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: 21
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



I'll go with postprocessing issue, the low depth of field of the scanner which scanned the original curled film


hello depthoffield


you wouldn't happen to have any examples of that curled effect in any videos that you could post and share with us so everyone can see what it might look like and then we could compare it all ?

i am open to the idea but i want to see some examples.

what do you think ?




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
you wouldn't happen to have any examples of that curled effect in any videos that you could post and share with us so everyone can see what it might look like and then we could compare it all ?

i am open to the idea but i want to see some examples.

what do you think ?


I don't have examples, but i have some experience from when i used to process myself in my own laboratory the films (negativ process) and photos (positive process) (all in black an white). Also i know how optics operate, and i recognise the out of focus phenomenon. Also, i can understand the principles involved. And i could make some examples, if i search the old equipments and put them to work, but i don't have time and neither don't want to consider the effort to do this right now.

Anyway, if this was a intentional obfuscation technique, it was a bad one. too much complications to do this (starting with astronauts which should be aware during filmings, to maintain the subject in the "future obfuscated lateral areas", and the postprocessing guys to analyse every bit of footage in order to see that the "sensitive data" to not escape to "obfuscation", and another quality checks from other guys in order to check that something is not escaping due humman error etc, and a lot of work done in order to make a hoax from the thing. Instead it was much easier to simply eliminate the "senzitive data" and not let it go to the world. And on the other hand, i'm sure that in scientific audience, in academic labs and research centres, the original movie, or copies, was seen at that time, and nothing "suspect"was going outside... Now, some guys from NASA, made a scan to made the movie public, in order to expose themselves to their "hoaxed obfuscated" work?!



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 



if this was a intentional obfuscation technique, it was a bad one
since nobody has noticed until now i would have to say it's a dam good one !



Now, some guys from NASA, made a scan to made the movie public, in order to expose themselves to their "hoaxed obfuscated" work?!

maybe NASA had to account for the film magazines and they had to show the public something from that camera ?


anyways i thought you might be a good person to ask about some examples and i appreciate you spending the time to give me your opinion on it. i will take it into consideration but i am afraid until everyone can see some examples, this processing theory will have to go back in the freezer and maybe somebody can thaw it out later ?


[edit on 9-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


nobody is denying that it is not a real effect.


I appreciate that.


all i am asking you to do is provide some examples so everyone can see it and make a comparison. is that too much to ask for ? isn't that a fair and logical choice ?

maybe that effect does not look anything like what we see in the DAC footage ?? should we just accept your theory without really checking it out ?
remember you are the one making the claim this explains it and the burdon of proof is on you to back up the claim your making !


If I had any examples I would post them, unfortunately I don't. But even if I did have an example, that wouldn't prove the NASA footage has a film curl effect as opposed to some intentionally applied gradient.

So if I were to claim I'm 100% sure that NASA didn't apply a defocus gradient, I'd have to prove how much curl their film did or did not have, and I don't have access to the original footage to prove it. Therefore I'm only saying it's extremely likely to be caused by film curl, and there's a small chance that some other cause may be the reason for the defocus gradient. In that small chance, I would include the conspiracy theory of an intentionally applied obfuscation gradient as one possibility, along with other possibilities.

No you shouldn't accept what I nor anyone else says as a fact without questioning it, I don't so why should you?

But if you don't think the result Minolta describes of being in focus in one area, and not in the rest of the frame, and default setting of making the focus in the center will look like what Luna Cognita posted, then I will ask you what you think it will look like? I can tell you that is what it will look like, it's in focus in the center and then gradually defocuses from the curl. Well that's exactly what the footage Luna Cognita posted looks like. If you don't want to take my word for it, that's fine, but since Minolta is the expert I do think you should take their word for it, and Minolta's explanation is right there in black and white and I don't know how else you'd interpret it.

The claim of an intentional obfuscation gradient is the bizarre claim, the Minolta explanation is the prosaic one. Usually the prosaic explanation isn't rejected in favor of a bizarre claim unless there is substantial evidence to prove why the bizarre claim should be accepted over the prosaic claim. And since I see absolutely no such evidence in this instance, that's why I favor the prosaic explanation to a very high probability. But if you claim I haven't proven the prosaic explanation is the cause, I agree with you, I haven't, and I can't say I'm 100% certain myself.

But I certainly see no reason to favor the bizarre explanation over the prosaic explanation on the focus gradient. In the case of the OP and the standup EVA, it's a different story, because I haven't found any prosaic explanation that fits those facts.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Why won't you bother to look for and post any images which might corroborate your theory?

Take your time if you need to. The posting of some corroborative images will lend more credence to your speculations and theory.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

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

What was that organization you're a part of Jim, what was it called, csi, thought police, psicorp?

