NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Hey Everyone!!!!!

With what was being said before with the lack of stars in the photos / videos and the sky being blacked out.

What does all this mean in relation of the released footage from JAXA with the Earth Rise video.
space.jaxa.jp...
There are no stars here either.

Also if this is recorded at 100miles in altitude, would this be inside or outside the atmosphere?

There looks like a lot of smoothed out craters in the video.

Is JAXA taking a NAZA type stance here already with what they are releasing?

reply to post by Cyber_Wasp


The stars are not visible because of the difference in brightness between the stars and the other objects visible on the image, the Moon and the Earth.

To make the stars visible the Moon and the Earth would be over-exposed, but as these are the intended targets of the camera, the camera is regulated (I never remember the right word ) for the light those objects reflect, making the stars invisible.

Kaguya (or SELENE) is in an orbit 100km, not miles, over the Moon.

As the Moon's atmosphere is extremely rarified when compared to the Earth's atmosphere, that is not a problem, I think that even 100km above the Earth would be suficient to keep it in orbit for some time, but not much.

Originally posted by johnlear
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:

But it is, John. If you care to spend two minutes looking at the history of the Luna programme, at links like that,

en.wikipedia.org...

you should be able to appreciate the significant failure rate.

In addition to the failed "Lunas", there is that:

Twenty-four spacecraft were formally given the Luna designation, although more were launched. Those which failed to reach orbit were not publicly acknowledged at the time and not assigned a Luna number and ones which failed in low Earth orbit were usually given Cosmos designations

The Soviet manned lunar programme was disaster-ridden, with not a single N-1 rocket having a successful flight. In one of the explosions, significant numbers of engineering personnel were killed.

So, as usual, my statements are based on facts and are therefore truthful. It's up to you how you come up with yours.

Thanks for reading.

reply to post by Cyber_Wasp


Respectfully, lack of stars makes sense based on the need to balance exposure rate/f-stop settings with the subject being photographed.

The 'smoothness' aspect of the Lunar surface would likely be due to the resolution ability of the camera used. Take a look at many LEO photos/videos of our planet, I think they look 'smooth' too. And, we're fairly familiar with our home world. Only serious Lunar scholars would instantly recognize the Moon's landmarks, I'm guessing.

(Looks like the Sun is behind, and to the right, of the orbiter - judging by the shadows.

Originally posted by johnlear
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.

Even today rendering video is a very, very resource-heavy project and there are entire computing farms doing that -- not even in real time!

To do
(a) pattern recongition
(b) sky substitution
(c) changing lighting patterns in all objects that were shot, which were consistent with filming in vacuum
(d) re-rendering -- all in real time -- even with limited bandwidth they had

-- is not possible possible now, and it was sheer sci-fi 40 years ago
but John will of course say that NASA was aided by a team of space alien CGI experts.

Thanks for carefully reading this, John.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Even today rendering video is a very, very resource-heavy project and there are entire computing farms doing that -- not even in real time!

Well... unless you are filming it in Langley's (or similar) studio

You start with a blank "Moon" and a background screen.... place the moon onto a gizmo that rotates it and add a nice camera track....



Then you go to your image department and get your best photo painters in on it... well no not the air brush department... we are talking the REAL craftsmen... you need some plaster of Paris to make your three D effect.. Gotta take care and do this right... after all future skeptics are going to be scrutinizing this



Boy they really go all out even getting the calipers into it for accuracy...



Checking for final details... A lot of people employed on this... Oh BTW the sphere has a light source on the inside to give it that nice "glowing Moon" look..



Okay so time to turn out the lights.... cue the control person...



"Hey Joe... we need a spacecraft window!".... no problem a little cardboard cutout should do the trick... cue the camera man...



Now you will all notice the black sky... no need to edit out or CGI anything... its already black

Now lets add that sickly greenish brown hue that's all over those Apollo color images...



Okay cut it and print it... nice job fellows... lets see what it looks like on TV









Published in James R. Hansen, Space flight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to Apollo, (Washington: NASA, 1995), pp. 373-378.

reply to post by zorgon



Zorgon, all of a sudden it appears that you lost the ability to concentrate on what is being discussed. The issue was rendering in real time, of video frames coming from the moon, and not a completely staged prop.

Hi again, I don't want to sound really stupid here and if this question was already asked and I missed it then i'm sorry please direct me to the right page in this thread.

Isn't the skull way too tiny to be a human skull? Not that anyone has said straight out that it is a human skull. Now I am no expert in trying to figure out size of things in images when comparing them to other objects but compared to the other rocks that skull looks so tiny. Am I wrong here? And if I am right then the skull of that person or what ever it was had to be teeny tiny.

Does anyone know how big the other rocks are?

Originally posted by Stari Am I wrong here? And if I am right then the skull of that person or what ever it was had to be teeny tiny.
Does anyone know how big the other rocks are?

Good call

Perhaps this will help you get the scale



[edit on 20-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Zorgon, all of a sudden it appears that you lost the ability to concentrate on what is being discussed. The issue was rendering in real time, of video frames coming from the moon, and not a completely staged prop.

Originally posted by johnlear
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.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Even today rendering video is a very, very resource-heavy project and there are entire computing farms doing that -- not even in real time!

Originally posted by zorgon
Well... unless you are filming it in Langley's (or similar) studio

:shk:

Thanks Zorgon that helps.

Originally posted by Stari
Thanks Zorgon that helps.

Lets continue this over in the Moon Thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are my pages on the image and several adjoining images. There are a LOT of interesting bits scattered around the crater... General impression is something blew up or crashed... maybe that explains the 'orange soil" they made such a fuss about

www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

My favorite is this one

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon,

I see you are having fun finding funny shapes in the Moon's gravel. Could you find a few minutes to calculate the CSM revolution period as I suggested in the "44hrs" thread?

thanks!

