Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What's Your Beef With NASA?

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mcrom901
what about from outside our own atmosphere?


Oh that is easy...


There is a little known image taken by Galileo on its way to Jupiter... You know... the spacecraft that gave us all those TRUE COLOR beautiful images of Jupiter and Io?


Image Credit: NASA/JPL/Galileo Spacecraft

OOOOOOOOO PRETTY !!!!!



To bad that doesn't get around much


And what is really cool is that Galileo also was lucky and caught Aristarchus with the lights on...







So did Clementine...



Even though the lights dimmed when Clementine flew over...


"A satisfying rebuke to the TLP naysayers was recently delivered by JPL's B. Buratti at the October 1999 meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Padua, Italy. Her specific TLP occurred on April 23, 1994. At that time, about one hundred amateur astronomers noticed a 40-minute darkening near the edge of the bright lunar crater Aristarchus. Happily, when this hundred fold "illusion" took place, the lunar satellite Clementine was mapping the area around Aristarchus. Defying the dogmatists, Buratti scrutinized the Clementine data again. Sure enough, Aristarchus had really turned redder after the TLP reported by the amateur astronomers."

www.science-frontiers.com...

Another astronomer caught Aristarchus with the lights on... Anthony Jenkins... on the same date as Mike Deegan got his images



And here he is with Sir Patrick Moore going over that image



Aristarchus Crater
Apollo 11 Transcript from Mission Log



So is Aristarchus really blue?













Yup seems like it is




Excellent information, Zorgon. Thank you for posting your research (and your ever so slight humorous tone). It's members like you that make ATS such a valuable website.




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1questioner
It should be beneath you to call other ATS members names. If you are a true professional, you should have the ability to keep the level of discourse high. Please do so in the future.


You got trouble with reading English, bub? The message I posted was a guy using "this idiot" to refer to HIMSELF, and I just echoed it. Not referring to you, but maybe I should.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Your water glass is a red herring... fill a huge aquarium with water and you will see the blue tint, even indoors where there is no sky.


I posed the question to get readers to ask themselves what they mean when they ask "what color" something "is." It is obviously much more subtle a question than would appear, which is why you jumped in to prevent people from working it out on their own. So now I ask: if water is blue, why are clouds, which are water vapor, white? Or snow for that matter?


Now stop playing the fool... people are not as dumb as you think


I certainly hope they're not as dumb as you think.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
could we clarify the conversation here please experts



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



To provide reliable, solid-state, cost-effective imaging in the near ultraviolet,
visible, and near-infrared regions of the spectrum (from 0.3 to 1.0 µm), LLNL designed and built a medium-resolution, 0.426-kg camera that uses silicon charge-coupled device
(CCD) technology. For Clementine, this camera was combined with a six position spectral filter wheel for remote sensing applications and, specifically, for mineral typing studies of the Moon. The image below shows the African continent imaged by the ultraviolet/visible camera at five different wavelengths on a clear day from a distance of 384,000 km.


Perhaps you would care to explain for the novices out there what: a "silicon charge-coupled-device... with a six position spectral filter wheel" actually is. Yes, some of the filters are in the visible light range, but is it imaging the way our own eyes do? And how do we know what gamma correction has been made on each color layer?

I specifically took that lousy picture of the Moon with a Nikon D-3000 camera because most people naively assume that that particular consumer RGB CCD system is "true color." Of course, if people really wanted to know what color the Moon is, they could just go outside and look at it.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Perhaps you would care to explain for the novices out there what: a "silicon charge-coupled-device... with a six position spectral filter wheel" actually is. Yes, some of the filters are in the visible light range, but is it imaging the way our own eyes do? And how do we know what gamma correction has been made on each color layer?


Apples to Oranges... the High res camera is the true color, the one I described... the medium res camera has the UV and IR, the one you described They had several cameras on board

Nice try though... I know guys like you rely on selective reading to push your agenda



I specifically took that lousy picture of the Moon with a Nikon D-3000 camera because most people naively assume that that particular consumer RGB CCD system is "true color."


Marvelous
We are in agreement as to the quality of your image



Of course, if people really wanted to know what color the Moon is, they could just go outside and look at it.


