Did the Chinese Lunar Rover Chang'e 2 vindicate Hoagland's Crystalline structures?

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
How come in these photos, the "sky glass structures" are ALWAYS distant? You'd think one or two, just by chance, would be close enough to clinch Hoagland's hypothesis...

Because everybody and everything from Earth that has landed on the Moon somehow arrives inside the "glass domes"! How it was possible to pass through without crashing into and/or bouncing off only Hoagland knows. Or there were gaps which NASA found and guided through. Same for Russia and China.

There was another thread where the OP included a "NASA" photo, AS17-136-20767 Spear on Mons Vitrivius, and discussed here and at another forum. I did a search of ATS for the image and there were no results. Of course, the NASA image has been altered and is a hoax.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: klassless


"He might have been a tourist to Planet Reality, but he did bring some bold stories and a bit of colour to the scene. "

Couldn't agree more. I always loved listening to his theories, but for every interesting and potentially valid issue he raised, there were 3-4 crackpot conspiracies that came with it. It was especially frustrating because his background and credentials would otherwise make him very credible, if it weren't for all the things he has said.

My favorite theory of his was that Old Navy Stores are actually secret society bases.

Agreed -- I worked with him on 'Star and Sky' magazine in 1980-1981 and he was a delightful tale-spinner, the taller the better. My favorite was 'the thing in the ring'. He's made a good living with an apparently exotic personal life style out of it. I'd be happier if he hadn't polluted so many naïve young minds along the way.

Your last line applies to the situation in UFOlogy that is too late to halt. For some reason (and I know the reason) humans are born with a propensity to not fight mental conditioning derived from learning how to develop logic, common sense and reason. Everyone has choices but being gullible is just too mentally strong to break away from and replace faulty thinking with clear, no barriers, thinking.

The mental pollution is financially enriching. Just ask any popular UFO-book author for they get away with selling bs to a ready, non-questioning audience and more are born everyday!

originally posted by: humanoidlord
its just noise on the photo that hoaxland

claims is a glassbulding
the video anomalys however are interesting they remind me of stella lansing photos maybe the humanoids did porposefully make video anomalys to laugh of hoaxlands face

Your noise evaluation may be correct in photos where that is the foregone conclusion.

BUT!:
3. How do you explain the "button" or whatever that pointed dome on the ground is shown in the lunar distance? It looks artificial because of its shape, sort of like the pointed end of a bullet but rounded tip.
2. In one of the photo sequences where I got my photo #2, when Hoagland shows the same photo but now there's a definite multicolored edge to the "crystalline structure". And what he points out certainly cannot be ignored and requires prosaic explanation, otherwise...
3. (Conclusion of 2.) He points to the reflection of the edge that is seen under the rover. The reflection is allegedly that of the structure's edge but mirror image! Hoaglalnd adds that the lunar surface is ground or pulverized glass, hence the "invisible" reflection. I did a simple search on Google of lunar soil analyses and all the sources agreed that the soil is made up of glass bubbles! What's happening here? Either Hoagland has learned something through his efforts and those of his colleagues that the rest of us cannot consider or he is off his rocker! But then what are his colleagues thinking and why don't we hear from them individually on their results, especially the computer experts that do the image enhancing?

originally posted by: seattlerat
a reply to: klassless

There is another theory regarding these moon photo artifacts that claims these are the result of defects in the front-screen projection system that was used to fabricate the images here on Earth (probably at some CIA photo-lab). If you watch the Blu Ray release of Stanley Kubric's 2001: A Space Odyssey, the same artifacts are present during the opening sequence with the pre-human ape-like creatures.

The guys at Magical Mystery Media touch on this briefly during their podcast: Kubrick's Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick and the Great Moon Hoax

I admire Richard Hoagland and wish he was my crazy uncle.

That other "theory" is believed by some true, die-hard aficionados of the legendary Stanley Kubrick. But holes can be poked in it. I read almost every thing published and watched many documentaries. Without going into detail, Hoagland answers your question, and he names Kubrick, as follows: our astronauts got thru, Russian rovers got through, now China's rovers got through. They all confirm each other. And you know that our astronauts' vehicle tracks are visible through space. But, sadly, we nor they broke through any glass covering even if it's partially there.