If only others had the same "telepathic" gift you possess in making "rational" judgments.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
well have a good night ArMaP , and i have to ask , did you forget to acknowledge LunaCognita's post that explained to you where he got that clementine image ? just wondering
Just a quick post during my lunch break to say that yes, I forgot to acknowledge LunaCognita's post.

Thanks, LunaCognita, for your answer to my post about the source of the Clementine image you posted.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If I had any examples I would post them, unfortunately I don't.

ok thanks for your answer but don't you think it's a little strange that nobody has any examples to show despite what seems to be a general claim that the curl effect is something that many people have encountered ?





But even if I did have an example, that wouldn't prove the NASA footage has a film curl effect as opposed to some intentionally applied gradient.
that's debatable and since there are no examples posted yet, i think it would be best to favor the obfuscation explanation.







So if I were to claim I'm 100% sure that NASA didn't apply a defocus gradient, I'd have to prove how much curl their film did or did not have, and I don't have access to the original footage to prove it.
maybe but until we see some examples that will remain a gray area.






Therefore I'm only saying it's extremely likely to be caused by film curl, and there's a small chance that some other cause may be the reason for the defocus gradient.
at this point in time i have to factor into the equation a list of all the deceitful things that NASA has done which then makes it more likely it's something dubious.






No you shouldn't accept what I nor anyone else says as a fact without questioning it, I don't so why should you?
true that and i say let the evidence speak for itself. unfortunately there hasn't been enough evidence presented to validate that the curl effect is a viable candidate and explains what we are seeing in the DAC footage.






But if you don't think the result Minolta describes of being in focus in one area, and not in the rest of the frame, and default setting of making the focus in the center will look like what Luna Cognita posted, then I will ask you what you think it will look like?
well that's just it , i don't know and is the reason i asked if anyone could post some examples. without having any visual examples to see , i am sure i won't be the only one who will have a difficult time accepting that as the explanation.






it's in focus in the center and then gradually defocuses from the curl. Well that's exactly what the footage Luna Cognita posted looks like.
that remains to be seen.





If you don't want to take my word for it, that's fine, but since Minolta is the expert I do think you should take their word for it, and Minolta's explanation is right there in black and white and I don't know how else you'd interpret it.
no i cannot just take your word for it and i'm not denying there is a phenomena associated with film processing that you have seen and Minolta has encountered as well but you seem to have a hard time accepting that there are other explanations to be considered and are trying to force me and everyone else into just accepting something that so far, is unproven as a viable candidate.






The claim of an intentional obfuscation gradient is the bizarre claim, the Minolta explanation is the prosaic one.
taking into consideration the goverment lies about the ufo subject and the overwhelming amount of evidence i have seen that shows NASA isn't honest, i really don't think it is a bizarre claim.






Usually the prosaic explanation isn't rejected in favor of a bizarre claim unless there is substantial evidence to prove why the bizarre claim should be accepted over the prosaic claim.
once again i don't think your prosaic explanation has been proven to be a viable candidate yet so we should cross that bridge when we get there.






And since I see absolutely no such evidence in this instance
ok your entitled to say that but i disagree and i think there is plenty of evidence to be considered on both sides of the discussion and your failure to acknowledge that is disappointing to say the least.






But if you claim I haven't proven the prosaic explanation is the cause, I agree with you, I haven't, and I can't say I'm 100% certain myself.
glad you agree because no you haven't proven it and until there are some examples presented for everyone to examine i would at this point in time consider that to be a bizzare explantion.





But I certainly see no reason to favor the bizarre explanation over the prosaic explanation on the focus gradient. In the case of the OP and the standup EVA, it's a different story, because I haven't found any prosaic explanation that fits those facts.
i certainly don't see any reason to blindly accept the processing theory and i think LunaCognita has presented a very strong argument for the obfuscation explanation.


you might disagree and that's fine, your entitled to your opinion but like i have already said many times, your claim is weak and has yet to be proven as a viable candidate. if you or someone else can post some examples to demonstrate what the processing effect looks like (that isn't cherry picked) maybe then your claim will be strengthened enough to establish it as a viable candidate and worthy of consideration


[edit on 9-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

the photo does not have enough resolution

once again, you don't know what the optimal circumstances really were to make the claim you are making. you can say it's my opinion or this might be the answer but you cannot speak in absolutes when you don't really know all the facts. was it not good that i suggested to look for the "details" of the spacecraft when i don't really know all the facts either ? probably
We don't need to know the optimal circumstances to see that that photo does not have enough resolution to show the spacecraft, that's why we cannot see it.
Or maybe there is nothing there.



that's a subjective situation but i thought the rule was once a liar always a liar ? you said that in my other thread ( i can quote you if need be)
is there now a double standard about that ?
No double standard, what I probably said (I don't really remember it, I have a selective memory
) was that we cannot trust a liar, but that does not mean that they always lie.

