preserving.




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join