Zorgon,

You should dig out that old Hassleblad they are bringing a huge price from collectors. The optics are inferior to today's Zeiss Lenses but still very nice. Another problem they had was excessive vignetting that has been in part solved by modern aspherical lenses where most lens aberrations have been solved.

Moving ahead 40 years - I'm finding the closest to a Grain Free Film is BW. Both Efke/ Adox 25 (ISO) and Rollei PAN 25 (ISO) seem to fit the bill. Problem in regards to the topic of the stars is that these grain free films are extremely low ISO and require long exposures which would guarantee no stars. The so called micro-films are even worse coming in with ISO's as low as 10. These films would be all but useless unless the camera were mounted on a rock solid surface and even then the shutter bounce would be evident without multiple flash units to give a blindingly bright light if there were so much as a fingertip touching the camera. Your heartbeat would affect the photo. They would have been most unwise to use such film on a moving object or for a hand held shot. I highly doubt they even considered such a foolish move. Remember they did not have electronic compensation for motion so the only solution was film with a high ISO. Either way to see stars you would still have a bright white surface. Unless you believe they never went to the moon and the shots were done in a studio which negates most of Johns theories.


[edit on 11/20/2007 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by zorgon


Z, your reference to 'orange soil'...did I read somewhere that Bob Lazar said element 115 is orange in color? (I could be wrong, it's either element 114 or 115...in any case, it's postulated as the rare stable element, so far not indigenous to our planet, that is the crux of some spacecraft power supply).

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Z, your reference to 'orange soil'...did I read somewhere that Bob Lazar said element 115 is orange in color? (I could be wrong, it's either element 114 or 115...in any case, it's postulated as the rare stable element, so far not indigenous to our planet, that is the crux of some spacecraft power supply).

Yes weedwhacker, the arrowhead shaped 2 inch long piece of Element 115 that we had was orange in color. The aliens used it to power their ships. Its unlikely that we have achieved that level of technology.

The issue here is that aparently from the articles that Zorgon is turning up we are using anti-matter to generate heat. Heat then can be converted to energy through a thermionic generator.

The aliens produce anti-matter by pumping a proton in the stable element 115 which makes it Element 116. Element 116 is unstable so it instantaneously decays back to 115 and during this instantaneous decay (or transmutation) throws off or emits anti-matter which is mixed with matter to produce a 100% efficient conversion of matter to energy which produces heat which is is used to produce positive voltage.

This entire process is achieved in an anti-matter reactor that is no more than 12 inches high and sits in the middle of the floor of the saucer. Although we know how it works it is unlikely that we can duplicate this reaction and drive in this size of anti-matter reactor.

But the current question is: where are we getting the anti-matter for these experiments that Zorgon has tracked down?

reply to post by johnlear


Deuterium? HE3? Once the anti-matter is produced, it must be contained, n'est pas? This is the cutting edge of technological knowledge, for sure.

We have only, according to general history, achieved nuclear fission capabilities...back in the 1940's. There is so much more, yet, to learn and understand.

The Earth was KNOWN to be flat, just a few centuries ago...of course, that was after greater knowledge had been lost...It's scary to think that we may enter another 'Dark' Age. Hope not.

Great info, thanks Capt.

reply to post by johnlear


Ah..there is the key component I was looking for, Thermionic Generator, heat to electricity, thanks John.

From a physical electronic viewpoint, thermionic energy conversion is the direct production of electric power from heat by thermionic electron emission. From a thermodynamic viewpoint (1)it is the use of electron vapor as the working fluid in a power-producing cycle. A thermionic converter consists of a hot emitter electrode from which electrons are vaporized by thermionic emission and a colder collector electrode into which they are condensed after conduction through the interelectrode plasma. The resulting current, typically several amperes per square centimeter of emitter surface, delivers electrical power to a load at a typical potential difference of 0.5–1 volt and thermal efficiency of 5–20%, depending on the emitter temperature (1500–2000 K) and mode of operation. Details of the history, science and technology of thermionic energy conversion can be found in books on the subject (2, 3).The summary here is brief but more current.

During the period 1973-1983, however, significant research on advanced low-temperature thermionic converter technology for fossil-fueled industrial and commercial electric power production was conducted in the US, and continued until 1995 for possible space reactor and naval reactor applications. That research has shown that substantial improvements in converter performance can be obtained now at lower operating temperatures by addition of oxygen to the cesium vapor (9, 10), by suppression of electron reflection at the electrode surfaces (11), and by hybrid mode operation. Similarly, improvements via use of oxygen-containing electrodes have been demonstrated in Russia along with design studies of systems employing the advanced thermionic converter performance (12).

Source

Just a random thought...

Great discoveries require innovative thinking (sometimes referred to as 'out of the box').

Postulate: The first person to look at pond scum through a microscope was likely dismissed as insane, or ridiculed in some other way.

History: Galileo, to name one innovator, was sentenced to house arrest for his impertinent assumption that challenged the 'dogma' (read that as the Church) of the time.

Science is our friend, yes, our ally. But stifling new ideas in the furtherance of adding to our knowledge is counter-intuitive. Bucking the trend, so to speak, is what has led Humanity to ever greater discoveries.

OK, my two cents...

Thanks for reading.

This I found interesting regarding anti-grav, I really don't know if it has been posted elsewhere on ATS but it seems relavant to Johns post.

How to float like a stone

What goes up no longer has to come down. British scientists have developed an antigravity machine that can float heavy stones, coins and lumps of metal in mid-air. Based around a powerful magnet, the device levitates objects in a similar way to how a maglev train runs above its tracks.

Maybe not the same anti-grav but anti-grav nonetheless.

Source