NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

reply to post by zorgon


The photos they show as being from Ken Johnston look like bad copies, probably made with a copy machine (not a fotocopier but a machine to duplicate photos), they have marks that look like those that low quality printers leave on the paper and that are made by the rollers that pull the paper.

Also, the colours after the "enahcement" look like the photo before the "enhacement" had not a good colour, looking more like a page from a book than a photo.

Now that I think of it, why do they only show the "enhanced" version of Ken's photos and not the originals? Or are those awfull photos Ken's originals? (I didn't read Enterprise Mission page, they may say something about it)

reply to post by zorgon


My apologies sir, for not getting back to you. I was out and about on the hunt for a tree. But I see you found it......so.....studio lights maybe? I hope it aint so....

Could they be lighting rigs set up by the crew? I was hoping it was an alarm system set up by the moon guys.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by spikedmilk]

reply to post by JimO


Jesus, Jim...

From that exposition, it appears that B/H and their posse are a bunch of douche bags...

They are just giving the "alternative" research a bad name, that's all.

Originally posted by spikedmilk
Could they be lighting rigs set up by the crew? I was hoping it was an alarm system set up by the moon guys.

Was the tree hunt a success?

About the rigging crew... well you know now that you mention it.... that would explain a lot of the weird lights all over NASA photos... but you would think they would do a better job of painting in the "Blackness of Space"

If I look at this image from NASA history I could be convinced you might be on to something... Those shadows look a bit funny too...




[edit on 11-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon


Was the tree hunt a success?

About the rigging crew... well you know now that you mention it.... that would explain a lot of the weird lights all over NASA photos... but you would think they would do a better job of painting in the "Blackness of Space"

If I look at this image from NASA history I could be convinced you might be on to something...

The tree was perhaps one of the few things that did work out in my favor yesterday. But yes, it was a success. Thank you for asking my friend.......

So, my next well placed question would have to be......why would they include training photos with the real deal - if the deal is real? Nice pics btw , I like that you can see all those lamps on the ceiling. It makes you really wonder..... about a few things.

Okay back to Hoagland and Ken Johnston Images...


Dark Mission
Atmospheric "Airglow Limb"
AS15-88-12013


The Enhancement above was created by Enterprise Mission © 2007
Image scan from "Dark Mission" by Enterprise Mission © 2007

Now Hoagland agrees with many of you here about the state of the Atmosphere on the Moon... So over at Enterprise Mission they came up with a better answer to explain the effects of "atmospheric glow"

Here is the caption that comes with the image...

Caption:
"Color Fig.16 - AS15-88-12013 Post TEI view looking back toward Moon. Color enhancement shows blue rayleigh scattered light encircling the Moon, identical to atmospheric "airglow limb" seen on Earth. Such scattering is flatly impossible on an airless body like the moon, leaving shattered transparent lunar dome model as a viable explanation for this photographic phenomenon."

a dome... now why didn't we think of that?

So time to track down the originals...

The image above is clipped from the version of the same photo (from the link Spacemax provided us )that is available from eol.jsc.nasa.gov... Sorry no direct linking is available. You can also get it from my site here



The next contender is from Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI). They don't supply very good quality images but they give us another view. It seems that for this one they have used the standard "Black Patent Leather" color that NASA is so famous for to paint in the 'sky'. Well at least the greenish Atmosphere "air glow" is still visible...



Source Image: LPI AS15/88/12013.jpg



Now the Smithsonian isn't going to put up with all this image tampering...
well at least not SLOPPY image tampering...
They did a pretty good job 'doctoring up' this image to make it look pretty for future generations...





Source Image: Smithsonian Apollo Collection AS15-88-12013

Now which version did R. Hoagland et al use? Or does Ken Johnston have another print that is different as alluded to?

Image AS15-88-12014 is interesting as well...

Continued...


[edit on 11-12-2007 by zorgon]

Meanwhile.... back at the studio....

"Okay Boys that's a wrap for today... we'll shoot the rover scenes tomorrow..."

Originally posted by zorgon
Caption:
"Color Fig.16 - AS15-88-12013 Post TEI view looking back toward Moon. Color enhancement shows blue rayleigh scattered light encircling the Moon

Oh that's just precious. "Color enhancement"? What next, they will admit they photoshopped this photo to death to produce the halo around the Moon? Sheesh. Some logic there. They can "enhance" the color of the lunar surface so that it appears green. Bingo, we just discovered vegetation. ::

By the way their montage looks pretty crude.

The SAGA of NASA Photo Shenanigans continues...

Saffron Skies over the Glowing Moon
AS15-88-12014

[BTW The catchy titles are copyright ]



The image above is clipped from the version of the same photo that is available from eol.jsc.nasa.gov... Sorry no direct linking is available. Again also on my site...

Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI). Still lousy quality images but they still favor the "Saffron" look... Maybe this was taken at Sunset from Earth and THAT is the big "disclosure'

Well at least the greenish Atmosphere "air glow" is visible...




Source Image: LPI AS15/88/12014.jpg

So with all this image tampering going on how is anyone supposed to know what is real and what is fake?

But then... perhaps that is the purpose...

Final Note on the Atmosphere on the Moon

If picture is worth a thousand words... THIS one would fill an encyclopedia... This one is PROOF POSITIVE

Here you see for the first time... direct from NASA History website... the true conditions on the surface of the Moon.



