The missing Apollo 14 magazine (w)

Hi all,

I find this website wich claims they have new foto's from the Apollo 14 mission.
I don't know enough about it to know if they are new or not.
But maybe someone will enjoy them either way

THE MISSING APOLLO 14 MAGAZINE 80 (W)

The Awe130 website is full of nonsense.

Magazine 80 has been available for many years in a NASA report, and the website owner had to quickly change his story when that was pointed out to him (you'll even find a couple of high quality ones available in a few UFO related threads on this site). Many of the images in magazine 80 were published in Apollo 14's Preliminary Science Report shortly after the mission.

All the site has done is prove that the magazine shows details of the moon, details that were not known about before Apollo 14. I've done my own analysis of some the images and found that the details in them are not available in Lunar Orbiter images, but are clearly visible in images taken by India's Chandrayaan probe - see the end of this page:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

The Awe130 site likes to present itself as an army waging war against NASA and a whole bunch of other people, but in reality it is just one Dutch guy making stuff up as he goes along.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm sorry. I did not know that.

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm sorry. I did not know that.

Hey no problem - you found something, you asked about it

You probably aren't be aware that Awe130 has been conducting a one man war against the Apollohoax forum and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for some time now over a number of Apollo related issues. I've argued with him on the former so you can understand I am a little biased

The puzzle comes from the fact that the magazine (which shows very high resolution images covering just a few square kilometres each of a path across Theophilus crater) is not generally available online, and a link to slides of the photographs on the ALSJ is incorrect (it points to a different magazine). The ALSJ editor is now aware of this and is trying to correct the error.

The claim being made is that they are somehow secret and hidden, which is not true and never has been, they just aren't as widely available as others.

originally posted by: EartOccupant
Hi all,

I find this website wich claims they have new foto's from the Apollo 14 mission.
I don't know enough about it to know if they are new or not.
But maybe someone will enjoy them either way

THE MISSING APOLLO 14 MAGAZINE 80 (W)

Hello,
The images you see are not present on the NASA website nor on the historical Apollo archive (ALSJ). Apollo 14 magazine 80 is never uploaded and the ALSJ is linking you to magazine 78 images NOT MAGAZINE 80.

When you visit the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) on the NASA website and try to find Apollo 14 magazine 80 this shows up.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

When you click in the link above, on the thumbnails Ed Hengeveld made, you get directed to Apollo 14 magazine 78?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

We will show you why Ed Hengeveld linked to magazine 78. Here is what Ed hengeveld must have thought in our opinion. When you go to the following NASA documentation page 117 magazine 80 (W).
www.hq.nasa.gov...

screenshot page 117:
a.disquscdn.com...

Ed Hengeveld must have thought (in our opinion), their is no magazine 80 so it must have been magazine 78 as the document tells. But that index area 78 seen in the document is not the magazine number. That is easy to proof if you scroll up to page 111 in the same NASA document. You will see magazine 78 (S) but the index area is 76. In other words the index number has nothing to do with the magazine number. If they had ever seen magazine 80 then they would not make a mistake like this.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The Awe130 website is full of nonsense.

Magazine 80 has been available for many years in a NASA report, and the website owner had to quickly change his story when that was pointed out to him (you'll even find a couple of high quality ones available in a few UFO related threads on this site). Many of the images in magazine 80 were published in Apollo 14's Preliminary Science Report shortly after the mission.

All the site has done is prove that the magazine shows details of the moon, details that were not known about before Apollo 14. I've done my own analysis of some the images and found that the details in them are not available in Lunar Orbiter images, but are clearly visible in images taken by India's Chandrayaan probe - see the end of this page:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

The Awe130 site likes to present itself as an army waging war against NASA and a whole bunch of other people, but in reality it is just one Dutch guy making stuff up as he goes along.

Can you provide a link to the NASA with all Apollo 14 Magazine 80 images on display? Here are the AwE130 positives of Apollo 14 magazine 80.


We take 100% distance from what you say about the AwE130 website or what we stand for. We are the whisper a journey towards the truth for all mankind. That you attack the messenger clearly shows that you have no arguments, these images are real and we have the source documentation to prove it.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The Awe130 website is full of nonsense.

