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

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



NASA has admitted to "manipulating" scanned photographs in settings such as brightness, contrast (probably color adjustments too) like many people and organizations tweak photo settings before publishing them.


source ? link ?




reply to post by sossa77
 


thanks


not sure but i don't see the crosshairs in those photos (will check again) , and as admitted by Arbitrageur in his above post NASA does manipulate images so there is no way of knowing the truth about these pictures.


case and point: if we can't trust what we are looking at in NASA photos , what does that say about NASA in general ?




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

The famous UFO Photo AS12-49-7319
easynowsmoonblog.blogspot.com...

[edit on 5-11-2009 by easynow]


Crosshairs are quit easy to see in bottom right picture, f.i. at astonauts right upper arm \ shoulder.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by sossa77]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Was it accidentally using a classified document source material in an unclassified document, or what it some confusion between Apollo 12 and Apollo 15 which did have a standup EVA, or was it something else?


now thats what i call 'occam's beard' (@747)........


i dont recall who...... but somebody had said......

"Surprisingly, it is not only believers who are reluctant to imagine fraud, but virtually all skeptics as well... thus we find skeptics searching for every other conceivable sort of explanation. While the one explanation that is simplest and most in accord with everyday experience is dismissed as inconceivable."



[edit on 10/11/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
When it comes to any response from NASA about this document that I highlighted here blatantly admitting to an S-EVA during Apollo 12, there is something that should be appreciated. What you are seeing here is a classic “leak” of Top Secret information in an unclassified document several decades after the fact. However, the timeframe does not change the fact that this information that was leaked is indeed referencing a Top Secret event that occurred during the Apollo 12 mission, and as such, if the author of this NASA document does reply with an answer about it, it would be absolutely ILLEGAL for her to confirm yet again that this covert Standup-EVA did in fact occur. She would be committing TREASON if she were to now knowingly confirm that information again to us publicly. All she can legally do is attempt to come up with an excuse to “explain away” this paragraph to make it appear as if it was both “accidentally included” and “completely incorrect” - a huge mistake or error on her part basically.

So, the author cannot confirm the document as being accurate, as that would be committing treason! Nor can she direct us to any classified source materials that she used as reference when compiling that document, because that would be directly and deliberately confirming the existence of Top Secret documentation related to Apollo 12 that we, the general public, are not supposed to know about - tack on another National Security violation there! Sad attempts at excuses or total silence is all I expect from NASA here, because it is simply illegal for them to confirm again that this covert S-EVA during Apollo 12 took place. It is still classified as a Top Secret event!

Now, could this paragraph referencing this S-EVA be a mistake? I say not likely! Firstly, there is simply no way this paragraph is accidentally referencing the Apollo 15 mission (Apollo 15 was the only Apollo mission to officially admit to conducting a Standup-EVA). Firstly, the document lists the mission dust issues experienced by the Apollo crews in sequential order, starting with Apollo 11 and running through the missions up to Apollo 17, and this paragraph is clearly at the start of the section dealing with Apollo 12. Apollo 15 does not get brought up for the first time until a page and a half later. More importantly, note that the paragraph in question not only directly states “Apollo 12” when referencing this Standup-EVA, but it even confirms why they had to do the S-EVA (due to dust issues on landing)!

The only Apollo mission to ever “officially” confirm that they conducted a Standup-EVA was the Apollo 15 flight to Hadley Rille/Marsh of Decay in July of 1971, and this document is clearly NOT mistakenly referencing that declared event that happened a year and a half after the Apollo 12 mission. The Apollo 15 S-EVA was publicly pre-planned well before that mission and was included as part of the publicized flight plan - so the public knew about it before Apollo 15 left Earth, and that obviously means that the Apollo 15 S-EVA had nothing to do with dust issues on landing! Not only does this document directly state “Apollo 12”, but the dust issues that are referenced that necessitated the S-EVA clearly were applicable to the unclassified historical record of Apollo 12. Apollo 12 in fact encountered the worst dust issues on landing of any of the Apollo crews, so if anyone needed to conduct an S-EVA due to dust issues, it was the Apollo 12 crew!

Obviously, this author of this document not only states that the S-EVA was conducted during Apollo 12, but she also states "why" as well as "when". So, she made THREE errors in one paragraph?? That is a mighty big hurdle for her to explain away as being an accidental and incorrect inclusion, because she was clearly getting those three facts from somewhere! Too bad it would be illegal for her to divulge the classified source materials she used!

