Apollo 12's Covert EVA , Are E.T.'s the reason for the Secrecy ?

Originally posted by mcrom901
in regards to the earlier pic i posted showing the astronaut.... all those pix are evidence of image tampering.... as the reflected colour of the lunar surface in the visor are contradictory to the 'portrayed' colour in the surrounding...

No, the colour is correct.

Compare the colour of the astronaut's suit with the colour of the reflection and you will see that it looks brownish on the reflection. The same happens with the flag, so why wouldn't it happen with the ground, that we can see on the other photos that really looks a little brown already?

Originally posted by ArMaP
No, the colour is correct.

Compare the colour of the astronaut's suit with the colour of the reflection and you will see that it looks brownish on the reflection. The same happens with the flag, so why wouldn't it happen with the ground, that we can see on the other photos that really looks a little brown already?

i don't understand how you can come to such a conclusion....

Originally posted by mcrom901

what degree of hue can have such a contradictory affect.... if the grey can become brown.... dont see much change in the white stripes of the flag...

Originally posted by mcrom901
i don't understand how you can come to such a conclusion....

By looking at the original image and not to an altered version in which the reflected flag was made whiter.

This is the original image.

In fact, I wonder where did that image came from, it looks more like a TV screen than a photo, with all those lines across the image.

Edit: I forgot to add the image I made by moving part of the flag close to the astronaut's visor.



[edit on 8/12/2009 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by mcrom901
what degree of hue can have such a contradictory affect.... if the grey can become brown.... dont see much change in the white stripes of the flag...

The contradictory effect isn't really contradictory but supported by statements the astronauts made that the surface appears gray from some sun angles and brownish from other sun angles.

The reason it wouldn't affect the flag the same way is that the flag surface is different than the moon surface, and the flag colors are not as susceptible to metamerism as the moon surface colors:

www.fibitz.com...

Metamerism, the situation where two color samples appear to match under one condition but not under another, is the result of differences in object surface composition. The dyes and pigments used to create the color of objects such as textiles, paints and so on, have different spectral reflectance curves. Color perception is a combination of the spectral reflectance of the pigment or of the dye (and its substrate) and the spectral distribution of the light source. The color you see is influenced by the emission spectrum of the source of the light available to be reflected by the object.

Note also that some colors are more susceptible to metamerism than others:

colors that are likely to have metameric problems include taupe, mauve, lilac, tan, celadon, gray-blues, and grays.

Notice the tan and grays being more susceptible to metamerism?

But I do think the visor adds a goldish or brownish tint on the reflection, because the white spacesuit reflection is goldish or brownish tinted. The white on the flag seems to be manipulated in that photo showing the (object) because I enlarged the original photo ArMaP posted and the flag white is also brownish, and as you see it doesn't have the moiré effect ArMaP mentioned.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9198865f15ee.jpg[/atsimg]

edit to add photo

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

then how is it that almost all the pix taken on the lunar surface... show the landscape as being grey i.e. greyscale compared to the rest of the items

how is it that 'metamerism' doesn't affect the brown shades as observed on the LM or the buggy

just to reiterate.....



cant get clearer than this......



what is described in the above video by armstrong.... is quite contradictory to the portrayed reality....

but then again..... there are other sources.... which show the brown moon compared to our 'grey' earth....

galileo.....



zond....

Originally posted by ArMaP

and is the percentage of the yellow tint in the flag comparable to that of the difference in the landscape hue

reply to post by mcrom901


yes you would think the white stripes in the reflection would be more discolored than what it appears. if the tint on the face shield was making the surface that brown than it should make the flag more brown despite what ever it's made of. we can't trust NASA photos so it's all guesses.

here's an interesting photo...
AS17-152-23274


high resolution
history.nasa.gov...






"the moon is essentially grey.... no colour"....






higher resolution
www.thelivingmoon.com...

see more here..
www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

[edit on 8-12-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by mcrom901

Selecting the visor and changing the colours to make the white stripes on the reflection look like the flag (Red: -5%, Green: +6%, Blue: +18%), this is what I got:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/19765d68fa5eb375.png[/atsimg]

As expected the ground still looks brown, but there's nothing strange about it, the astronauts said that the ground looked brown when seen with light coming from one side, like the scene reflected on the visor.