Magazine 80 has been available for many years in a NASA report, and the website owner had to quickly change his story when that was pointed out to him (you'll even find a couple of high quality ones available in a few UFO related threads on this site). Many of the images in magazine 80 were published in Apollo 14's Preliminary Science Report shortly after the mission.
All the site has done is prove that the magazine shows details of the moon, details that were not known about before Apollo 14. I've done my own analysis of some the images and found that the details in them are not available in Lunar Orbiter images, but are clearly visible in images taken by India's Chandrayaan probe - see the end of this page:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

The Awe130 site likes to present itself as an army waging war against NASA and a whole bunch of other people, but in reality it is just one Dutch guy making stuff up as he goes along.

You just made clear that the Apollo 14 magazine 80 images are not present on the NASA website. Obvious the Apollo historical archive ALSJ was not aware of that document you talk about as they link magazine 80 to images from magazine 78. Please provide links for your claims to the NASA website not your own website.

Example of how we use links to the NASA website:
When you visit the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) on the NASA website and try to find Apollo 14 magazine 80 this shows up.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

When you click in the link above, on the thumbnails Ed Hengeveld made, you get directed to Apollo 14 magazine 78?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

We will show you why Ed Hengeveld linked to magazine 78. Here is what Ed hengeveld must have thought in our opinion. When you go to the following NASA documentation page 117 magazine 80 (W).
www.hq.nasa.gov...

screenshot page 117:
a.disquscdn.com...

Ed Hengeveld must have thought (in our opinion), their is no magazine 80 so it must have been magazine 78 as the document tells. But that index area 78 seen in the document is not the magazine number. That is easy to proof if you scroll up to page 111 in the same NASA document. You will see magazine 78 (S) but the index area is 76. In other words the index number has nothing to do with the magazine number. If they had ever seen magazine 80 then they would not make a mistake like this.


Can you provide links for your claims or is your only goal to troll the AwE130 website.

I had a private bet with myself that you would turn up before lunch.

I won. Do you google yourself a lot?

I know the images are real, I also know that they were taken in lunar orbit by Apollo 14. The issue I have is with your claim that you discovered them and that the images weren't available before. This is not true, all you have managed to get hold of is a few of the images that were not available on a missing page in the one available online. You also seem to be passing off the fact that they are of Theophilus crater as your own discovery, when every mission report says quite clearly that this is where they are. I even posted where they were myself before you did.

Magazine 80 has been freely available in the form of the Photography Catalog since it was published in 1971, shortly after the Apollo 14 mission. As you claim to have a copy of this catalog then you know this - look at the publication date..

You originally claimed that the magazine did not exist on line, and this was shown to be incorrect. You are using devious language to claim to be the first, because you know that there is a page missing from the version online at

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

If you have such a good copy, then why are you posting such poor resolution versions online? It's almost as if you are trying to deliberately produce bad images so that you can try and accuse NASA and anyone else you don't like of hiding something, despite the fact that you have a copy of the very thing that you are claiming they were hiding.

I suspect that all you have is a photocopy of an original - if you have an original, then do decent quality scans for everyone to look at. So far, the images in the Apollo 14 PSR are of far higher quality than the ones you are posting. Unless of course you don't have a copy at all.

As for the ALSJ it is perfectly obvious to any sane and rational person that there has been a simple error in providing the slides of Magazine 80 to the ALSJ, you'v eeven outlined yourself how the error is likely to have occurred. I emailed the ALSJ to that effect some time ago. I am not about to detail my personal correspondence to you on your demand.

All you have 'proven' with your claims is that Apollo 14 did indeed take photographs of Theophilus crater, as detailed by NASA in its reports after the mission. I have shown (and the link is up there for you to look at) that the details in those photographs were not available prior to the mission and can be confirmed by images taken by an Indian probe as well as the LRO.

I have no interest in trolling your website, I merely comment on it when I see something that is factually incorrect. Which is often. If you have issues with any comments on your website I suggest you do it there, this is not the place for it.

Well goodness,
throw some popcorn together
because the replies on this thread just got interesting.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
I had a private bet with myself that you would turn up before lunch.

I won. Do you google yourself a lot?

