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

reply to post by mcrom901


thanks for the links

"under burden" sounds like a easy excuse for something LOL

"prosaic mundaneties" gotta be my favourite

i hear ya LOL.. the constant Presumption of Naturality is getting old !



Astronauts were brainwashed with this philosophy for a specific reason

LunaCognita explains it better than i can...

Prior to their missions, when the Apollo astronauts were being trained on the "Presumption of Naturality" rulebook they had to follow, they were taught a specific series of descriptive techniques that would allow them to appear to be providing in-depth observations of the sights they were seeing while ensuring that they were still adhering to the strict tenets of the Dead Moon Dictum. The primary visual observation technique the astronauts were taught was known simply as "Least Astonishment".

Probably the very best basic description I have ever heard to explain the concept of "Least Astonishment" and how it was applied to the Apollo cover-story visual self-censorship training techniques comes directly from one of the Apollo astronauts - a guy that literally everyone has heard of, Neil A. Armstrong (Obviously, there is no need to run through this man's CV). Here is how Armstrong, in his authorized biography published in 2005, briefly described how the Apollo crews were trained to follow the principles of "Least Astonishment" during the Apollo missions.

"The geologists had a wonderful theory they called the “Theory of Least Astonishment”. According to the theory, when you ran into a particular rock formation, you hypothesized how it might have occurred and created as many theories as you could think of as to how it might have gotten there. But the scenario that was least astonishing was the one you were supposed to accept as the basis for further analysis. I found that fascinating. It was an approach to logic that I had never experienced in engineering."

From “First Man - The Life Of Neil Armstrong” (Armstrong's authorized biography - 2005)





wonder what "prosaic mundanetie" explains this ?

my friend talm @ um is in possession of various original i.e. 'uncensored' images from the apollo 10 mission.... which he had bought from an auction house selling a dead general's personal belongings..... though he had asked me earlier not to post them... it is okay now.... he posted just the following examples at unexplained mysteries publicly....

AS10-31-4527



the 'road' anomaly which is visible in the above pic @ bottom left..... has obviously been edited out in the below nasa version.....



there sure is something weird about the moon... zoomed examples...









edited to add: i'm not withholding anything more here.... these are the only examples of what i've seen.....

[edit on 11/2/10 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

my eyes are wide open and i see NASA is a big bag of lies and deception


for starters here's a good example...

"In order to understand, you must forget everything you have ever been taught by others and look for yourself" - franspeakfree

Despite the numerous attemps of showing how NASA has lied to us all these years still it only garnishes a small amount of attention why is that? - people are ignorant and by staying ignorant means that they can live a life of denial as long as the gas is cheap and the television is working, they need nothing else. Que lastima!

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Have you tried with other similiar films?

If you could obtain a good frame and a frame from a curled real, you would be able to demonstrate the effects and we could all make our observations.

I found a transfer of a 16mm film print of an old "My Three Sons" episode.

It's in focus in the center, and defocused at the edges. There's a small grille underneath the windshield and we can see the grille detail in the center but there's a defocus gradient toward the edges, which are so fuzzy we can't see the grille detail.

So, either there's also a conspiracy to obscure details outside the center of an old My Three Sons episode too, or else maybe we are seeing a similar defocus gradient to the NASA 16mm film?


www.youtube.com...

This is from an old 16mm print of an episode of "My three sons".

I have attempted to restore the color in the film.

On the left you can see the restored film and on the right you can see the original film.

Let me know what you think of this work

You can watch it yourself but I took some screencaps to show the grill detail I'm talking about:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6ab7b72f478.jpg[/atsimg]

And no she's not the greatest driver in the world either.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


she is HOT ! but no she is not a very good driver ? LOL

thanks for the video but i am afraid that isn't a example of film curl causing anything. the likely explanation for the difference seen in the grill would be from the process of re-colorizing the footage. sorry but thanks for at least making an attempt








reply to post by mcrom901


thanks for sharing those images

that's a very strange looking anomaly, what can it be ? there seems to be more than just the one ?? i tried to find other versions of that exact image but had no luck.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
thanks for the video but i am afraid that isn't a example of film curl causing anything. the likely explanation for the difference seen in the grill would be from the process of re-colorizing the footage. sorry but thanks for at least making an attempt

I'm not sure if you read what the author said, but the right side isn't colorized. So you can't blame the defocus gradient on the right side on the colorization process.

Why not just admit that Hollywood also applies a defocus gradient to obscure the edges too? Who knows what they might accidentally show us on the edges of a My Three Son's episode if it was in focus all the way across and not just in the center? Or is NASA the only one capable of a conspiracy?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


why don't you just admit that maybe the reason for the "defocus" is because it's just a crappy piece of old film and has nothing to do with Hollywood applying anything

your grasping at straws here bro , like i said thanks for trying but your gonna have to do better than that to convince me




[edit on 11-2-2010 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


When John Lear was here he offered similarly outlandish "theories", along with the requisite photographic "proof" mixed in with a dose of a large tongue-in-cheek (when you read between the lines that he wrote).

Most of us rarely bother to read the indroction heading at the top of ATS threads...so here is a portion of it, to chew on:

"Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com\'s tradition of supporting the examination of the \"extraterrestrial phenomenon\" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals."

Y'all should go read the rest, up above....

I think it says, quite clearly, the "raison d'etre" for what ATS has become, in the last two years, compared to what it BEGAN as, IMO.

Advertising revenue, and increasing publicity, certainly has nothing to do with it, unless we wish to think of that as another 'conspiracy'.....

I am prompted to suggest this because of yours, and others', constant obfuscation and posting of silly images, with a dangling innuendo hinted at...(like that one earlier, the one that looks like Andy Warhol modified it, the way he artistically re-imagined Campbell's Soup cans....I still can't figure out what "point" you're trying to make, with that one!!!)