If it's not too much trouble it would be better if you could post that quote, I may have to correct something.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



We don't need to know the optimal circumstances to see that that photo does not have enough resolution to show the spacecraft, that's why we cannot see it.

just because the image doesn't show the spacecraft does not mean there wasn't enough available resolution and no offense my friend but i find your statement about "we don't need to know" preposterous and naive. right now i don't have everything i would need to fully explain why i think that but perhaps i will work on that and get back to you later with it.




Or maybe there is nothing there.
unlikely but possible


here is your statement about liars...lol

I cannot trust anyone that I know lied at least once


your correct, it doesn't mean they lie about everything but it certainly doesn't help any in the credibility department.


[edit on 9-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


You are right, it is not easy to see that the dark spot in that LROC image detail is a space craft. But you did not provide a source for that image, so I can only guess that it is a "first look" at one of the Apollo landing sites.

Now the LROC has taken a second and even third look at some of the landing sites from lower orbits, and details from the photos have been included in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. This detail is from the third look at the Apollo 11 landing site. It is taken from 50 km altitude, and the resolution is 0.53 m/pixel.


This image shows the Passive Seismometer Experiment Package (PSEP) Buzz deployed and the Lunar Ranging Retro-Reflector (LRRR) Neil deployed south of the LM. The LRRR had a dust cover that Neil removed after getting the experiment in position.


This photo (and also first and second look photos) can be found here (click "Image library"):
history.nasa.gov...

The PSEP, LRRR and the dust cover was also photographed by Neil Armstrong through the window of the Lunar Module after the EVA. This is a detail of image AS11-37-5548:

history.nasa.gov...

So the LM descent stage and the scientific equipment left behind is right where it is supposed to be. I don't think those LROC images are bad at all.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


thanks ziggy, you just proved my point ! LOL





without them labels there's no way you would know what that is !




[edit on 10-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
just because the image doesn't show the spacecraft does not mean there wasn't enough available resolution and no offense my friend but i find your statement about "we don't need to know" preposterous and naive. right now i don't have everything i would need to fully explain why i think that but perhaps i will work on that and get back to you later with it.
There may be several reasons for the spaceship not being noticeable on the photo, the most obvious being lighting and resolution. If the spaceship is exactly the same shade of grey as the surrounding ground then it wouldn't be visible either, etc., that's why I said that we do not need to know the "optimal circumstances".

Unless I am giving the wrong meaning to "optimal circumstances".


And I can wait for your explanation, I am not in a hurry.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
And why not obfuscate everything?


Because the people responsible for the obfuscation were not amateurs (far from it). Any deliberate obfuscation technique of any kind does not have to be an "all or nothing" process, and I suspect you know that. The fact is that this particular technique is highly effective at obfuscating this motion picture footage when it is being viewed at 29.97fps playback speed in it's "raw" state - which is how probably 95+% of the people who have ever watched that footage have only viewed it!

Several of you have claimed that most people tend to focus on the center of the screen when viewing footage, and have argued that if NASA was going to obfuscate this, they would logically have blurred the center of the FOV instead. Did you stop and think that if that is true, then maybe that is part of the reason why NASA left the center of the screen in focus and blurred the outsides? If everyone focuses on the center of the screen as you say, then that would mean there was a far higher chance of people noticing this obfuscation in the raw footage, you know, since they would be focusing their eyes right at it and all!

You are failing to appreciate that the the goal of the entire sanitizing process is not merely to obfuscate the scene, but to also attempt to conceal the fact that you are obfuscating the scene by not being too overt! I already explained a couple times the reasons why using a split gradient technique like this is a highly effective obfuscator, so I won't rehash all that now. The example I referenced in that video demonstrates visually just how effective this technique is as well. They used it because it works!


Why make it in a way that is so noticeable?

Noticeable? Come on. it is obviously NOT a very noticeable obfuscation technique, particularly when being viewed at 29.97fps playback speed in it's "raw" state. There is no question that OVER 2/3rds of that FOV is suffering from blurring, and I am sure a LOT of people would have been wondering why if they had of noticed it before, because it should be unacceptable by anyone's standards. The lack of available contrast and the overbright condition of the raw scene (gee, some more obfuscation techniques) conveniently makes it quite difficult to detect the use of this blur/focus gradient in the raw footage. Go and look at the raw framecap of that scene again (here, I posted it again below). The fact that less than 1/3rd of that scene is actually in focus at any given time is not something that just jumps out at you and is really "noticeable", now is it?