Cheers,
LunaCognita



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



NASA has admitted to "manipulating" scanned photographs in settings such as brightness, contrast (probably color adjustments too) like many people and organizations tweak photo settings before publishing them.


source ? link ?


This describes the processing that is done when scanning images from the Apollo flight films:

apollo.sese.asu.edu...


Image Processing Notes

The scans of the Apollo flight films are processed using a standard set of procedures. First, the unexposed portions of the film along the edges of a scanned frame are cropped, and the frame is straightened. Second, the background is removed from all of the scans, by assuming that the average DN values of the unexposed regions at the edge of each raw scanned image represent the background (i.e., film base and fog). Third, a flatfield correction (derived from the actual image data) removes vignetting to the first order. Fourth, the reseau patterns (the small crosses visible on Apollo images published elsewhere) are removed from the images. Fifth, a logarithmic histogram transformation is applied to the image. This is necessary because of the logarithmic response of film, which makes the raw scans appear very contrasty. Since photographic paper also has a logarithmic response and reverses the films response, conventional paper prints have a natural contrast range. The logarithmic histogram correction applied to the scanned images therefore produces a virtual print that simulates the natural contrast of a conventional paper print. Sixth, since the uncompressed images produced by the initial scanning process result in extremely large images, the scale is reduced by a factor corresponding to the square root of 2, which serves to reduce the image size by 50%, and the images are converted from 16-bit to 8-bit. The original, unprocessed raw scans are provided on this website as a full-resolution 16-bit TIFF file. More details about the file formats are provided in a following section.


So they do a fair amount of image processing, involving contrast etc, and it even describes removal of the crosshairs! (But no airbrushing.
)

Edit to add: It was actually ASU doing the image processing, not NASA, I don't have a source to say NASA was doing it, though there is a NASA logo at the bottom of that link so maybe I should have said the image processing is done with the approval of NASA instead of by NASA. In any case it seems NASA is involved.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Obviously, this author of this document not only states that the S-EVA was conducted during Apollo 12, but she also states "why" as well as "when". So, she made THREE errors in one paragraph?? That is a mighty big hurdle for her to explain away as being an accidental and incorrect inclusion, because she was clearly getting those three facts from somewhere! Too bad it would be illegal for her to divulge the classified source materials she used!


I'm no expert on security classifications but from what little I do know about them, I suspect you are right, if the source was classified she can't confirm that. I also agree it's a stretch to think she confused Apollo 12 and Apollo 15 since she discusses them separately.

The only part of this whole story I'm struggling with a little bit is my own guesswork. I'm open to the possibility of a secret mission within a public mission, maybe defense related. But so far all the scenarios I've imagined for good secret missions would involve surface EVAs and not a standup EVA, so maybe I'm just not being imaginative enough on what kind of secret mission they would be doing on the standup EVA, it doesn't seem like there's a lot to do standing on top of the LM but enjoy the view and note the surrounding landmarks from a better vantage point.

I do find it interesting that what the mission plan says they were doing and what they would have been doing on a secret standup EVA match up, they would be observing either way, it's just a question of observing from inside or from outside the LM.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita
When it comes to any response from NASA about this document that I highlighted here blatantly admitting to an S-EVA during Apollo 12, there is something that should be appreciated. What you are seeing here is a classic “leak” of Top Secret information in an unclassified document several decades after the fact. However, the timeframe does not change the fact that this information that was leaked is indeed referencing a Top Secret event that occurred during the Apollo 12 mission, and as such, if the author of this NASA document does reply with an answer about it, it would be absolutely ILLEGAL for her to confirm yet again that this covert Standup-EVA did in fact occur. She would be committing TREASON if she were to now knowingly confirm that information again to us publicly.


LC, I don't think you understand what 'treason' is legally, and you could use some expert advice before trying to look like an expert beyond your boundaries of competence.

You also throw around terms like "Top Secret" without any apparent comprehension of the implications for access and information control. Any program to safeguard Secret and Top Secret information nestled in an unclassified environment has physical and procedural manifestations that are readily apparent -- and that were notably absent during the Apollo program, at least in the Mission Control Center.

Even at the 'Secret' level, the carrying out of DoD missions on the shuttle required dedication of an entire floor with stringent access control and physical/electronic isolation from the main building's facilities. None of that isolation/barrier system was in place during Apollo, and none is there now -- the barriers were physically torn out in the early 1990s after the termination of dedicated DoD payload operations.

