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.

 

Apollo 12's Covert EVA , Are E.T.'s the reason for the Secrecy ?

page: 18
37
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
So I take it that nobody yet has telephoned the woman who wrote the report and asked her WTF she was up to in describing that unrevealed-til-then EVA?




posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


how many times do we have to answer the same question ?

the answer that was given to you the last time hasn't changed.

if you have some info to share than by all means share it



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I e-mailed her but she never replied.

I thought about calling her, but what would she say?

If the conspiracy theory is false and she made a mistake, she'll say there was no standup EVA on Apollo 12 and she screwed up.

If the conspiracy theory is true, and she accidentally let something slip from a classified document that she wasn't supposed to say, she'll say there was no standup EVA on Apollo 12 and she screwed up.

So she's going to say the same thing either way, I'm not sure how it will solve the mystery to call her. The only surprise would be is if she says there WAS a standup EVA on Apollo 12 and her report is right. But how likely is that? Very unlikely in my opinion, unless the conspiracy theory is true and the classified document she got her information from has just been declassified or something like that.

If this was just a typo where she typed a 12 instead of a 15 I'd laugh it off as a typo. But giving separate descriptions for each EVA is way more than a typo.


[edit on 6-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

A source for the original video would be great, it would much easier if everybody posted their sources (including me
) for the material they post here.

One source for this movies is the Internet Archive.

And it's a great find for LunaCognita (I suppose he was the original finder), but I would have find it even better if he had posted it himself.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



I think a lot of theories on ATS are dubious but I give LunaCognita high marks for putting a compelling case together based on what seems like more than just a typo in the NASA report combined with the radio silence during the time involved. In fact I think it's probably the best conspiracy theory I've read on ATS, so thanks easynow for bringing it here.


your welcome Arbitrageur and thanks for the kind words, i am sure LunaCognita will greatly appreciate the recognition for his work.

if this investigation is the least dubious of all the subjects that have been presented here, shouldn't we be calling this 'News' instead of a conspiracy ?

maybe the E.T. reason i proposed for the coverup is a conspiracy but the rest, i'm not so sure it fits into that category ?


good comments in your above post and i agree with you, what can she say other than it didn't happen ? there's no way she will ever admit there was a coverup and that NASA has kept this hidden from the public.


[edit on 6-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


hello ArMaP,


A source for the original video would be great, it would much easier if everybody posted their sources (including me ) for the material they post here

yea it would be great wouldn't it ? lol



One source for this movies is the Internet Archive

thanks, too bad it only opens up for me in a small quicktime media player.




And it's a great find for LunaCognita (I suppose he was the original finder), but I would have find it even better if he had posted it himself.
yes he is the original "finder" and it is no doubt a great find !

maybe you seen this post ?

i don't think there is a online source for the full size HD video and i believe you have to pay money to have a copy of it. are you suggesting someone share the entire original video which could be hours long or are you suggesting LunaCognita share just a portion that you are interested in ?

maybe you should send him a U2U message and discuss that with him ?





full size image of the "Fast Mover"
i276.photobucket.com...
i276.photobucket.com...




[edit on 6-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 


how many times do we have to answer the same question ?

the answer that was given to you the last time hasn't changed.

if you have some info to share than by all means share it


Always excuses, always blame somebody ELSE for your own investigative inabilities. No single person is the gatekeeper of insight. Find alternate pathways.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
thanks, too bad it only opens up for me in a small quicktime media player.
Look at the left side of that page, where it says:


512Kb MPEG4 (202 MB)
Ogg Video (210 MB)
MPEG1 (1.9 GB)


I downloaded the 720x480, 1.9 GB MPEG1 video, from which I got this frame (frame 14588).

And yes, it appears like that on the video, with the Moon on the top of the frame.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I downloaded the 720x480, 1.9 GB MPEG1 video, from which I got this frame (frame 14588).


ok good job and now everyone knows the "Fast Mover" is without a doubt there in the footage and there can be no more accusations about LunaCognita fabricating any of it.

and yes i seen that on the left side of the page and those links for me either open up to some script or a quicktime video. currently i have no way of saving the file, nor do i want to at this time, but thanks anyways.

i believe LunaCognita has the 1280x720 copy and it looks like the one you downloaded is 720x480. (just saying)



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
if this investigation is the least dubious of all the subjects that have been presented here, shouldn't we be calling this 'News' instead of a conspiracy ?


I think your words "least dubious" are chosen very well! Because in fact I think every conspiracy theory I've ever read is dubious, including this one, its just that this one is perhaps the least dubious because it doesn't fall apart at first glance of the facts like so many conspiracy theories do.

There is one thing that really stands out about this case to me. Assume for a moment the conspiracy theory is false. How does one make an error the magnitude of the error made? I can almost understand the errors in confusion between systems of units that caused the failure of the Mars probes, and the errors that caused them to make the wrong shape of the hubble mirror, and many other mistakes. So it's not that we can't make mistakes, we CAN and it happens because we're human and not perfect, so can't we just write this case off to that explanation too?

