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

reply to post by LunaCognita




i think somebody liked your picture so much they added a spaceship to it

alien.wolfmagick.com...

I am extraordinarily pissed at President Obama for canceling Constellation. Humanity needs to "do the other things" as JFK said. We do so much useless and horrible things in wars, killing, terrorists.

Having man go to the moon and beyond is something inspiring and great rather than petty. We spend trillions to kill, but find it hard to spend a few billion to take man into the future. To further our horizons.

Humanity will only avoid extinction if we leave this planet and spread ourselves across the solar system.

We will never know the secrets of the moon if we don't go. Let your congressmen know you want them to support space exploration.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

yea 10-4 ,

this is the best image taken from the LM's position showing the Surveyor craft ?? WHAT ?

history.nasa.gov...

nice clear image isn't it ?

:shk:

Hmmm,

Check out this image of the Surveyor-with-astronaut; it seems to be subject to much better lighting conditions than in than image you just posted from the LM's position showing the Surveyor.

Did NASA say that image you posted shows Surveyor 3?


Gee It looks like they did and for 6741 too:

116:22:29 Frame from Pete's 12 o'clock pan showing the deep shadow on the eastern wall of Surveyor Crater and, as indicated in a detail, the sunlit solar panels on the Surveyor III spacecraft on the left. Compare with the corresponding frames from Pete's 4 o'clock pan, AS12-46-6746, and his 8 o'clock pan, AS12-46-6769. The body and legs of the Surveyor are in shadow. Note the two overlapping craters on the sunlit, southeast inner wall of Surveyor Crater. Note, also, the blocky rimmed crater just outside the LM shadow in the foreground. These blocks may be ejecta from Surveyor Crater which was buried by regolith sprayed onto the site by other impacts and was then brought back to the surface for a second time (at least) by the impact that made the small crater. As Pete mentions at 118:27:12, he mistakenly took the pan at 15-foot focus instead of 74-foot focus.
history.nasa.gov...

Hmmmmm. That seems like quite the variation in lighting conditions.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hmmmmm. That seems like quite the variation in lighting conditions.

If that was on Earth I would say that there was a one hour between each photo, so on the Moon I guess that difference would be something like some 24-26 hours.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Check out this image of the Surveyor-with-astronaut;

thanks Exuberant1 , that's "Pete's Parking lot" and that view i believe is looking N NW. , the other image with the heavy shadow is looking S SE
it's not easy to see the Surveyor probe in all that darkness. Jack White's enhancement seems to be the best but i am not 100% sure what it really is.



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

6741 is no help
history.nasa.gov...


no clear images of the Surveyor craft from the LM's position is certainly odd to say the least. maybe there was something there they didn't want us to see ? yes i think so

An opinion by John Lear
The daytime sky on the moon is not black.

It could be yellow. It could be blue. It could be red.

But it is not black.

The reason for the lie “the sky is black on the moon” is that if it were yellow or blue or red or another color then that would mean the moon has an atmosphere through which the sun rays shine, turning the sky a color.

And if the moon has an atmosphere then it has gravity which holds the atmosphere in place.

If it has an atmosphere and gravity then most everything you have been told about the moon is a lie.

And you have been told a lie.

The atmosphere on the moon is not as dense as on earth but there is wind; there are clouds, lakes, rivers, vegetation and everything else that comes with those things. And it’s the ‘everything else’ part that made the lie so necessary.

Of course these things are not on the side of the moon that you can see, by design.

From the moment it was discovered that the moon had an atmosphere unbelievable amounts of time, money and effort were expended to protect the lie.

Film. Color film, black and white film, still cameras, movie cameras, all had to be engineered to promote the lie. Hollywood movie-type sets had to be built for the Apollo missions because they had to be sure that no accident in filming on the lunar surface was able to catch the color of the sky.

Color photographs were changed through a series of inter-negatives to turn the sky black. Technicians labored literally hundreds of thousands of hours to doctor photos of the moon to turn the sky black, and to eliminate offensive material.

Accidents like the t.v. camera on Apollo 12 being accidentally pointed towards the sun and rendering it useless were engineered to prevent any chance the sky would be filmed in its true color.

That’s why the discrepancy in shadows on many of the Apollo pictures: many scenes were filmed on a set and careful enough attention was not paid to the direction of the shadows cast by the different lights.

Oh we went to the moon alright. Its what we found there that was such a secret. A secret, it was determined, that had to be kept at all costs.
theuniversalseduction.com...

accidental camera failure ?