I know the images are real, I also know that they were taken in lunar orbit by Apollo 14. The issue I have is with your claim that you discovered them and that the images weren't available before. This is not true, all you have managed to get hold of is a few of the images that were not available on a missing page in the one available online. You also seem to be passing off the fact that they are of Theophilus crater as your own discovery, when every mission report says quite clearly that this is where they are. I even posted where they were myself before you did.

Magazine 80 has been freely available in the form of the Photography Catalog since it was published in 1971, shortly after the Apollo 14 mission. As you claim to have a copy of this catalog then you know this - look at the publication date..

You originally claimed that the magazine did not exist on line, and this was shown to be incorrect. You are using devious language to claim to be the first, because you know that there is a page missing from the version online at

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

If you have such a good copy, then why are you posting such poor resolution versions online? It's almost as if you are trying to deliberately produce bad images so that you can try and accuse NASA and anyone else you don't like of hiding something, despite the fact that you have a copy of the very thing that you are claiming they were hiding.

I suspect that all you have is a photocopy of an original - if you have an original, then do decent quality scans for everyone to look at. So far, the images in the Apollo 14 PSR are of far higher quality than the ones you are posting. Unless of course you don't have a copy at all.

As for the ALSJ it is perfectly obvious to any sane and rational person that there has been a simple error in providing the slides of Magazine 80 to the ALSJ, you'v eeven outlined yourself how the error is likely to have occurred. I emailed the ALSJ to that effect some time ago. I am not about to detail my personal correspondence to you on your demand.

All you have 'proven' with your claims is that Apollo 14 did indeed take photographs of Theophilus crater, as detailed by NASA in its reports after the mission. I have shown (and the link is up there for you to look at) that the details in those photographs were not available prior to the mission and can be confirmed by images taken by an Indian probe as well as the LRO.

I have no interest in trolling your website, I merely comment on it when I see something that is factually incorrect. Which is often. If you have issues with any comments on your website I suggest you do it there, this is not the place for it.

The image in your link are of a zero to none quality, you even not linking to the document that shows those poor copies.
apollo.sese.asu.edu... here they are. Let the people go their en see for themselves.

a reply to: TheWhisper

Are sock puppets allowed here?

Anyone with eyes can see that on the page I linked to there are the links to the documents you claimed didn't exist online, then had to backtrack and make some sort of wild claim on your infowars thread that people at Apollohoax had put those documents there to discredit you.

As for quality, here is one of the images you posted:



Which for some reason you had scanned inverted and I had to correct.

Here is the same image from the online document



Which one is better?

There are also better quality versions of the images in the Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

and also the Geology report:

www.bu.edu...

It matches exactly the features visible in the Apollo 16 mapping camera view of the same area, and what can be found in the LRO view.

If you have a copy of the document, scan it at high resolution and post the images. You will be doing the scientific community a favour, and it will allow people who are interested in doing genuine research into the Apollo missions to make proper comparisons with other views of the same area.

Apollo 14 happened, it took those photographs from orbit, the photographs show details that were not known before these photographs were taken but have been confirmed by subsequent probes (US & Indian). You could help prove that even more by giving us high resolution scans of the document you claim to have. Why won't you do that?

a reply to: onebigmonkey
First of all the image you show is AS14-80-10502, it is already told from the day the magazine 80 images were uploaded that the source material were negatives. This is key to the discovery of magazine 80, the second image you show is not scanned from a negative apollo.sese.asu.edu... but from a bad copy. We have already discovered many things that are not present in that copy you refer to as so much better. Also it is stated that much higher resolution images will be uploaded in the future, we only used low resolution small scans for practical reasons (load time website).

You took a small low resolution image from the AwE130 website and enlarged it. We ask you to upload AS14-80-10502 in its original size and the match second image in size.