THEN, of course, this thread lends more fodder to the "Moon Land Hoax" 'theorists' who inevitably crop up...


I am going to call that phenomenom, from now on , a "Geek" tragedy.....

Pyramids on the Moon - NASA's Apollo lunar coverup






**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE**

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


when Evidence is presented about NASA committing a Fraudulent Act and is Publicly displayed for everyone to examine, there will be attempts made by some to discredit, minimize, and ridicule the Subject and the People who brought you the information.


(some of you might already know that but some might not)



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

[edit on 11-2-2010 by easynow]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I don't think that is a good example of curled film (if it is an example of it at all), the difference in sharpness is very small.

I looked at all the "image density measuring panel" images from one of those videos in the Internet Archive, and the area that is free of blurring is not always the centre of the frame, as you can see in the video below, in some cases its very assymetric.

Too bad the video is not big enough to show the images in real size, but I think it's enough to see how the unblurred area changes.

reply to post by ArMaP

What's your source and are you sure those are 16mm films and not videos?

Also the defocus gradient on the my three sons episode may not be as large, but there is a defocus gradient there, regardless of the cause. And the orange color of the film suggests it wasn't stored in a freezer, so the curl wouldn't be as large from age alone as the low humidity environment of a freezer like the one NASA used, so I'd expect the NASA's films stored in low humidity to have more of the low humidity storage effect Kodak describes (positive curl).

Originally posted by ArMaP

I looked at all the "image density measuring panel" images from one of those videos in the Internet Archive, and the area that is free of blurring is not always the centre of the frame, as you can see in the video below, in some cases its very assymetric.

[ff]

Nice catch..i think you discovered the material used by NASA when they test their evident obfuscation technique...which they made on-line exactly in order to hide their obfuscation tehnique. Very smart approach form NASA

[/end funny feeling]





[edit on 11/2/10 by depthoffield]

reply to post by easynow


Need atmosphere?

ATS Thread - Eclipse

I tried to link a copy of this photo that I've been working on but I can't seem to up load it.

I set the image as my desktop and almost immediately noticed 'arcs' (I have a superb CRT display with the res cranked right up).

based on a clock...

To the immediate left and right of 12

Between 2 & 3

Between 4 & 5

From 6 to almost 8

I am fully aware that there are a variety of possible reasons for this, but it seems to me that this is something back lit by the sun.

For comparison, the Earth's atmosphere...

Earth's Atmospheric Arc

Same type of 'shadow' line.

Maybe, maybe not. Definitely curious to my mind.

EDIT:

PS...Big fan of your youtube vid's Luna, keep it up please.



[edit on 11-2-2010 by [davinci]]

reply to post by weedwhacker

files.abovetopsecret.com...









reply to post by ArMaP

the area that is free of blurring is not always the centre of the frame

yes we already knew that but it doesn't get NASA off the hook.




reply to post by depthoffield

take my advice and stick to cameras and not comedy




reply to post by [davinci]

thanks [davinci] but i honestly don't understand what you mean or implying with that image. maybe you can clarify this to me ? i dunno

i believe we landed on the Moon but i don't think all the images or video taken on the surface are legit. here is a good example

reply to post by easynow


Oh come on - he clearly touched the flag!

Even if he didn't, the flag clearly moved because of the venting of his PLSS pack.

And even if that was the case, the flag was clearly not at resting position and moved slightly because of the impact of the 350 pound astronaut on the lunar surface only a few feet away. This caused the flag to move to resting position.

And even then, clearly the solar wind increased in speed as it flowed around the astronaut (like real wind, same principle), as with that solar wind experiment that Gene Cernan [?] saw move more than expected.... solar winds were one of the factors. Clearly.


4 plausible explanations - five minutes.





[edit on 12-2-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by easynow


Sorry about that, I couldn't figure out how to link photos. This is a quick paint job, but it highlights what I was getting at...


Original


Highlighted


Comparisson Original


Highlighted



In the eclipse photo it might be hard to see, but it's there at 1/8 inch from the surface (depending on the level of zoom)

[edit on 12-2-2010 by [davinci]]

reply to post by Exuberant1


dam your right, we are skeptics aren't we ? LOL

Oh come on - he clearly touched the flag!

yes clearly

Even if he didn't, the flag clearly moved because of the venting of his PLSS pack.
the impact of the 350 pound astronaut on the lunar surface only a few feet away
solar winds were one of the factors. Clearly.

yes clearly that explains it, but only on days that end in Y

4 plausible explanations - five minutes.

is that the best you can do ?




reply to post by [davinci]

ok now i think i understand what your getting at , thanks and wow those are amazing pictures ! i will look into this further for sure




[edit on 12-2-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

4 plausible explanations - five minutes.

is that the best you can do ?

I have arthritis and type slow. I might have gotten in more theories in less minutes were I a faster typist, alas.

And yup; we're big-time skeptics.

Some self-proclaimed skeptics limit themselves to being skeptical only about the claims of individuals (often whilst unquestioningly adhering to and acting in defense of orthodoxy). In fact, it seems there is even a whole species of skeptic who are primarily skeptical only of the claims of those who are skeptical of the claims coming from official sources.

The likes of Luna, you and me - we take a skeptical approach to most everything; especially the bigger fish. Luna takes an unbiased journalistic approach and you do much the same with your blog vis-à-vis the manner in which you present the evidence and draw no conclusions.

And myself - aren't I just a role model for all?




[edit on 12-2-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What's your source and are you sure those are 16mm films and not videos?

My source is this page in the Internet Archive.

I cannot be sure if they are 16 mm films (although the proportions of the image look correct for 16 mm film), but that's what they called it, "APOLLO 10 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1".

There is also film 2, available here.