.....there's a different lie at every level ? LOL

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Apollo 8 Orbit

Apollo 11

STS128

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

the Moon is brown

cheers bro...

what surprises me is that why is it that they engage in so much faking

check out the following image....



from... www.planetary.org...

Earthset from Zond 7 (August 11, 1969) Zond 7 flew past the Moon, taking this sequence of images of Earth setting behind the lunar limb, on August 9, 1969. The sequence actually consists of only three images; the second one was simulated from data in the others to even out the Earthset sequence. Credit: Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography (MIIGAiK) / Ted Stryk

i don't think it's too difficult to notice that the above image which is supposedly showing the earth-rise in 4 separate captured frames..... is in fact just ONE single image of the earth copied in different positions of the various strips..... a complete flop show....

here's the actual frame....



hmmmm..... the russians too?

Originally posted by mcrom901
i don't think it's too difficult to notice that the above image which is supposedly showing the earth-rise in 4 separate captured frames.....

It's suppose to show the Earth setting, not rising.

is in fact just ONE single image of the earth copied in different positions of the various strips..... a complete flop show....

Why do you say that? Are you expecting to see changes from one photo to the next in a sequence like that, that lasts just some seconds to make?

hmmmm..... the russians too?

But they show a brown Moon, were they faking the colour and the Moon is really grey?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by mcrom901
i don't think it's too difficult to notice that the above image which is supposedly showing the earth-rise in 4 separate captured frames.....

It's suppose to show the Earth setting, not rising.

lol... my mistake... thanks for pointing out

is in fact just ONE single image of the earth copied in different positions of the various strips..... a complete flop show....

Why do you say that? Are you expecting to see changes from one photo to the next in a sequence like that, that lasts just some seconds to make?

if you pay close attention to the lower left section of the portrayed earth image.... you will probably notice the whack job in question... which is presumably some bucket-fill tool after-affect...

hmmmm..... the russians too?

But they show a brown Moon, were they faking the colour and the Moon is really grey?

well nice of them to maintain the actual lunar surface colour..... but that has nothing to do with the fact that they doctored the image in question...

Originally posted by mcrom901
if you pay close attention to the lower left section of the portrayed earth image.... you will probably notice the whack job in question... which is presumably some bucket-fill tool after-affect...

That doesn't mean that they didn't have three images, the same tool applied to similar looking images would produce the same result.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by mcrom901
if you pay close attention to the lower left section of the portrayed earth image.... you will probably notice the whack job in question... which is presumably some bucket-fill tool after-affect...

That doesn't mean that they didn't have three images, the same tool applied to similar looking images would produce the same result.

do you seriously believe that... when looking at the image?

different captures having exactly the same pixel leak

impossible

Originally posted by mcrom901
do you seriously believe that... when looking at the image?

Yes, if I didn't I wouldn't say (write) it.

different captures having exactly the same pixel leak

I see I wasn't clear enough.

If you have three photos of some subject, that doesn't change between photos, with a almost black background, and you use a bucket fill tool to fill the background with pure black then the bucket fill algorithm will replace the same colours with black, giving a similar result in all the photos.

impossible

No, quite easy, actually.

Here is an animation made with the three images.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/8c0c8135e2f50d9f.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ArMaP
If you have three photos of some subject, that doesn't change between photos, with a almost black background, and you use a bucket fill tool to fill the background with pure black then the bucket fill algorithm will replace the same colours with black, giving a similar result in all the photos.

what do you mean the subject doesn't change between photos!!! are you talking studio photography with some fixed object...

anyways... how are the colours of the continents changing?



lighting tool to make them look different...

ooops... i mean increase in solar exposure due to angle change...

Originally posted by mcrom901
what do you mean the subject doesn't change between photos!!! are you talking studio photography with some fixed object...

No, I mean that the edge of the subject (the Earth) doesn't change between photos, they photos were taken with little time between them, so there's no noticeable change in the image.

anyways... how are the colours of the continents changing?

There are many things that can explain the slight colour changes, and it's no surprise f those colour changes were not large enough to do not affect an eventual use of the bucket fill tool (it can usually be used to replace colours based on hue or luminance, for example)

Why do you post four photos, didn't you read that they only took three photos and one of those (the second in the sequence, I think) was created by averaging (or something like that) the other photos?

reply to post by mcrom901


Sorry...."faked"?? With, what are you suggesting? Photoshop??

...you will probably notice the whack job in question... which is presumably some bucket-fill tool after-affect...

Your own source of the phot shows its origins...August 11, 1969!!

Are you suggesting that the Russians had Photoshop in 1969?

I'm not much of the expert in photo image manipulation, as others here are...but I am 100% certain there was no such technology in 1969!!

