It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA SP-368 : The Search for Magic Mountain

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   



SP-368, Biomedical Results of Apollo, was published by NASA in 1975. The cover of the book consists of a cropped, tinted and enhanced version of NASA Apollo 15 photo AS15-86-11603.


history.nasa.gov...


lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...


NASA photo AS15-86-11603HR
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
www.lpi.usra.edu...



AS15-86-11603 (31 July 1971) --- Astronaut James B. Irwin, lunar module pilot, works at the Lunar Roving Vehicle during the first Apollo 15 lunar surface extravehicular activity (EVA) at the Hadley-Apennine landing site. The shadow of the Lunar Module "Falcon" is in the foreground. This view is looking northeast, with Mount Hadley in the background. This photograph was taken by astronaut David R. Scott, commander. Source: NASA


My theory:
A whistleblower could have added the extra mountain as a way to draw our attention to the contents of SP-368 "Bio-medical results of Apollo" because the contents of SP-368 could be partially or totally made up.

Your theory:
I'd like to hear it.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
i never believed for a second we put man on the moon. in orbit, sure.

everything from photos to the timeline of photos per minute dont add up, the spec sheet for the lunar lander mysteriously vanashing to the spacesuits to the lighting mistakes. all one big lie


www.aulis.com
edit on 18-12-2011 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


So, after the shellacking you got here, you chose not to reconsider whether or not your "theory" was foolish, but rather to spam the exact same post again in a different thread, hoping for a different result?




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
the photo was changed maybe because the original was copyrighted?
(Like how if you speak over the audio of a game, it becomes fair use(lets plays...)) change the photo and you can use it without being harassed..



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


I offered the whistleblower theory.
They offered some theories in that thread here.
They offered the cost theory and the artistic license theory.
You didn't offer a theory. :down:
edit on 12/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: added link



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoctorSatan
the photo was changed maybe because the original was copyrighted?


NASA owns the original photo AS15-86-11603 so that is not an issue. All NASA pictures (the ones that are released) are public domain. Copyright is not an issue.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Since I have already pointed out that when NASA published the report, the cover looked like this:



I can only assume that you are desperately beating a long dead horse. That cover only appears on the GPO version, intended for the consumer market. If you really want to know why the GPO put such an awful cover on it, ask them:

ContactCenter@gpo.gov



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoctorSatan
the photo was changed maybe because the original was copyrighted?
(Like how if you speak over the audio of a game, it becomes fair use(lets plays...)) change the photo and you can use it without being harassed..

Both photos came from NASA so we really need to question why NASA has two versions of the same pic. One of the photos was altered by NASA and we need to know why.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I can only assume that you are desperately beating a long dead horse. That cover only appears on the GPO version, intended for the consumer market. If you really want to know why the GPO put such an awful cover on it, ask them:

ContactCenter@gpo.gov


Thanks for adding the alternate scan. So my question to you would be How many consumers in the consumer market bought SP-368? Was SP-368 something that an ordinary housewife would read in 1975?

The book contains 592 pages of tables and summaries. SP-368 was NOT INTENDED for the consumer market. It was published in 1975 so what good would it do to ask GPO about a cover that was printed 36 years ago?
edit on 12/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 



One of the photos was altered by NASA and we need to know why.


No, one of the photos was altered by someone at GPO. You have their e-mail address, ask them why.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Thanks for adding the alternate scan. So my question to you would be How many consumers in the consumer market bought SP-368? Was SP-368 something that an ordinary housewife would read in 1975?

The book contains 592 pages of tables and summaries. SP-368 was NOT INTENDED for the consumer market. It was published in 1975 so what good would it do to ask GPO about a cover that was printed 36 years ago?


What does an "ordinary housewife" have to do with anything? You are interested in Apollo, aren't you? (In fact, you seem obsessed with it!) Are you a space medicine specialist? Do you curate a university library? No? Are you interested in what the document contains? Guess what... you are the consumer market. Check out these other fascinating titles:

bookstore.gpo.gov...



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
The only real reason to insert a mountain in the pic would be to cover something else, a base or a ship. Maybe even something stranger!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


The only reason?

I suppose when a painter adds a cathedral to to a landscape that normally doesn't contain a cathedral, it must mean he's covering something up, right?




edit on 18/12/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Maybe they just added the other mountain to make the cover more visually appealing? Like you said they cropped, tinted, and enhanced the photo, so maybe they threw that extra mountain in there so it didn't seem so bland.

The one mountain makes it look small and boring like a hill or just a pile of dirt. The added mountain makes it look much larger.

My opinion is that it is hiding nothing but the fact that the moon is quite boring.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


It must suck to have such a narrow scope. On tests in school one must have skipped over the multiple choice questions to get to the true/false ones maybe due to the 50% probability factor. I myself would love to examine the essay part of the test by some though, could be some humorous entertainment there...oh wait!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


NASA's SP-368 contains 592 pages of tables and summaries. SP-368 really was NOT INTENDED for the consumer market. I believe that the intended market for SP-368 were public libraries and academic institutions.
I don't know why you say consumer market when consumer market means Time Magazine, Life Magazine, Reader's Digest, Popular Mechanics and things like that...

Besides, SP-250 (This Island Earth) and SP-423 (The Atlas of Mercury) both have embossed covers. How does the consumer markets theory apply to embossed covers?



Your consumer markets theory for Magic Mountain doesn't make sense...



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
This is a famous Time Life image.





This is also Time Life images.




Conclusion–Time Life lies.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
OP you got wrecked in the other thread.

Occam's razor, more visually appealing.

Stop grasping, it's sickening and embarrassing.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Are you trying to tell us that you don't have theory for Magic Mountain??



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Are you trying to tell us that you don't have theory for Magic Mountain??


I'm trying to tell you that cover image is meaningless.



Apologies, the image makes more sense with Mickey's hand included.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join