The reason I have a hard time writing this one off to human error, is that I don't understand how an error like this could happen, but I do understand how other errors can happen. If her report for example referred to one standup EVA and said it happened on Apollo 12, I'm sure someone could post a conspiracy theory saying there was a standup EVA on Apollo 12, but I wouldn't believe that one, because it would seem apparent to me that since there was only one standup EVA, she just got the mission number wrong and it was really Apollo 15 she was talking about.

But if this conspiracy theory is false and she made an error, I give the error she made to explain the standup EVA which did happen on Apollo 15 and then to "make up" another fictitious standup EVA which never happened on Apollo 12 an award for perhaps the strangest "error" I have ever seen. If it came from a source outside NASA I might suspect some kind of hoax but somebody within NASA publishing a HOAX? I can't buy that explanation, and it's my inability to think of a way such an error could be made that lends credence to the case to me. But I realize this could be a limitation in my creative thinking rather than proof for the case.

Should we call the news? No I don't think so, I'm still not convinced it actually happened. But when I look at all the possible explanations about how somebody could make an error like this, this is perhaps the only conspiracy theory I have ever seen where the conspiracy theory explanation actually makes more sense than any prosaic explanation I can think of. But that may only prove I'm not thinking hard enough and it doesn't prove the conspiracy theory is true. But that's why I find this case so interesting.



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Always excuses, always blame somebody ELSE for your own investigative inabilities. No single person is the gatekeeper of insight. Find alternate pathways.

must be frustrating to be a debunker and find a case you can't debunk ?

your childish antics that you have displayed in this thread speaks volumes and is solid proof that for you, it's just easier to ridicule me and the subject.

nobody is falling for the little game your playing here Jim, most people already know what your all about. maybe NASA should have sent someone out to work on damage control that the public might actually respect and take seriously ?







to all my friends (you know who you are) and to all the silent readers ,

**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that when evidence is presented about NASA committing a fraudulent act and is publicly displayed for everyone to examine, there will be attempts to discredit, minimize, and ridicule the subject and the people who brought you the information.

there can be no doubt that there have been attempts already made to do just that and i advise you all to take notice of any future actions of this nature because it will only further validate and expose the fraud that NASA has enacted upon us.

as Jeff Challender once said..


to be forewarned is to be forearmed and at the end of the day it's up to you to decide what is the truth







LunaCognita did an excellent job stabilizing the DAC video footage and has given us a new perspective of some of the surface features.

it's important to notice that NASA has lowered the resolution of the left and right sides of frame by using blur/defocus masking techniques.












posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
it's important to notice that NASA has lowered the resolution of the left and right sides of frame by using blur/defocus masking techniques.
That blurring or defocusing also appears on the "image density measuring panel" that appears from time to time in the video (the one you cannot download and that is 54 minutes and 55 seconds long, and there is also a second video, with another 54 minutes), and in all the clips that make the videos, even those inside the ship, so I guess it could be a real camera problem.

Also, why would they blur/defocus the sides of the image and let the centre unblurred/focused? What would they gain with that?



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Here is another still from Clementine, this one a color image that shows a similar scene, this time with the Moon, Sun, stars, and the planet Venus off to the right (look at the size of Venus here!)
I have been thinking about that image, and today I went looking for more information.

It looks like that photo was taken with one of the star-tracking cameras, and if it was then it was originally a 1168 x 1552, greyscale image, not a 2.332 x 1.555 colour image.

Where did you find that image?



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Also, why would they blur/defocus the sides of the image and let the centre unblurred/focused? What would they gain with that?


Can't you think of any reasons at all Armap?




posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Can't you think of any reasons at all Armap?


ASKING an innuendo-based question, as a response to another question, is a tactic seen often by those who have no real leg to stand on.

I offer, for example (anyone in the USA. or with Internet access, may have heard of a Fox "news" commentator by the name of Neil Cavuto.

HE is the sort who will drop an "innuendo bomb" in the form of just such a question --- even if FACTS have nothing to do with the impkied innuendo....capisce?

Sorry if this seems off --- but I think in examples, in order to sometimes explain or describe my points.

(BTW --- not singling out one particular fake "newscaster", for there are many, in every country on th Planet). But he came to my mind, recently, from another source, and unrelated to this subject --- just indicative, I believe...

[edit on 6 February 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


G'day Armap

I will be very interested to read any conclusions at which you might arrive, regarding that "fast mover".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

The only possible reason I see is that they would know what will be filmed and they knew that it appeared on the side(s) of the frame, but I find it difficult to know what a hand-held camera will show.

Also, why do that with all clips, even those that show only the astronauts inside the ship?



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Also, why do that with all clips, even those that show only the astronauts inside the ship?



Have you determined that this is the case "with all clips"?



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

I looked at both videos in "fast-forward" and whenever there was a change from a clip to another I stopped and looked at stopped image, and that happened in all clips, unless I made some mistake.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I guess it could be a real camera problem.

Also, why would they blur/defocus the sides of the image and let the centre unblurred/focused? What would they gain with that?


a camera problem it is not.

the left and right side of the DAC imagery has been blurred to keep the general public from seeing a clear image of the lunar surface. there is no other logical explanation for it to be that way. i don't think the most important question is how they did it but rather, what is it that they don't want us to see ?



[edit on 7-2-2010 by easynow]



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join