LC, you write elegantly and with obvious familiarity with the jargon. But are you familiar enough with the constraints of operating with classified information and the access controls that such operations entail -- and which to all appearances were totally absent during Apollo?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by LunaCognita
Even at the 'Secret' level, the carrying out of DoD missions on the shuttle required dedication of an entire floor with stringent access control and physical/electronic isolation from the main building's facilities. None of that isolation/barrier system was in place during Apollo, and none is there now -- the barriers were physically torn out in the early 1990s after the termination of dedicated DoD payload operations.


how can we know it wasn't in place during the apollo missions?

after all you confirmed that it was there until the 90's.....

most probably they got a new isolated high tech building just before moving out....




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



that were notably absent during the Apollo program, at least in the Mission Control Center.


so you were there and know this to be fact or are you just regurgitating NASA's words ?

it say's here you didn't even start at NASA until 1975..


he joined NASA in 1975


en.wikipedia.org...


so it seems to me you are only echoing a bunch of baloney no matter where you got it from



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Oh, I understand what the terms mean Jim, and how security compartmentalization protocol works and how secrets are maintained. The fact is that if NASA were to openly admit to the execution of a Standup-EVA during Apollo 12, thus confiming that it was conducted covertly and that the public was denied the truth about it, that would most definitely be an offense that undermines the National Security of the United States of America. How could it not be? It would be knowingly divulging classified information confirming that a classified event did indeed occur during an Apollo mission - a classified event that by default also MUST call into question the accuracy and level of disclosure NASA has provided for the entirety of the Apollo program and beyond! What else happened during Apollo that they did not tell the world about? That BIG question suddenly becomes a 100% valid demand from the public who paid for these missions and were promised transparency!

The fact is that another NASA admission that this SEVA did indeed take place would allow the public to reasonably demand to know why they were lied to and denied this information, and denied the photographic evidence that obviously would have been taken during the undeclared EVA. It would force the public to ask what the hell else have NASA lied to us about? That is what is on the line here for NASA and their Apollo cover-story. The fact is that confirmation of this Apollo 12 SEVA event from anyone at NASA without permission from the Powers That Be would most definitely be an act that could reasonably be considered capable of undermining the government and National Security interests of the United States of America. There is no hyperbole attached to that at all - that is just the truth.

Related to your comment at the end about the "constraints of operating with classified information and the access controls that such operations entail" and how that was absent related to the Apollo program - you forgot to add at the end the same caveat you included earlier in your comment about "at least at the Mission Control Center".
I have no problem with your claim that there was no clearly classified information flaunted around in the public Mission Control Center at MCC Houston in Texas. Of course, when Conrad and Bean were on the private radio loop during their covert S-EVA, they were not talking to the public Control Room at Houston, were they? No, and that is why the official recordings of the public radio loop from the LM give us nothing but dead-air for nearly nineteen minutes at precisely the time Conrad and Bean were supposed to be describing the scene out the windows to Houston. They were describing the scene during that period, but they were doing it over the covert channel from atop the LM, talking to people who were not sitting in the public Mission Control Center in Houston.


Cheers,
LunaCognita



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
In the Apollo 12 Technical Debrief the astronauts say that they lost some 20 minutes looking around to try to recognise the features that they were supposed to see there (mostly boulders, that they say were not as much as they were told).




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


hey good find ArMaP but we already know they were looking out the window because it say's so and goes into some details about that in the transcripts. i think what is written there could mean they should have just gone and done the stand up EVA instead of wasting time looking out the window and were recommending that for future missions.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Now I'm confused, did they did the stand-up EVA or not?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


according to the document in question and the black out period on the audio , yes they did. i believe they were working hard to pinpoint their exact location and yes they were looking out the window trying to figure that out but since their view was limited inside the LM they did the stand up EVA to get a better look at their surroundings. you really have to spend the time reading all the transcripts to better understand everything.

also.....there's no way they didn't take some pictures while doing the stand up EVA and it's very possible they also took video. i want to know where that photography is.

hope that helps



[edit on 10-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 






Apollo 12 in fact encountered the worst dust issues on landing of any of the Apollo crews, so if anyone needed to conduct an S-EVA due to dust issues, it was the Apollo 12 crew!