No because the brightness of the reflection over powers the subtle colors of the moon. I am sure you know that... but what the heck, I am sure you can convince a few
edit on 10-11-2011 by zorgon because: Denying Ignorance is a 24/7 job :shk:



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nv4711
 


Because they have liberal liars like James Hansen spewing his bull*hit lies about "man made global warming."

FRAUD

That pretty much did it for me.

He is a liar and a fraud. Just like all the other Gore fanatics.

My two cents.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nv4711
 


There are two crowds I think interested in this topic.

Serious people looking for authentic evidence.

Delusional people who want it to be true so badly they trust nobody and think everyone is in on a giant coverup.

The delusional people always attack the serious people and call them Skeptics or if more paranoid they call you a Debunker, whatever that is.

Me, I think the folks at NASA are very credible and considering the number of them and the number of outside businesses and agencies involved, they could no more keep a secret than the POTUS could.

In the end when good evidence pops up, it is the so called Skeptics who will find it.

I'll stay away form the Galactic Federation of Light crowds and hope they don't end up in a mass suicide.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What's wrong with correcting the gamma of an image? I do that all the time. They would be incompetent if they did not do that. Who want's to look at a washed out image before it's been processed. Digital is not film.

There is nothing suspicious about that I can see and I work with images constantly. Just keeping a monitor calibrated and monitor gamma right is a chore, not to mention most people use the factory default on their monitors where the color is way to rich to begin with. They ship them with the wrong gamma setup because people like the rich colors. Here it looks way to saturated to me, but when I go to a calibrated monitor at home, it will likely look perfect.

Then you have to deal with color space between applications and dealing with your monitor. In graphics most use a wider gamut color space, while the sRGB that is default on monitors is a more narrow one and you have to compensate for that.

For instance my avatar looks like the whites are blown out; while at home I can see every detail including the dirty feathers. It's all relative to what you are viewing it on and if it is calibrated to known targets.
edit on 11/10/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by nv4711
 


follow the evidence & question authority...



jokes re LGM doesn't cut it...



And this is evidence of exactly what? This is supposed to be evidence of a cover up?

What I read is a General, asking the Information Officer for the boiler plate statement on UFOs...
Why? Well, for one thing because he knows that whatever he says will be taken out of context and end up on sites like this as "proof" that an Air Force General confirmed UFOs..

The next paragraph is the Information Officer expressing his hope that there won't be another UFO investigation....
Because he's concerned that the gig is up?.. Will people find out?.... No.. the simple and logical explanation is
because he does not want again to spend money and manpower on a Fata Morgana, knowing that there is nothing to investigate...and of course knowing that if they did an investigation the result won't be accepted anyways....
"The investigation has not uncovered any credible fact or evidence for alien craft and/or alien beings visiting Earth"........Response:.."liars"...."Cover Up".... so, why even bother?

This letter is a simple office action and given that this letter that you offer as evidence of a cover up isn't even classified is just a side note...


nice running commentary,but i'm afraid you missed the reference to the fact sheet...




www.abovetopsecret.com...

and moreover as i mentioned earlier, cut the zomg little green men stuff off, it comes across as pseudo-skeptical; try and question the stances in regards to nature of the phenomenon itself without any biases
edit on 10/11/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mcrom901
what about from outside our own atmosphere?


Oh that is easy...


There is a little known image taken by Galileo on its way to Jupiter... You know... the spacecraft that gave us all those TRUE COLOR beautiful images of Jupiter and Io?


Image Credit: NASA/JPL/Galileo Spacecraft

OOOOOOOOO PRETTY !!!!!



To bad that doesn't get around much



hear ya...






Galileo imaging results from the second Earth-Moon flyby



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by nv4711
 


follow the evidence & question authority...


jokes re LGM doesn't cut it...



And this is evidence of exactly what? This is supposed to be evidence of a cover up?

What I read is a General, asking the Information Officer for the boiler plate statement on UFOs...
Why? Well, for one thing because he knows that whatever he says will be taken out of context and end up on sites like this as "proof" that an Air Force General confirmed UFOs..

The next paragraph is the Information Officer expressing his hope that there won't be another UFO investigation....
Because he's concerned that the gig is up?.. Will people find out?.... No.. the simple and logical explanation is
because he does not want again to spend money and manpower on a Fata Morgana, knowing that there is nothing to investigate...and of course knowing that if they did an investigation the result won't be accepted anyways....
"The investigation has not uncovered any credible fact or evidence for alien craft and/or alien beings visiting Earth"........Response:.."liars"...."Cover Up".... so, why even bother?