I agree that a faked moon landing sounds very romantic and Hollywood's versions just strengthen the conspiracy. And I've also seen a ton of photos and videos of the lunar expeditions and there are a lot of unanswered questions such as talking about the flag waving. They are explained simply with logic. But I recently saw a NASA doc. and the flag did wave as an astronaut walked past it but not touching it. Conspiracy ain't bad but only those that eventually are proved true give satisfaction.

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: JimOberg

I'm guessing you can make a soon enough thread, to discredit, through thorough detail of Richards work, to show maybe a newer generation that resides on ATS nowadays, on how he is fraudulent?

I don't think Jim will stoop to that and this is not the forum for such an expose, but I'm sure Jim will also include Richard's non-fraudulent accomplishments. Hoagland is no dummy but his strings are slacking!

a reply to: klassless

So, once again, "Did the Chinese Lunar Rover Chang'e 2 vindicate Hoagland's Crystalline structures?" Anyone want to tackle discussing the computer softwares that seem to produce the "crystalline structures" and include what I point out in another reply about the edge mirror reflection under the rover? Who wants to be first?

a reply to: klassless

The 'computer softwares' aren't difficult, it'seems just level enhancement and fiddling with colours. All he'said proving is that when you mess around with an image you mess up the image. If you look carefully you can see that the glowing stuff in the sky also extends over the ground and the lander itself. His claim doesn't last any longer than a checj-up at an optician's.

He also has a habit of using the lowest quality images he can find. Many of the alleged structures he claims in Apollo images are scratches on the photos he''s scanned. China has put loads of much better quality ones online now.

As for the mirror image thing, you'll need to tell us exactly where in the video that is - I can't sit through 2 hours of that dreck.

a reply to: klassless

OK. AT 55:00 he's lending an insight in to how his mind still sees things that aren't there and then colours them in with layers of details. He points at rocks, drops an innuendo about the Chinese 'official' claim and points out several common rock facts that he then mystifies. These rocks have "geometry" and "normal" rocks do not. These rocks have "layers" and normal ones don't. These rocks are "blue" and "who in their right mind would make blue rocks?" He says they have "too much geometry."

The image he uses is actually washed in blue tones; all of it. It's classic Hoagland in the sense that he's almost incapable of seeing rocks. From Phobos to these ones, they're always alien devices. "Too much geometry" isn't a strong enough argument and these are littering the edges of an impact crater - very 'normal.'

Moments later he's pointing out another typical rock and calling it a pyramid. No, we can't say definitively that 'isn't a pyramid' but, c'mon, it's a rock.

He pulls out Ken Johnston as someone who had first hand copies of 16mm film taken on the Moon. A man with a story about NASA telling him to destroy his alleged footage and photos. He's one of those guys who's long on stories and short on evidence. He had that McLelland thing going with a background story that wasn't quite truthful.

I found the image he uses. It's here on the NASA site. Here's the Apollo 14 catalogue too. This alone undermines his and Johnston's claims that NASA destroyed the images.

In his own words, he's got a print off Johnston and then scanned it. Then the scan of a copy has been run through some editing software.

He's analysing a copy of a copy with no idea how many preceded it. I guess someone could print off the linked image and scan it to see what it looks like? Not me though, too many false claims from Hoagland to make the effort worthwhile. I have seen the effect on photocopies with the same striations and blocky looking colour differences.

I'd like to see the Chang-e image to compare them. Not enough to go and find it!

originally posted by: Kandinsky

I found the image he uses. It's here on the NASA site. Here's the Apollo 14 catalogue too. This alone undermines his and Johnston's claims that NASA destroyed the images.

In his own words, he's got a print off Johnston and then scanned it. Then the scan of a copy has been run through some editing software.

He also misses out some important information, namely that at this point the astronaut in the image is carrying out a TV panorama of the landing site.

Here's the video:



At 59:45 he has turned to film the craters that you can see left of him as we look, forward and to the right as he looks. See anything in the sky other than lens flare?

No-one watching the live TV saw any crystal structures or UFOs, and the blue blemish on the image isn't in AS14-66-9300 or AS14-66-9302.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: klassless

The 'computer softwares' aren't difficult, it'seems just level enhancement and fiddling with colours. All he'said proving is that when you mess around with an image you mess up the image. If you look carefully you can see that the glowing stuff in the sky also extends over the ground and the lander itself. His claim doesn't last any longer than a checj-up at an optician's.