Their is little doubt that the magazine 80 images are from the moon, that is already said to you. Why were they hidden from the public for over 44 years that is the question. Someone told that NASA cannot find the negatives of magazine 80? The historical Apollo archive ALSJ has not seen this images before. That is easy to prove as they link to the wrong images magazine 78 instead of magazine 80. To make a mistake in historical archive is no problem that can always happen, but when you get informed about it you should contact the person who informed you, for sure when this person claims to have access to source material that they and you have never seen. You asked us to show the source material to you that is not gone happen, but any investigating journalist or scientist is more then welcome to inspect the source material we used. If NASA did indeed lose the magazine 80 negatives, as some people tell, then the source we use and show could well be the oldest that survived. Obvious this needs to be seen and NASA may find the negatives, but until they are not uploaded to the NASA website it is questionable if they do have the negatives. Lets start at the beginning and see if NASA has the magazine 80 negatives. When they upload the high resolution image we will compare them with the higher resolution images we can produce. That we think that Apollo is a hoax is irrelevant, if the negatives we have the scans of are indeed one of a kind, then our source is willing to provide them to a museum and all people who think Apollo was real can admire then. AwE130 is well aware of the complications and we are always willing to work together with people who have different opinions, but then stop to attack the messenger and start to look into the messages.

www.bu.edu...
Page 72 shows how important the AwE130 mega discovery is.
Quote:

“Perhaps the most magnificent contribution of the Hycon strip photography is that it provides necessary information for detailed crater study. It provides rim to rim coverage of the crater Theophilus”.

Kudos to the folks taking to time to detail their research results and interpretations for the rest of us to learn from.

I've also encountered NASA indexing problems in its image archives, most recently in seeking a Skylab EREP [earth surface] image, which failed to be accessible via on-line search but was located by NASA specialists. I've been told that a media office proof set of Scott Carpenter's on-board photographs was lost many years ago, so I'd need to FOIA it to even see it. These strike me as archival maintenance issues, not deliberate, but still they provide grist for the conspiracy mill and I think NASA officials are imprudent to continue to cut back on their archival maintenance staffing.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Kudos to the folks taking to time to detail their research results and interpretations for the rest of us to learn from.

I've also encountered NASA indexing problems in its image archives, most recently in seeking a Skylab EREP [earth surface] image, which failed to be accessible via on-line search but was located by NASA specialists. I've been told that a media office proof set of Scott Carpenter's on-board photographs was lost many years ago, so I'd need to FOIA it to even see it. These strike me as archival maintenance issues, not deliberate, but still they provide grist for the conspiracy mill and I think NASA officials are imprudent to continue to cut back on their archival maintenance staffing.

Their will not be many people from either side of the Apollo moon landing debate who disagree on magazine 80. These images are from lunar orbit LRO images confirm that. AwE130 always looks first for what is agreed on and not what is disagreed on. It would be helpful if NASA is able to tell if they have the magazine 80 negatives stored or that they are lost. In an earlier post above AwE130 stated that any serious journalist or scientist is welcome to inspect the source material. AwE130 is aware who you are and parts of your work. You are welcome to see the source material if you are interested. We may disagree on the Apollo moon landings but that is irrelevant towards magazine 80 as the images are really from the moon.

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: onebigmonkey
First of all the image you show is AS14-80-10502, it is already told from the day the magazine 80 images were uploaded that the source material were negatives.

And? You complained about the quality, I demonstrated how poor your own copy was. I wonder if all you are doing is scanning from microfiche - that would explain why they are negatives and reversed. Is that all you have? If you have better quality, post them.

This is key to the discovery of magazine 80,

You did not discover it. Magazine 80 has always been listed in the documents and photographs from it publicly available, either in hard copy or for many years on the internet.

the second image you show is not scanned from a negative apollo.sese.asu.edu... but from a bad copy.

It is from the document in that link.

We

Stop pretending there is more than one of you.

have already discovered many things that are not present in that copy you refer to as so much better.

Such as?

Also it is stated that much higher resolution images will be uploaded in the future, we only used low resolution small scans for practical reasons (load time website).

We're waiting.

You took a small low resolution image from the AwE130 website and enlarged it. We ask you to upload AS14-80-10502 in its original size and the match second image in size.

You have your own version of it, you also have the link from where I got my version. Do the work yourself.

Their is little doubt that the magazine 80 images are from the moon, that is already said to you.

I know - taken by Apollo astronauts on Apollo 14.

Why were they hidden from the public for over 44 years that is the question.

They were not.