This letter is a simple office action and given that this letter that you offer as evidence of a cover up isn't even classified is just a side note...


nice running commentary,but i'm afraid you missed the reference to the fact sheet...




www.abovetopsecret.com...

and moreover as i mentioned earlier, cut the zomg little green men stuff off, it comes across as pseudo-skeptical; try and question the stances in regards to nature of the phenomenon itself without any biases
edit on 10/11/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



See... I find it somewhat ..odd... or even an attempt to mislead, when you present a

a) purported DoD UFO Fact Sheet that clearly and only is a Dept. of the Navy Fact sheet - however the evidence you present to discredit the NAVY statement is all Air Force related.
b) The documents in the link provided are obsolete for decades, such as
c) Air Force Regulation 200-2, commented with "This Regulation establishes procedures for information and evidence material pertaining to unidentified flying objects and sets forth the responsibility of Air Force activities in this regard. It applies to all Air Force Activities."
You either don't know better or you deliberately misinform. AFR 200-2 was superseded by AFR 80-17 in Sept. 1966 and does not apply, as you try to convey, to all Air Force activities for meanwhile 45 years. I'm not positive but relatively sure that AFR 80-17 was deprecated with the end of Project Blue Book in 1970
d) Janap 146 - (CIRVIS) cancelled since 1996

None of the documents provided by you are proof for an ongoing UFO investigation by the Navy, Air Force or the DoD as a whole.

uh..yeah... and lighten up a little...





edit on 11-11-2011 by nv4711 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-11-2011 by nv4711 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nv4711
None of the documents provided by you are proof for an ongoing UFO investigation by the Navy, Air Force or the DoD as a whole.


all those cirvis reports are channeled through to norad which is exempt from the foia... nonetheless, you can compare the date of that "fact" sheet to all those prevailing regulations which were in place during and after the issuance of said 'facts'...


eta...

and since you didn't address 10-206, here's something you can hold onto... www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11/11/11 by mcrom901 because:




posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Where's the Beef ?

Right here ....


NASA caught lying and falsifying the official record of the Apollo 12 mission



Apollo 12's - Secret & Undeclared EVA



During the November 1969 flight of Apollo 12, Mission Commander Charles "Pete" Conrad and Lunar Module Pilot Alan Bean touched down on the Moon at a landing site known as "Statio Cognitium" ("Known Base"), located near the eastern edge of Oceanus Procellarum - the "Ocean of Storms".

NASA's official historical record for that second lunar landing mission has always publicly declared that the pair of astronauts conducted two EVAs during their 31.5 hour stay on the lunar surface. Today however, we will closely examine some highly relevant and extremely revealing official archive evidence that will demonstrate to you that NASA's official claim that only two EVAs were conducted during Apollo 12 is a LIE.

The truth is that after they landed at Statio Cognitium but prior to carrying out their two declared moonwalks, astronauts Conrad and Bean first conducted an entirely covert, classified Standup-EVA, journeying outside the pressurized security of their Lunar Module without the public ever knowing about it. Most shockingly, you will see that NASA has even accidentally acknowledged in recently published official archive documentation that this totally off-the-record, clandestine SEVA I am describing did in fact take place during the Apollo 12 mission - blatantly admitting not only that it happened, but even telling us when and why it was conducted!

In this presentation, I have attempted to explain the relevant evidence about this covert, off-the-record operation in such a way that even those who may not be entirely familiar with the technology and techniques involved in Apollo lunar surface operations will still be able to appreciate not only how and why NASA did this covert S-EVA during Apollo 12, but also understand just how the space agency was able to keep the global public totally ignorant of the fact that this clandestine lunar surface operation was ever even taking place.

Read more: www.youtube.com...


NASA deliberately lied to the world about Apollo 12 and their actual activities immediately after landing on the lunar surface.

NASA utilized a covert means of communication on the lunar surface, the audio and transcripts of which were entirely stricken from/off the public record

NASA conducted a covert EVA, at least partially exiting the spacecraft via the +X hatch while actively concealing it, never declaring doing it.

NASA did not publicly declare or show the world the imagery of the unique perspective of Statio Cognitium shot during this SEVA.