Source Image: NASA.HISTORY.GOV

Ha! I can here the Skeptics already " This is FAKE" Now we all know here that NASA doesn't ever 'manipulate' photos... the above presentation just proved that...

Originally posted by zorgon
Meanwhile.... back at the studio....

"Okay Boys that's a wrap for today... we'll shoot the rover scenes tomorrow..."

Wow, that's funny.

Too bad there was no rover on Apollo 11. You would know that if you had done any research before posting.

That picture does show how the suits look when they are not operated in space. If you look closely you can see they are hanging off of Neil and Buzz. Comare that to how they look on the moon when they are used in the vacuum of space.

Originally posted by zorgon
Ha! I can here the Skeptics already " This is FAKE" Now we all know here that NASA doesn't ever 'manipulate' photos... the above presentation just proved that...

NASA did not manipulate that photo. The guy whose name is in the lower right corner did. That was why he had it copyrighted.

reply to post by COOL HAND


COOL HAND,

Good catch. Heck, even without a Copyright by someone else, who in their right mind would believe that to be an actual picture from the surface of the Moon?

Clever Photoshopping aside...it looks just as it is intended...Publicity.

(and not the good Photoshopping, anyway...sorry. The shadows alone are pathetic...)

Perhaps it was produced to celebrate some anniversary? To commorate Apollo 11, July 20, 1969?

Feel free to discuss...

Zorgon, I usually get what you are saying but I am a little confused with your last post and need more clarification. Are you saying that the surface of the moon in this picture is showing the true color of the moon and this is the first time that Naza has ever publicly displayed it?

So are we saying that the background of this picture showing the true color, is an unaltered picture from Naza, taken and photo shopped by the guy in that signature?

reply to post by weedwhacker


What I think he's implying is that it's obvious the picture is fake, yet it appears on Nasa's website. Ergo, Nasa may have other fake photos on their site.

Of course, I could have it all wrong.

Originally posted by housegroove23
Zorgon, I usually get what you are saying but I am a little confused with your last post and need more clarification. Are you saying that the surface of the moon in this picture is showing the true color of the moon and this is the first time that Naza has ever publicly displayed it?

This thread is about Hoagland's and ken Johnston's presentation not ours... The image of the "air glow" is supposed to be a true image of what the moon looks like that has 'slipped through' the NASA censors. It is one of their key pieces of evidence...

I would very much like this to be a true image... because if it was it would show atmosphere... but looking at the sequence it seems more likely that these are a result of light leak, film damage or end of reel... in other words a film error...

If it really showed the atmosphere I doubt they would leave it up...

The only value as far as I am concerned from those images is that they do indeed show that E.M. 'adjusts' images to suit there need... and drastically so... This is not a matter of highlighting or brightness/contrast only to show what is there...

The other point is that NASA, Smithsonian etc also touch up images on a regular basis to 'clean them up' like remove the reddish error etc.... so there is no way to tell which image has been retouched and which has not... 1 image four versions all looking drastically different...

So my opinion on Ken Johnstons releases are that they are deliberately over enhanced and I hope they really do have some better ones in 'hiding' to present... but I doubt it at this point...

The book does have some other great points in it... so its too bad they took this route of 'disclosure'

Originally posted by COOL HAND
NASA did not manipulate that photo. The guy whose name is in the lower right corner did. That was why he had it copyrighted.

You guys are so easy....

NASA certainly did 'manipulate' it right on to their page of "FUN IMAGES" But you skeptics are so intent on your attack you miss completely the point of the Hoagland images and focus on the ones included to interject a little humor...

Even got the usual 5 stars for that post from the "Skeptics Cult" Marvelous strategy I think I will give you a star for that discovery myself

Lighten up guys... Get out a little more and enjoy life

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Clever Photoshopping aside...it looks just as it is intended...Publicity.

BRILLIANT!!!

You get first prize!!!

A publicity stunt... You just described NASA's prime function to a tee...

(and not the good Photoshopping, anyway...sorry. The shadows alone are pathetic...)

Pathetic? Well let me see your submission... what's pathetic is how you skeptics pounce on one of the fun pictures like moths to a flame... yet have no intelligent contribution to the expose of the Ken Johnston images...

You guys are so busy attacking me you didn'T even notice I am debunking these (Well Budha at least did )

Perhaps it was produced to celebrate some anniversary? To commorate Apollo 11, July 20, 1969?

Perhaps you could have just checked out the link..
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Wouldn't need to guess....

"There's a sucker born every minute" i P.T. Barnum (1810 – 1891)

[edit on 11-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Final Note on the Atmosphere on the Moon

If picture is worth a thousand words... THIS one would fill an encyclopedia... This one is PROOF POSITIVE

Here you see for the first time... direct from NASA History website... the true conditions on the surface of the Moon.



Source Image: NASA.HISTORY.GOV

Ha! I can here the Skeptics already " This is FAKE" Now we all know here that NASA doesn't ever 'manipulate' photos... the above presentation just proved that...

Geez, that looks like card board cutouts with some computer generated graphics in the background with a stage setting no different then you would go to take picture at sears.

Incredible they are trying to pass this off as valid, they must thing we are incredibly Brainwashed, or downright ignorant, insulting, BIG TIME.

They think we don't have a hold of the modern day era or what.lol.

(Beautiful depiction) Zorgon.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by menguard]

So, in the picture you posted here Zorgon of the publicity shot, why was the the right hand side of the picture cropped? Was it the ATS embedding software? Or did you crop it?