NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Originally posted by ArMaP

Does that mean that the dark sky that we could see on the original moon landing on TV was also airbrushed in almost real time?

Thanks for the post ArMaP and your thgouhful comments.

Assuming that Apollo 11 really landed on the moon which I am not totally convinced of at this time and assuming that if they did land on the moon that that was a real time video that we all saw and not a staged, already filmed enactment, then yes, the sky was falsified in its grey scale. As you will remember is was a very grainy black and white video that reached the public.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Collins was not in the 'same siutation' ever. He was 60 miles above in orbit.

The photographs of the solar corona were taken from orbit, not the lunar surface. They were able to take the photos only when the moon eclipsed the Sun.

www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...

And Collins was in the same situation for the entire trip other than the time that Armstrong and Aldrin spent on the surface. That includes when they were photographing the solar corona.

The reason the crew said they didn't see stars is that the NAZA lie in those days is that you couldn't see stars in a vacuum which, of course, is total nonsense. One day a NAZA supposed 'expert' gave me a lecture that the only reason we could see stars from earth is that our atmosphere 'refracted the starlight' and made the little iitty bitty star visible.

Hmm. Never heard that one before. But, obviously, you're mistaken because Armstrong clearly said that they couldn't see stars when on the lunar surface or, when in orbit, on the daylight side of the moon.

But the real reason the Apollo Astronauts couldn't sees stars is it was daytime, the sun was up and the sky was bright. Not black. Black is what was airbrushed onto all Apollo photos and fabricated into video shots.

So where was all this atmosphere when David Scott dropped a hammer and feather simultaneously during Apollo 15?

video.google.com...

For a good belly laugh on how ridiculous the concept of 'no atmosphere' on the moon is, google up yourself a picture of Alan Beans painting "Sunrise Over Antares" and look at the bright yellow sun being refracted by the moons atmosphere.

www.alanbeangallery.com...

I painted the view to the east past the Apollo 14 lunar module Antares shortly after Alan Shepard and Ed Mitchell began their trek toward Cone Crater. The Sun is just peeking over the top of their spaceship, making it difficult, even painful, to look that way. It's the same Sun we see here on Earth, but it appears much brighter because there is no atmosphere on the Moon to partially screen its brilliant rays. Cone Crater sits on top of the high ground that's in the distance beyond the flag, and Al and Ed are walking into the Sun as they move along. Even with their gold visors in place, the glare makes it difficult for them to navigate.

This is the reason that when Alan Bean was interviewed by Discover Magazine in 1994 and asked, "What do you see when looking up from the surface of the moon?" that he responded, "Black patent shoes."

What happened here is that when he was 'hypnotized' to forget much of what he saw on the moon, the hypnotist told him, "The sky was black, as black as patent leather shoes."

Unfortunately that was the wrong suggestion because all Bean remembered was the 'patent leather shoes' not the 'black' he was being programmed with.

The sky is painted just the way it looks up there: black. Not a flat black, but a shiny, patent leather black. I could not see stars while walking on the Moon because the Sun made the surface so bright that the irises of my eyes closed way down. It's a little like walking out of a brightly lit room and looking up at a dark, clear night sky.

Same thing with Aldrin who said when asked what it felt like to be on the moon, "For Christ's sake, I don't know. I just don't know. I have been frustrated since the day I left the moon by that question."

Well, I suppose it's pretty difficult for him to find the words to describe to someone who's never done it, what it's like to be on the moon. I mean, at least he didn't say "It felt like black patent leather shoes".


(Edit to fix link.)


[edit on 17-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

reply to post by zorgon


It is really simple. The human eye has a "Dynamic Range" way beyond what a camera is capable of capturing on film. If film capable of picking up the stars were used the image would be so grainy it would be fairly useless due to the noise and no ground details would be visible. If the camera setting were such that the stars could be seen the ground would be pure white and the highlights would be completely "blown out". Believe what you want but those are facts any amateur Photographer knows.

Those putting forth this nonsense are clearly trying to trick people who are not knowledgeable about cameras and film. What is worse I think many people saying this know they are not telling the truth. You seem more honest than that so why bury your head in the sand. Learn the basics of Photography. Your spending a huge part of your life, it would seem, studying photo's. Why not learn more about how they are produced and the rules that govern their manufacture?

If you find my comments offensive I apologize, because I think you are trying to be honest. I think you are believing other people who are not so honest.

I'll concede up front their may be more to the moon than we are aware of. I won't conceed to what I know is pure fantasy.

[edit on 11/17/2007 by Blaine91555]

John,
Please post the details regarding this film and a source for the information. Thanks in advance for your help.


[edit on 11/17/2007 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by Blaine91555

If you find my comments offensive I apologize, because I think you are trying to be honest. I think you are believing other people who are not so honest.