NASA deliberately sanitized public post-mission documentation to exclude any references to this covert SEVA.

The Astronauts deliberately lied and sanitized their public declarations about the mission to hide evidence of their true complete activities on the lunar surface.

NASA lied about Apollo 15 when they claimed that the declared SEVA during that mission was an Apollo first from the lunar surface.





Since NASA lied about the Apollo 12 mission ...

You have to wonder, what else have they lied about ?
edit on 11-11-2011 by easynow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Apples to Oranges... the High res camera is the true color, the one I described... the medium res camera has the UV and IR, the one you described They had several cameras on board


So you refuse to educate others as to what you're talking about. That shows the weakness of your case. Hey, everybody! Here's what Zorgon doesn't want you to know:

en.wikipedia.org...


No because the brightness of the reflection over powers the subtle colors of the moon.


If they're so subtle, why do the crappy photos you keep posting look so lurid? You haven't "enhanced" them in any way, have you? Wouldn't that make you just as bad a liar as NASA? Oh, and perhaps you can explain what all this means:


Aristarchus Crater
Date: 17th December, 2005 ,22:34
Location: Rhodes, North Manchester
Telescope: 8" LX90 SCT
Camera: Philips ToUcam 2xBarlow
Image: 120 Stacked Frames
Processing Software: Registax 3 & Paintshop Pro 8
Image By: Anthony Jennings


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stacked? Registax? Photoshop? Hmmmmm...



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 



NASA conducted a covert EVA, at least partially exiting the spacecraft via the +X hatch while actively concealing it, never declaring doing it.


In layman's terms, Pete Conrad popped the hatch at the top of the LM, stuck his head out, and looked around. Why? Because they weren't 100% sure where, exactly, they landed. Why not? Concentrations of mass beneath the lunar surface, "mascons," make lunar orbits slightly unpredictable. Without a lunar GPS system, it was difficult to know precisely where one was, and astronauts had to use a combination of celestial navigation and landmarks to determine their position. Why did they keep this "EVA" secret? To keep the Soviets guessing about their deep space tracking abilities. Since, almost by sheer luck, Apollo 12 landed exactly where it was supposed to, they kept the uncertainty about the landing quiet, so that the Soviets were forced to speculate that the US had radar that could track spacecraft hundreds of thousands of kilometers away! It was a silly Cold War game, but it worked. No ETs involved.
edit on 11-11-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-11-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Stacked? Registax? Photoshop? Hmmmmm...


Yeah you use photoshop to assemble the mosaic of the full moon. The one Mike did is actually 137 individual tiles. That is how he was able to get such astounding resolution

You really are desperate aren't you? Maybe if you actually learned how to do astro photography you would take better picture. You DO know that Hubble uses the same technique, right?



University of Arizona has the Color Mosaics of The Moon from Clementine in full color... but you will need ISIS and be running Linux to view the huge files

ser.sese.asu.edu...

Click here for a larger image in TIFF FORMAT (~38 Mbytes) . that shows Aristarchus in all its blue glowing splendor
edit on 11-11-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Yeah you use photoshop to assemble the mosaic of the full moon. The one Mike did is actually 137 individual tiles. That is how he was able to get such astounding resolution


And such vivid color.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by nv4711
None of the documents provided by you are proof for an ongoing UFO investigation by the Navy, Air Force or the DoD as a whole.


all those cirvis reports are channeled through to norad which is exempt from the foia... nonetheless, you can compare the date of that "fact" sheet to all those prevailing regulations which were in place during and after the issuance of said 'facts'...


eta...

and since you didn't address 10-206, here's something you can hold onto... www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11/11/11 by mcrom901 because:



10-206 are the reporting procedure instructions for a number of specific events observed or experienced by any Air Force personnel. These events range from the loss of a nuclear warhead to injury / death of personnel and downed or loss of an aircraft. CIRVIS is in Chapter 5: COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS REPORTING VITAL INTELLIGENCE SIGHTINGS (CIRVIS).
Here's the list of what sightings are to be reported under CIRVIS (and how):