-lunacognita




Hey guys,

I guess I should jump in and post the commentary on the dust from the LM portions of the DSE transcripts (during landing phase). Then everyone can see the pertinent excerpts for themselves without having to dig in to the transcripts:





More from Apollo 12 LM - "I think we're in a place that's a lot dustier than Neil's..." Also note the astronaut saying how "that was an IFR landing" (definition below). Having no visibility because of the dust, he was forced to rely on his instruments for the landing; an IFR landing...





Instrument flight rules (IFR)

Instrument flight rules (IFR) are regulations and procedures for flying aircraft by referring only to the aircraft instrument panel for navigation. Even if nothing can be seen outside the cockpit windows, an IFR-rated pilot can fly while looking only at the instrument panel. An IFR-rated pilot can also be authorized to fly through clouds, using Air Traffic Control procedures designed to maintain separation from other aircraft. Training is normally done in simulated IFR conditions with training aids such as blockalls to help a pilot concentrate only on the instrument panel.

en.wikipedia.org... (haha, wikipedia)




*Great Work Easynow and Luna. You guys have done an amazing job at piecing this puzzle together. Congratulations!
=
=



If you need me to look for anything in the DSE Blackbox transcripts, just let me know.




[edit on 11-11-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



that were notably absent during the Apollo program, at least in the Mission Control Center.


so you were there and know this to be fact or are you just regurgitating NASA's words ?

it say's here you didn't even start at NASA until 1975..


he joined NASA in 1975


en.wikipedia.org...


so it seems to me you are only echoing a bunch of baloney no matter where you got it from


I was there since 1975 and there were no restricted-access facilities or channels in the MCC until they were constructed at great cost and effort (and inconvenience to the rest of us flight controllers) in the early 1980s.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


thanks Exuberant1 for posting the transcript


yes the dust problem for Apollo 12 was bad enough that they had to rely on instruments only to land in it. they were also worried the dust from the landing would contaminate the surveyor site.


Conrad actually landed Intrepid 580 feet (180 m) short of Pete's Parking Lot because the planned landing point looked rougher than anticipated during the final approach to touchdown. The planned landing point was a little under 1,180 feet (360 m) from Surveyor 3, a distance that was chosen to eliminate the possibility of lunar dust (being kicked up by Intrepid's descent engine during landing) from covering Surveyor 3. But the actual touchdown point — 600 feet (180 m) from Surveyor 3 — did cause a thin film of dust to coat the probe, giving it a light tan hue.
en.wikipedia.org...





here's the video...




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by LunaCognita
They were describing the scene during that period, but they were doing it over the covert channel from atop the LM, talking to people who were not sitting in the public Mission Control Center in Houston.


And there's the problem. It's easy enough to idly imagine a separate team of experts, unknown to any of the 'standard' flight control team and trained by another top secret group on separate simulators and pressure chambers in secret buildings, directed by a different set of leaders who never actually had worked on space missions before, using communications links installed secretly that bypass all standard communications links, carrying cameras whose film would be dropped into appropriate custodial equipment from the recovery carrier through the medical isolation facilities into the photo labs and on to exploitation facilities -- anybody with enough time on their hands can 'imagine' anything being possible.

When you've actually seen the infrastructure for training, planning, operating, and analyzing a manned space mission, and then seen the agony of adding facilities only at the SECRET level for some DoD payloads in the 1980s, it becomes much less 'easy' to conjure up this vision. I guess you avoid experienced veterans of the Apollo team for good reason -- too much on-the-scene reality can spoil even the most elegant imagination.

As for what the Apollo-12 SEVA report was doing in the document, I offer no explanation -- and tip my hat for your catch. Enjoy it. If you want a list of other stupid misunderstandings and careless misrepresentations I've found in other long-post-action NASA documents, I'll post it.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


check out this video from Apollo 11. Buzz is describing the lunar surface and wow look at the color of the Moon ! it's brown





[edit on 11-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It's easy enough to idly imagine a separate team of experts, unknown to any of the 'standard' flight control team and trained by another top secret group on separate simulators and pressure chambers in secret buildings, directed by a different set of leaders who never actually had worked on space missions before, using communications links installed secretly that bypass all standard communications links, carrying cameras whose film would be dropped into appropriate custodial equipment from the recovery carrier through the medical isolation facilities into the photo labs and on to exploitation facilities -- anybody with enough time on their hands can 'imagine' anything being possible.


Ahhhhhh... So that's how it was actually done Jim! Thanks for the insight mate!

IRM





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join