Thank you for your comments Blaine91555.

I find your knowledge on the film used in the Hasselblads on the Apollo mission and the operation of cameras to be parochial. I once got a real good briefing on the film but I have forgotten who gave it to me and the exact details. I can assure you that the film did not render pinpoiints of light 'grainy'. That was the whole purpose of developing the special film.

I do admit though that it could not take pictures of stars from the lunar surface on the daytime side of the moon becaue the sky is too bright.

I'll concede up front their may be more to the moon than we are aware of. I won't conceed to what I know is pure fantasy.

I am not sure what you mean by the second sentence. The gravity on the moon is at least 64%. We know this by the videos of the astronauts and by the neutral point of 43,495 miles. Any attempts to portray the gravity on the moon at one sixth that of earth is pure, unadulterated NAZA fiction.

That there is an atmosphere on the moon is without question to me and those that are permitted that knowledge. That it is the biggest most carefully guarded secret in the history of mankind is without question or argument.

Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by johnlear
I find your knowledge on the film used in the Hasselblads on the Apollo mission and the operation of cameras to be parochial. I once got a real good briefing on the film but I have forgotten who gave it to me and the exact details.

This post of yours, John, is quite representative of your behavior here. You allow yourlsef a slight or two against those who don't agree with you (even the ultra-polite people), then you dodge the question. The answer eludes you or you have an obligation to take your grandson to a bike park or something, and don't have time for such pesky things. Whatever.

The poster made a valid point about the dynamic range of human eye.

Sorry everybody by keeping off-topic.

Originally posted by johnlear
The gravity on the moon is at least 64%. We know this by the videos of the astronauts and by the neutral point of 43,495 miles. Any attempts to portray the gravity on the moon at one sixth that of earth is pure, unadulterated NAZA fiction.

Something that has kept me puzzled is why there is the notion that NASA is responsible for what has been said even before it was created and in different countries.

When I first read about the gravity on the Moon it was not from a US book and it was not from information that had come from NASA, the calculation of the Moon's gravity is much older than NASA.

Also, why should the Portuguese books say what NASA wanted them to say?

Have you ever thought of the possibility of being wrong?

reply to post by johnlear


No offense John, but the film currently available is probably far more sensitive than the film available all those years ago. In fact there is no comparison.

Whether there would be an atmosphere on the Moon or not, to see the stars, even with film 100 times as sensitive as what was available then, would leave the ground completely blown out and white.

The human eye is capable of a Dynamic Range many thousands of times that of film. That is why people are confused I think. They believe film catches the full dynamic range which it does not even come close to doing. Even in digital, with the ability to combine shots at many "f" stops into one HDR (High Dynamic Range) image, what we see is far beyond photography's capabilities.

Since none of your other theories depend on this one item, why continue to push a concept that can so easily be disproved. Even if there is atmosphere on the moon the same things would be true regarding taking photos. It adds nothing to your argument and drives anyone knowledgeable in photography away from the subject.

Originally posted by johnlear
I once got a real good briefing on the film but I have forgotten who gave it to me and the exact details.

Maybe you should reconsider how "real good" that briefing was? Seems you would remember at least the presenter if it was "real good".

Thank you for your input.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by MrPenny]

"destroy the images" I have a hard time beleiving anything that is simply illogical.

Why would you want to destroy the images? keep them or a copy of them locked and classified would be more believable. 2c

reply to post by ArMaP


Dear Armap,

of course you are making all valid points! And of course you won't get a straight answer from John.

You see, Kepler discovered his laws long before NASA was even a possibility
And these laws are a consequence of Newtonian mechanics which again predates NASA by hundreds of years. The laws of physics, last I heard, work in your native Portugal (nice wines, by the way) as well as they do in China and even here, the United States. John Lear's postulate, though, is that they don't . I.e. on certain occasions they do, but sometimes don't (in almost identical circumstances). Go figure.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by johnlear

 

No offense John, but the film currently available is probably far more sensitive than the film available all those years ago. In fact there is no comparison.

I can answer this very easily for you. As Mr. Lear has stated before, the technology NAZA has is at least 50 years ahead of anything we have currently.

So if we were on the Moon in 1969 and you add 50 years to that they would have at the minimum technologies from today. The funny thing is with such advanced technologies in 1969 why on earth would they have to airbrush anything? Surely they had some type of Computer graphics available where they could simply create anything they wanted instead of some smear on a photo that Zorgon or Lear interpret as a bucket wheel excavator. Why would they even use film? It is simply illogical Captain.

Originally posted by sr71b
I can answer this very easily for you. As Mr. Lear has stated before, the technology NAZA has is at least 50 years ahead of anything we have currently.