5.6.2. Report all unidentifiable, suspicious, or hostile traffic (land, aerospace, or seaborne), which, because of its nature, course, or actions, considered a threat to the security of the United States or Canada. Such reporting extends the early warning defense system for the United States
and Canada. There are five types of CIRVIS reports:
5.6.2.1. Issue initial CIRVIS reports while airborne (or as warranted, upon landing).
5.6.2.2. Issue post-landing CIRVIS reports if airborne reports made.
5.6.2.3. Issue follow-up CIRVIS reports by anyone with additional information about an earlier report (refer to the initial report).
5.6.2.4. Issue cancellation CIRVIS reports once sightings are positively identified as friendly or determined it was erroneously reported.
5.6.2.5. Submit evaluation CIRVIS reports to each addressee of the above CIRVIS reports. Promptly submit evaluation reports to keep all interested parties fully informed.
5.6.3. Report the following specific sightings:
5.6.3.1. Hostile or unidentified aircraft, which appears directed against the United States, Canada, or their forces.
5.6.3.2. Missiles.
5.6.3.3. Unidentified flying objects.
5.6.3.4. Hostile or unidentified military surface vessels or submarines.
5.6.3.5. Any other individual surface vessels, submarines, or aircraft of unconventional design engaged in suspicious activity, observed in an unusual location, or on a course, which may threaten the United States, Canada, or their forces.
5.6.3.6. Any unexplained or unusual activity, which may indicate a possible attack against or through Canada or the United States (includes the presence of any unidentified or suspicious ground parties in remote or sparsely populated areas, including the polar region).
5.6.3.7. Unlisted airfields, facilities, weather stations, or air navigation aids.
5.6.4. Make every effort to document sightings with as many photographs as possible. Send undeveloped film or prints and negatives, with a brief written report and other identifying information to the Director of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC
20305. The Department of the Navy will process the film and return one copy of each print and a roll of new film to the individual.

As anyone can see, while it mentions Unidentified Flying Object, CIRVIS is for a wide variety of sightings, from people to submarines.
I don't see any significance that UFO sightings are included. Remember that not everyone makes the jump to ET when he says or hears UFO. It is only logical that an object in US airspace which can't be identified is reported to NORAD and that such sighting is of Intelligence value.

The only link to the NAVY is that it serves as the central film processing center, for any sighting, not just UFOs. As it states, they process the film and return the prints to the individual.

Again - you're trying very hard to construct something that isn't there. You're also doing this by presenting "evidence" that is outdated and taking bits and pieces out of context - what you end up with is a highly contrived "body of evidence", "proofing" what you want it to proof, which is anything but not the truth.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are either very sloppy and not well versed in interpreting evidence and drawing the proper conclusions, or that you deliberately try to misinform - either way, it's bad.

It would behoof you to follow your own advice to "...question....without any biases".



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nv4711
As anyone can see, while it mentions Unidentified Flying Object, CIRVIS is for a wide variety of sightings, from people to submarines.


yawn... but it does address ufos? right?


Originally posted by nv4711
I don't see any significance that UFO sightings are included.


you're missing the boat then... but, deliberately?


Originally posted by nv4711
Remember that not everyone makes the jump to ET when he says or hears UFO.


did i make any claims?


Originally posted by nv4711
It is only logical that an object in US airspace which can't be identified is reported to NORAD and that such sighting is of Intelligence value.


then they should mention it accordingly in the "fact" sheet... capeesh?


Originally posted by nv4711
The only link to the NAVY is that it serves as the central film processing center, for any sighting, not just UFOs. As it states, they process the film and return the prints to the individual.


duh.. it is irrelevant that whether they retain the originals or return them or for that matter if they also screen other material from other assets... they handle ufos, right?


Originally posted by nv4711
Again - you're trying very hard to construct something that isn't there.


identity projections? or reflecting on your own struggle there?


Originally posted by nv4711
You're also doing this by presenting "evidence" that is outdated and taking bits and pieces out of context - what you end up with is a highly contrived "body of evidence", "proofing" what you want it to proof, which is anything but not the truth.


if you're finding the evidence as being "outdated", then you're asking the wrong questions i.e. the same 'fact sheet' has been in circulation all along... have you ever filed a foia request for any ufo data from any agency? if you did; then you would have received a copy of that infamous standardized 'fact sheet', no matter during which decade and would have probably been brought up to speed regarding such matters... alas


Originally posted by nv4711
The only conclusion I can come to is that ***snip***





Originally posted by nv4711
It would behoof you to follow your own advice to "...question....without any biases".


edit on 11/11/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join