Skyscrapers on the Moon, or dirty scanner glass?

One of the images Mike Bara produces as "evidence" in his pitifully inaccurate book Ancient Aliens on the Moon is this one, taken from orbit by Apollo 10:



He says it's AS10-32-4862, but that designation doesn't exist. It's probably actually AS10-32-4820. Here's the real version:



Now Mike claims that his version shows glass skyscrapers. He says the difference is that the NASA version has been "sanitized" -- the glass skyscrapers airbrushed out -- whereas his version was taken from Ken Johnston's personal collection, which the evil NASA airbrushers didn't get at.

I have an alternative explanation. The NASA digital version was created by a professional team using a state-of-the-art scanner in clean conditions, working from an original internegative. Bara's version was scanned by Richard Hoagland using an amateur scanner in office conditions, using a print that must have been handled to some extent. Boosting the brightness and contrast, as has obviously been done, has simply shown the poor condition of Hoagland's scanner glass.

One comedian commented on Mike Bara's Picasa gallery "It looks like Richard Hoagland had an office party and a couple of women took their panties off and sat on the scanner." That may be a little over the top, but that rhubarb at top left looks awfully like a dirty scanner to me.

wow man. second picture, to the left of the smaller crater just left of dead center. Is that.... Jesus?

Originally posted by bronco73
wow man. second picture, to the left of the smaller crater just left of dead center. Is that.... Jesus?

I see the bit you mean, but No, it isn't. Neither is it a Beach House, one of which Mike claims he found on this Apollo 11 shot:

I don't see a damn thing, May be I am blind...But I doubt it....


-SAP-

reply to post by Asertus


If you employ common sense, reason and logic Mike Bara is not in any of those equations. If Richard Hoaxland hadn't recruited him to co-author his flawed book "DARK MISSION", some of the claims which I've helped debunk on this forum, you would have never heard of him. If you want to read a complete takedown of Bara, visit THE EMOLUMENTS OF MARS ( dorkmission.blogspot.com... ) and you'll laugh your butt off.

When dealing with lunar photos taken using emulsion film it has to be taken into consideration that prints but primarily negatives are going to contain much handling resulting in the kinds of things one sees in the photo that Bara claims contains skyscrapers. As one of The Beatles said "It's all in the mind".

Hoagland pulls such bits too and one was discussed here which I debunked and that photo was of a crater wall containing debris "raining" down the wall. Hoagland turned the photo upside down and claimed that the debris were crystal structures!

Here's my old thread from 11/11/2009:
Have I caught Hoagland in a major blatant lie?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course, this dilemma could be settled very easily. Mike Bara could simply ask Ken Johnston to get out a loupe and examine his print with care. If the "skyscrapers" are there, Mike's right. If they aren't, I'm right. Simple as that.

So far, Mike has refused to take that step.

That alleged glass structure is ridiculously huge.

I think Mike Bara is trying to be like Richard Hoagland, and I think Hoagland is 99% out of his mind and 1% on to something. Sadly, Mike Bara is lacking that 1%.

It's always interesting to hear about these kinds of things though, even if I don't buy into it.