That Photographic Catalog was publicly available shortly after the mission was completed. If you look at the link I supplied, you will see that it is a scan of a hard copy that was available in a library for students. If you read the introduction you will see it contains instructions on how to get copies of what it contains. You also (supposedly) have copies of them. How are these not available and hidden if you managed to get them?

Selected images from the magazine were published, in hard copy, in the Preliminary Science Report that was available for anyone to purchase. Images from the magazine were also publicly available in a Geology Report, and in a paper presented at a Lunar Science Symposium. The electronic copy I linked to at apollo.sese.asu.edu has been online for years. In what way is publishing the photographs in hard copy and making them available online hiding them?

Someone told that NASA cannot find the negatives of magazine 80? The historical Apollo archive ALSJ has not seen this images before. That is easy to prove as they link to the wrong images magazine 78 instead of magazine 80.

Absolute nonsense. The link is incorrect at the ALSJ, this does not mean the negatives are not able to be found. You are making things up.

To make a mistake in historical archive is no problem that can always happen, but when you get informed about it you should contact the person who informed you, for sure when this person claims to have access to source material that they and you have never seen.

You are assuming that people at the ALSJ have not seen it, you have no proof of this. Again, you are making things up.

You asked us to show the source material to you that is not gone happen,

Yet you claim you are going to post high resolution versions of the document? Which is it?

but any investigating journalist or scientist is more then welcome to inspect the source material we used.

How is that going to happen if you refuse to show people it?

If NASA did indeed lose the magazine 80 negatives, as some people tell,

The only person claiming that is you.

then the source we use and show could well be the oldest that survived. Obvious this needs to be seen and NASA may find the negatives, but until they are not uploaded to the NASA website it is questionable if they do have the negatives. Lets start at the beginning and see if NASA has the magazine 80 negatives. When they upload the high resolution image we will compare them with the higher resolution images we can produce.

To prove what?

That we think that Apollo is a hoax is irrelevant,

You have never said anything more true.

if the negatives we have the scans of are indeed one of a kind, then our source is willing to provide them to a museum and all people who think Apollo was real can admire then. AwE130 is well aware of the complications and we are always willing to work together with people who have different opinions, but then stop to attack the messenger and start to look into the messages.

www.bu.edu...
Page 72 shows how important the AwE130 mega discovery is.
Quote:

“Perhaps the most magnificent contribution of the Hycon strip photography is that it provides necessary information for detailed crater study. It provides rim to rim coverage of the crater Theophilus”.

You did not discover it. It has always been available.

a reply to: EartOccupant

Magazine 80 images identified, by comparing them with the LRO image of the crater Theophilus.
Credit to NASA for the images.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

AS14-80-10437
AS14-80-10448
AS14-80-10654
AS14-80-10620.

Left block AwE130 and right block the upload OBM refers to. Our image do show some wear as they are old. We wonder why the images OBM calls of a higher resolution look like negatives but they are not, this can be proven by the shadows created by the crater seen in both blocks. We have no idea what source was used in the images OBM refers to. Due to TAC we are not allowed to link to our own website, here is the link to the images OBM refers to.
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Credit NASA for all images.


Note: We will not go into a silly debate of who discovered what, but we will point out the facts we have found. Everyone is welcome to debate what we bring forward and nobody will be bullied by us for sharing thoughts.

a reply to: TheWhisper

next image is coming up!

a reply to: TheWhisper

look at the images and tell what you think?

a reply to: TheWhisper
1972 Paper Written By Farouk El-Baz And S.A Roosa, four magazine 80 images are presented but none match with the images AwE130 discovered?
On page 73 four magazine 80 images are presented. AS14-80-10437, 10448,10454 and 10620.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu... REEN_GIF&classic=YES

The first three images do not match at all (if anyone finds a match feel free to point then out). The images shown by AwE130 (left block) and the Arizona State University (right block) do have matching craters.



the fourth image is matching but shows a part that is not present in the AwE130 and ASU version. The image AS14-80-10620 shown in the the paper has to be flipped 180 degrees to find the matches.



The image numbers are present in the caption of the paper what is going on here?

Credits to NASA for the images and harvard.edu for the paper.