Originally posted by ArMaP
No, I mean that the edge of the subject (the Earth) doesn't change between photos, they photos were taken with little time between them, so there's no noticeable change in the image.

so are you suggesting that the observed ridges at the lower section of earth were as it were captured by the camera?

or secondary artifacts?

If you have three photos of some subject, that doesn't change between photos, with a almost black background, and you use a bucket fill tool to fill the background with pure black then the bucket fill algorithm will replace the same colours with black, giving a similar result in all the photos.

your above explanation is on the basis of 'image manipulation' itself.... the very point you are trying to refute...

Why do you post four photos, didn't you read that they only took three photos and one of those (the second in the sequence, I think) was created by averaging (or something like that) the other photos?

i think 'averaging' was done on the rest as well....

why is it that we have the same artifact on all 'three' pictures?

Oh my word another cover up person...well I'm just another hoax head here to give you "bright" people a msg:
NEWS FLASH people there is NOTHING TO COVER UP b/c the missions were fake to begin with!
All people do is cloud the real issue and add mystery & confusion to something that should be glaringly obvious!

reply to post by mcrom901


hey bud good to see you and nice find on the fake images

the second one was simulated

priceless !

oh wait,.... maybe they are all fake ? !



this one is my favorite !!
www.planetary.org...

the image has been modified to make it better fit on a computer screen. www.planetary.org...

they sure are pretty pictures

Originally posted by mcrom901
so are you suggesting that the observed ridges at the lower section of earth were as it were captured by the camera?

or secondary artifacts?

What I think is that the original photos, after being converted to digital format already looked like that, we can see that the lower left area is slightly darker than the rest, so it's natural that conversion to a digital format would create those "ridges",

your above explanation is on the basis of 'image manipulation' itself.... the very point you are trying to refute...

What I am trying to refute is the idea that those four images are just one, like you said on your first post about this image:

i don't think it's too difficult to notice that the above image which is supposedly showing the earth-rise in 4 separate captured frames..... is in fact just ONE single image of the earth copied in different positions of the various strips..... a complete flop show....

And I know that many images are "retouched" to make them more "appealing" (or something like that), so I wouldn't be surprised if this image was subjkected to some of that treatment. After all, they even faked the second image.

i think 'averaging' was done on the rest as well....

why is it that we have the same artifact on all 'three' pictures?

Because the time between photos was too short for any difference to be noticeable, either on the cloud coverage or even the rotation of the Earth.

Is it that hard to understand?

reply to post by easynow


I'm sorry...."fake"??

You really need to take a pill and calm down....

It is an absolute fallacy that you spout these accusations, (and get 'stars'??) about photos that, AT MOST, have been enhanced/retouched...purely for commercial and asthetic reasons.

Unless that is your defintion of "fake" ....in that case, just about every supermodel you see in a magazine, or in Playboy, would qualify too! But the way you state it, the readers' impressions (as you most likely intend) may be different....as IF the entire image was "faked" from the outset.

I consider that to be duplicitous on your part.....

(I'm still wondering why no one has mentioned that Photoshop did not yet exist in 1969? Is someone going to allege that the Russians were able to "fake" images from their spacecraft Zond 7 ???

Just what sort of image-altering technology DID they have 40 years ago??)

reply to post by weedwhacker

I'm sorry...."fake"??

yes, fake, and obvious fakes to say the least.

You really need to take a pill and calm down....

ahhhhh more personal attacks, i'm not surprised !

It is an absolute fallacy that you spout these accusations, (and get 'stars'??) about photos that, AT MOST, have been enhanced/retouched...purely for commercial and asthetic reasons.

news flash yard guy, the website the image is posted on admits to at least one being a FAKE !

and how do you know they are all real ? because the DoD and NASA say so ? hah ! most of you skeptics would scream bloody murder if something was posted with one source to validate it !

Unless that is your defintion of "fake" ....in that case, just about every supermodel you see in a magazine, or in Playboy, would qualify too! But the way you state it, the readers' impressions (as you most likely intend) may be different....as IF the entire image was "faked" from the outset.

apples and oranges, blah blah blah

I consider that to be duplicitous on your part.....

i consider people that have unconditional love and a never ending defense for the 'establishment' and the status quo "duplicitous" and revolting !

(I'm still wondering why no one has mentioned that Photoshop did not yet exist in 1969? Is someone going to allege that the Russians were able to "fake" images from their spacecraft Zond 7 ???

Just what sort of image-altering technology DID they have 40 years ago??)

wow you really are ignorant about image manipulation technology they had back then aren't you ? how sad

[edit on 2-8-2010 by easynow]