Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by The Shrike
I may start another thread on my suspicions about some of the Apollo footage but I would have to be thorough and that will take time. In fact I can
imagine it taking hours! It will have to wait for now as I have a lot on currently (I am not being evasive I promise).
Well, what did the guy you spoke to claim he thought he had in those posters? Could he remember? If he suggested you order them I assume he told you
which images. Do you have the NASA numbers so somebody else could order the posters? I bet Armap would love to take a look...
We spoke at length for an hour and you are going to be disappointed at the final result. First, he was surprised that I was contacting him after 27
years after hardly speaking to each other for what may have been a minute or two. He couldn't believe I was calling him a week after he had found his
stored photos which had suffered some water damage. We spoke about many things and other people and authors such as George Leonard and others. He
agreed that they had failed to find real anomalies, possibly because they had not used large, poster-size photos such as the ones he acquired. I
asked him how he found the anomalies in the first place to go the expense of buying the photos since I bought one and it cost me 30-some dollars. And
at the seminar he had at least a dozen. I asked why hadn't published his findings and his answer go lost in the back and forth, interrupting each
other to say something else.
He excused himself and came back on the phone and told me he had the photos in front of him. We compared whatever photo I could find in my NASA
journals but I couldn't make out what he was talking about because, again, of my published photos size which were thumbnails compared to his large
photos. Plus I didn't have the photo number he mentioned. So, once again, I'm at a loss to give details. He mentioned towers, round domes, etc.,
but to me not being able to look over his shoulder it was a waste.
Here are the photo numbers he gave me but even when I tried to find them on the Internet, the ones I was able to find didn't show didley squat. I
also had a problem with NASA photo numbers because I thought that if a photo number starts with a V I thought it was a Lunar Orbiter Five photo but he
said that V was a mission number. Flamsteed Crater looks like a face but I don't know if he saw anomalies in it. He mentioned Crater Philolaus but
you can't seen anything on the photo. He said that in Copernicus Crater he saw 6 objects in 2 rows of 3 but he lost me since I couldn't share his
enthusiasm. I have to stress that unless you have a large, poster-size photos, you are not going to see anything out of the ordinary. So don't be
V-154-H1, 2, 3
III-200M, H1, 2, 3
"Mickey Mouse" face V-190-H3
Smooth cone IV-109-H3
M means that it's an overall photo and H means that it's a closeup. In my LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE MOON, it shows an overall photo
(M) and in the succeeding pages H1 means a closeup of the top part of the center area, H2 means the middle section, and H3 means the lower section.
I don't mean to belittle my great conversation with this person because if I visited Los Angeles and got together with him and saw the photos I'd
leave ecstatic. But over the phone, I felt dissatisfied because as the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. So for anyone thinking
that they're really going to see anything in small NASA photos of the lunar surface they're only kidding themselves. I've been through it. My
notes are extensive but they'll have to remain stored as they've been since the early '80s.
But, hey, it was fun! Research is fun and I researched my buns off!