He also has a habit of using the lowest quality images he can find. Many of the alleged structures he claims in Apollo images are scratches on the photos he''s scanned. China has put loads of much better quality ones online now.

As for the mirror image thing, you'll need to tell us exactly where in the video that is - I can't sit through 2 hours of that dreck.

I also thought that some, if not all, of his crystalline structures were due to the Apollo photos being from emulsion film which was prone to scratches and since they were processed in situ aboard the various Apollos and the equipment used to process the film could have somewhat brutal on the negatives. A lot of Apollo photos contain many processing blemishes which people such as George Leonard and Fred Steckling were quick to claim that they were "ponds", "clouds", "cities", etc.

Here is a screen grab showing the edge's reflection on the ground under the solar panel. The time is included so that you can forward to it.



Hoagland, like all lunar anomaly hunters, cannot use high resolution photos 'cause nothing unnatural is shown. But with fuzzier, magnified, enhanced, colorize the world of conspiracy opens its doors.

originally posted by: klassless
Here is a screen grab showing the edge's reflection on the ground under the solar panel. The time is included so that you can forward to it.

Hoagland, like all lunar anomaly hunters, cannot use high resolution photos 'cause nothing unnatural is shown. But with fuzzier, magnified, enhanced, colorize the world of conspiracy opens its doors.

Ah I see we were talking about the same thing - it's pretty obvious from Hoaxland's own evidence that the structure in the sky is nothing more than the influence of the sun.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I admire the irony of 'NASA's hiding the truth.'

If we'd found domes and shard-like structures on the Moon, science would have advanced massively. NASA's funding would have gone through the roof and the international competition would have ensured growth across plenty of disciplines.

The reasons for a cover-up are shallow and meaningless in comparison.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: klassless

OK. AT 55:00 he's lending an insight in to how his mind still sees things that aren't there and then colours them in with layers of details. He points at rocks, drops an innuendo about the Chinese 'official' claim and points out several common rock facts that he then mystifies. These rocks have "geometry" and "normal" rocks do not. These rocks have "layers" and normal ones don't. These rocks are "blue" and "who in their right mind would make blue rocks?" He says they have "too much geometry."

Blue rocks that dislodged from the crystalline structures! Why isn't the lunar surface covered with "glass" shards of all sizes and supports instead of natural looking rocks of which the photos lack detail. In the diagram showing the rovers' tracks and the crater that is claimed to be 60' in diameter when using the rover for size reference the crater really looks like 20'-25'!

The image he uses is actually washed in blue tones; all of it. It's classic Hoagland in the sense that he's almost incapable of seeing rocks. From Phobos to these ones, they're always alien devices. "Too much geometry" isn't a strong enough argument and these are littering the edges of an impact crater - very 'normal.'

Moments later he's pointing out another typical rock and calling it a pyramid. No, we can't say definitively that 'isn't a pyramid' but, c'mon, it's a rock.

This pyramid craze has me miffed as if pyramids were not a natural shape as seen all over earth and now on Mars, natch. When lunar pyramids were claimed to be non-natural, hence alien, I couldn't help but guffaw. I have a thick NASA Lunar Rover photo volume that shows pyramids left and right! And Hoagland is convinced that the natural pyramids in Cydonia are not the creation of nature.

He pulls out Ken Johnston as someone who had first hand copies of 16mm film taken on the Moon. A man with a story about NASA telling him to destroy his alleged footage and photos. He's one of those guys who's long on stories and short on evidence. He had that McLelland thing going with a background story that wasn't quite truthful.

Ken Johnston was "outed" by Jim Oberg and you can read all about it in Jim expose PDF: Was Ken Johnston EVER “NASA Photo Manager”?” Johnston also makes other career claims that seem to be unsupported. Now we need a similar expose of Donna Tietze.
www.jamesoberg.com...

I found the image he uses. It's here on the NASA site. Here's the Apollo 14 catalogue too. This alone undermines his and Johnston's claims that NASA destroyed the images.

In his own words, he's got a print off Johnston and then scanned it. Then the scan of a copy has been run through some editing software.

He's analysing a copy of a copy with no idea how many preceded it. I guess someone could print off the linked image and scan it to see what it looks like? Not me though, too many false claims from Hoagland to make the effort worthwhile. I have seen the effect on photocopies with the same striations and blocky looking colour differences.