The reason many people may now consider this obfuscation to be "noticeable" in that footage is because it has been pointed out to them. Once it is pointed out for the first time, it then becomes "noticeable", but in the raw footage, it is in fact quite hard to tell at all that this type of obfuscation exists there unless you are looking for it - especially if you don't want to see it! Sometimes people do not notice things due to simple denial - and after it is pointed out to them they don't want to believe that such a "noticeable" obfuscator could have been employed to degrade the footage, so they dismiss it as something accidental and not deliberately induced. I mean, it is not like NASA has any reason to lie or cover anything up....oh, wait... I forgot about that pesky Executive Order 10501 that FORCED the space agency to lie and conceal the truth about what they found up there on the Moon in the interests of maintaining national and global stability. That ugly fact means that IF NASA found evidence of ET life on the Moon, the footage they showed the public would have to be, by Presidential Executive Order, obfuscated to hide the truth from us, right? You are seeing evidence of that truth being hidden from us right there in that DAC footage.

Cheers,
LC



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Several of you have claimed that most people tend to focus on the center of the screen when viewing footage, and have argued that if NASA was going to obfuscate this, they would logically have blurred the center of the FOV instead. Did you stop and think that if that is true, then maybe that is part of the reason why NASA left the center of the screen in focus and blurred the outsides?
Yes, I thought of that when I wrote about people looking mostly at the centre of the screen.


If everyone focuses on the center of the screen as you say, then that would mean there was a far higher chance of people noticing this obfuscation in the raw footage, you know, since they would be focusing their eyes right at it and all!
But they would notice it less if the blurring was uniform, changes are more easily noticed.


You are failing to appreciate that the the goal of the entire sanitizing process is not merely to obfuscate the scene, but to also attempt to conceal the fact that you are obfuscating the scene by not being too overt!
I understand that, and that is one of the reasons I think this supposed obfuscation does not follow that idea, making it in a noticeable way reduces the possibility of not being noticed.


They used it because it works!
You think they used it.



Go and look at the raw framecap of that scene again (here, I posted it again below). The fact that less than 1/3rd of that scene is actually in focus at any given time is not something that just jumps out at you and is really "noticeable", now is it?
Yes it is, I noticed when I went looking for the "fast walker" (nice find :up
, one of the reasons I have been saying that it would not work as an unnoticed obfuscation is because I noticed just after some seconds.


That ugly fact means that IF NASA found evidence of ET life on the Moon, the footage they showed the public would have to be, by Presidential Executive Order, obfuscated to hide the truth from us, right? You are seeing evidence of that truth being hidden from us right there in that DAC footage.
Does that executive order say that things must be "obfuscated" or does it say that they must be kept from being known?

PS: I noticed that you have been posting images that have a an aspect ratio that is not the same as that for 16 mm film, so your images have been a little "squashed" when compared with the ones I have (taken from the Internet Archive) and that have the correct aspect ratio. Could it be that part of the reason why you think the blurring of the sides of the image is hard to notice and I think it's easily noticed?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

That ugly fact means that IF NASA found evidence of ET life on the Moon, the footage they showed the public would have to be, by Presidential Executive Order, obfuscated to hide the truth from us, right? You are seeing evidence of that truth being hidden from us right there in that DAC footage.
Does that executive order say that things must be "obfuscated" or does it say that they must be kept from being known?


It says this:

fas.org...


(d) Photographs, Films and Recordings: Classified photographs, films, and recordings, and their containers, shall be conspicuously and appropriately marked with the assigned defense classification.


That marking would be, as specified earlier in the document, one of the three following markings:

Top secret
Secret
Confidential

And of course once so marked must be kept from being known by anyone without proper authorization.

A search in the document for the 3 letters "obf" in sequence came up negative meaning the document doesn't contain the word obfuscate nor any derivative of it.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
ummmmmmmmmmmmmm hello,

do you guy's really think a Executive order is going to mention the word obfuscation and imply that images have that introduced ?

please tell me your joking right ?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

do you guy's really think a Executive order is going to mention the word obfuscation and imply that images have that introduced ?


Maybe they actually do believe such a ludicrous notion....

It would explain some things.











[edit on 10-2-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


haha ! brilliant pic !


is the right and left side of that pic blurry because of film curl ?













i am wondering why there are no daytime images of the Surveyor probe taken from the LM location ?

www.aulis.com...
history.nasa.gov...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...





certainly makes me wonder if the Tv camera was really ruined by "accident" ?



[edit on 10-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i am wondering why there are no daytime images of the Surveyor probe taken from this location ?




Do you mean images taken from around the lander of the surveyor 3 - as in that bottom image?




is the right and left side of that pic blurry because of film curl ?



While wrong, that certainly is an acceptable theory.

-I mean, who would purposely blur an image to achieve an objective...




[edit on 10-2-2010 by Exuberant1]




top topics



 
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join