What an excellent point. And it gets better -- according to John, the Soviets also had all this super-advanced aliens' tech. Yet somehow, the US did make it to the Moon and the Soviet's didn't. They actually lost a few unmanned probes... Just for the show? Well then, a few of their secret missions failed, as we know. How was it possible with all that tech?

Can I ask something (that is way off the purpose of this thread.. btw sorry to the OP and the staff of the board):

Is this thread about the promised disclosure from the fired Nasa scientist or is about who bashes John Lear the most and who is the best in using irony against him by writing the same expressions as he does?

Originally posted by vannein

Yet somehow, the US did make it to the Moon and the Soviet's didn't. They actually lost a few unmanned probes... Just for the show? Well then, a few of their secret missions failed, as we know. How was it possible with all that tech?

Thanks for the post vannein. Your statement is untrue:

The Soviets photographed the farside 1959.

They soft landed on the moon in 1966 and met Apollo 11 in orbit around the moon.

NAZA's Public Space Program could only crash into the moon 23 April 1962 with Ranger 4 that took no pictures.

Luna 3, pictures of the lunar farside, October 4, 1959.
Luna 13 Soft landing on Moon Dec 24, 1966
Luna 15 Lunar Orbit met Apollo 11 and allegedly crashed July 21, 1969.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

What were the secret missions that failed?

Thanks for the post.


[edit on 19-11-2007 by johnlear]

Originally posted by ArMaPDoes that mean that the dark sky that we could see on the original moon landing on TV was also airbrushed in almost real time?

Nice coat ArMaP

You are aware are you not that we never saw the original footage of the Moon Landing of Apollo 11? The original was seen in Australia by a few... then sent to the Mojave desert... then to Houston were we saw a TV capture of the Mission control screen...

But we already went through that

Originally posted by skip_brilliantine
He clearly states in the press release that they didn't see stars while on the daylight side of the moon.

How odd... I may be listening to a different tape I guess
The only words I hear out of Collin's mouth on that press release are...
"I don't remember seeing any."

I do believe you are confusing his words with Neil's...

Armstrong however said...
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see. "

So he says NEVER able to see stars... WITHOUT looking through the optics... then in the same breath can't remember what stars...

Yet even Phil Plait agrees that you can see stars in the daytime on the Moon..

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. - Phil Plait

when you don't seem to have paid any attention to the context of your own sources.

Well funny thing... perhaps my grasp of language is not up to snuff... but what I just highlighted above, I see no error in context

Also I am curious why no one has commented on their mood and nervousness ...

They just came back from man kinds greatest mission ever and this is how they feel..

Originally posted by johnlear

Luna 3, pictures of the lunar farside, October 4, 1959.
Luna 13 Soft landing on Moon Dec 24, 1966
Luna 15 Lunar Orbit met Apollo 11 and allegedly crashed July 21, 1969.

You neglected to include a link to that quote's source, John.

I'm just sayin' is all.

You really gotta source yer stuff so we can all consider it. Otherwise you know what that'll lead to..... more stuff.



Edit: Thank you for adding the source, John. Nevermind.


[edit on 19-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
No offense John, but the film currently available is probably far more sensitive than the film available all those years ago. In fact there is no comparison.

Probably Hmmmm

H&W Control Film...

H&W control film was made in Germany by ADOX and imported into N. America under the H&W name. They were used in the 60"s and 70"s.

Harold Holden and Arnold Weichert (the H and W of the name) invented and patented a phenidone-based developer that was exceptionally soft working, which made it possible to get pictorial tonalities using microfilms at a useful speed, EI 80. A researcher who interviewed Holden at the time told me that Holden told him that their principal market was the US Government high altitude surveillance people. In 1972 the marketed a film-plus-developer kit, both as 35mm (20 exp., 36 exp. and 100' rolls) and 120 size, with the film trademarked "H&W Control VTE Panchromatic Film" and the accompanying developer packaged as a liquid concentrate.

I actually used the stuff back in high school... amazing film... and the 120 film fit real nice into my Hasselblad. The film effectively had no grain...

Originally posted by zorgon
How odd... I may be listening to a different tape I guess

The only words I hear out of Collin's mouth on that press release are...
"I don't remember seeing any."

...as a response to Armstrong saying:

"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon, by eye, without looking through the optics.

I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see. "

I've always presumed that all Americans, Englishmen, Candians, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Austrailians and whoever else has opted to speak the "language of commerce"...
(...not my quote! It was said by a Frenchman...! )
...have been blessed by our same ability to decifer plain English.

So he says NEVER able to see stars... WITHOUT looking through the optics... then in the same breath can't remember what stars...

And the discrepancy is...?

Yet even Phil Plait agrees that you can see stars in the daytime on the Moon..

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. - Phil Plait

Phil Plait has never been to the Moon. I think I can prove that in any court.


[edit on 19-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]