I'd like to see the Chang-e image to compare them. Not enough to go and find it!

That photo - AS14-66-9301 - is interesting in its own right. That large blue light above the horizon and to the left of the astronaut is 2 white lights and there's another blue light just above the astronaut. Are they blue 'cause we're seeing them through crystalline structures? Other frames of the light show additional lights, not just the 2 prominent white lighs. What could they be and did the astronauts see them or perhaps their visors blocked them from view.

That photo can also be found as an anaglyph and the depth is good. But it's been cropped to not include the large blue light which I would like to see in 3-D.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Kandinsky

I found the image he uses. It's here on the NASA site. Here's the Apollo 14 catalogue too. This alone undermines his and Johnston's claims that NASA destroyed the images.

In his own words, he's got a print off Johnston and then scanned it. Then the scan of a copy has been run through some editing software.

He also misses out some important information, namely that at this point the astronaut in the image is carrying out a TV panorama of the landing site.

Here's the video:

At 59:45 he has turned to film the craters that you can see left of him as we look, forward and to the right as he looks. See anything in the sky other than lens flare?

No-one watching the live TV saw any crystal structures or UFOs, and the blue blemish on the image isn't in AS14-66-9300 or AS14-66-9302.

Thanks for the video. Unfortunately, it must be a millionth dub and so it's just useless for any comparisons as its resolution is almost gone. Since there must be an original or a not-too-distant dub, where can one find the video?

a reply to: klassless

if only people were this inquisitive with all frauds who claim they have secret knowledge of things which do not exist, there would be less people like greer or what his name and the ancient aliens that came to build structures out of stones for humans...

so, to see the level of subpar thinking we have here, if he, Hoagland was right then what about those tin foils who say we cant pass Lower earth orbit, lunar landings faked, earth is flat and theres a glass with projection of stars, the moon is a hologram, space doesnt exist, rockets dont work in space, etc...

each of the above conspiracy 'enthusiasts' swear on their life that their conspiracy is true, and their 'guru' whos youtube vid they saw is absolute right about everything. imagine the seminar money poor fools payed or donations to a particular conspiracy, which one is actually right.

im glad the voices in my head also have a brain.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: klassless

if only people were this inquisitive with all frauds who claim they have secret knowledge of things which do not exist, there would be less people like greer or what his name and the ancient aliens that came to build structures out of stones for humans...

so, to see the level of subpar thinking we have here, if he, Hoagland was right then what about those tin foils who say we cant pass Lower earth orbit, lunar landings faked, earth is flat and theres a glass with projection of stars, the moon is a hologram, space doesnt exist, rockets dont work in space, etc...

each of the above conspiracy 'enthusiasts' swear on their life that their conspiracy is true, and their 'guru' whos youtube vid they saw is absolute right about everything. imagine the seminar money poor fools payed or donations to a particular conspiracy, which one is actually right.

im glad the voices in my head also have a brain.

Everything you say has happened at one time or another. The hoaxed Howard Hughes diaries, the Hitler diaries, the diary of Anne Frank, MJ-12 documents, Travis Wilton, Betty and Barney Hills, Richard Hoagland assisted by Mike Bara, artists faking famous painters, etc. Some humans have a propensity to deceive for financial enrichment, notoriety, whatever rocks their boat.

In UFOlogy the lead actor is Stanton Friedman. From Roswell to the MJ-12 documents, Betty Hill's dress, it doesn't stop with a lot of other authors joining in feeding the sheeple what they want to believe in.

I have enjoyed some success debunking the more obvious claims and it's easy to do when logic, common sense and reason are on your side. Those Ancient Aliens TV celebrities just have to know that they are pulling a fast one on the viewers. I find it difficult to accept that they believe their own bs. But some like Erich von Daniken sound sincere and seem to be mentally immune to logic.

I enjoy the dichotomy associated with the claims by some that the lunar landings were faked because common sense dictates that earthlings did go to and land on the moon. But the devil's advocate says that there are a thousand questions that have never been answered such as this simple one: when you look at NASA photos of the lunar rover some photos do not show tire tracks! Yet the movies they took show them hauling around.

a reply to: klassless

I'm sure there is better quality around, just not on youtube!

Interestingly this original press release image from that TV-Pan is on ebay:

www.ebay.co.uk...:g:iIAAAOSw2 GlXHTJC

which shows just how top secret the images were