Originally posted by easynow
we can't trust NASA photos so it's all guesses.

You say that and then post a NASA photo.

So, what is your idea when posting that image, showing that we cannot trust NASA photos or showing that we can trust NASA photos when they show things the way we want them?

reply to post by ArMaP

You say that and then post a NASA photo.

yeppers

So, what is your idea when posting that image

to look at it ?

showing that we cannot trust NASA photos

maybe

or showing that we can trust NASA photos

no or maybe

when they show things the way we want them?

i think that's NASA's trick not mine








[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d909c397d7bc.jpg[/atsimg]

www.aulis.com...

www.thelivingmoon.com...



[edit on 9-12-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow

Do you really think that those models look like the photos we see from the Moon?

i never said that was my official opinion or that they did look like pictures from models. i posted the pics because i am not sure and it's something IMO worth considering , that's all.

Apollo 11
Proof of NASA Image Tampering
AS11-44-6552

www.thelivingmoon.com...



[edit on 9-12-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
i never said that was my official opinion or that they did look like pictures from models. i posted the pics because i am not sure and it's something IMO worth considering , that's all.

I thought so, but as you, usually, do not state your opinion in the same posts in which you post the photos, I thought I should ask to make things clear.

reply to post by ArMaP


as usual ? not really

Do you really think that those models look like the photos we see from the Moon?

do you really think that some of the pictures could not be from models ?

if not , why do you think that and how can you be so sure ?

Originally posted by easynow
as usual ? not really

OK, I will start counting.

do you really think that some of the pictures could not be from models ?

As far as I remember, none of the models I have seen were good enough to be seen in a medium definition photo as a true landscape.

if not , why do you think that and how can you be so sure ?

I cannot be sure, but even the best models (and you can see that in those photos, or even better, in higher definition versions) lack the full fractal look of random craters and the natural look of the craters' rims.

It's hard to explain, but they don't look right.

reply to post by easynow


easynow.....

Those pictures of the Lunar surface models were merely for the LM simulator training.

This was the mid-to-late 1960s!!! They did not have the computer simulations we have today, to display on the CRT monitors mounted outside the simulator windows.

They built the model, and used a camera to provide the visuals.

PLUS, it was modelled to be fairly accurate, so when they got there they'd be able to spot familar landmarks, and help orienate themselves, and navigate.

Heck...very early full-motion airplane simulators to train airline pilts were similar, unltil computer graphics got more advanced.

Look here.

Note the CCTV camera and terrain model on the third picture down, right side.

Here's the text fromthat same link, just incase the link fails:

The early visual systems, dating from the late 1950s or early 1960s, included film systems and closed circuit television systems. The film system used a 35mm or 70 mm film that was shot from a real airplane.

That was one method. Of course, there was no way to send a 35mm or 70mm camera to the Moon to provide the images, so.....

The CCTV system moved a camera with a special optical lens over a physical terrain model, or terrain board. Neither approach was very practical, even though high degrees of realism could be achieved, because variations were not easy to present, and situations that may confront a pilot in flight were limited. These early systems were replaced in the early 1970s with CGI systems, or CIG (Computer Image Generators) as they were often called.

Really....zorgon is a smart dude, and his site is loaded with lots of goodies, but I'm afraid he's out to lunch on this one, if you're basing your claims from the LivingMoon website.

reply to post by weedwhacker

if you're basing your claims

what claims ?

i post pictures and i make no official statement saying what i believe about them and your saying i am claiming something ?

reply to post by easynow


"what claims?"



Here, from another post:

Apollo 11
Proof of NASA Image Tampering
AS11-44-6552

"Proof" "of" "NASA" "Image" "Tampering"

Your post?
Your claims?

Or, not?
________________________________________________________

Here's another whopper from easynow:

i think that's NASA's trick not mine

Is that, or is that not, a 'claim' of NASA "trickery"???

I find it difficult to sit here and see the hard work and effort of so many people who helped make the space program what it was, then, and achieved what they did, be denigrated so cavalierly.

More reading, and NOT all from the 'InterWebs' ("It's a series of tubes!" -- Congressman, Stevens, (R) Alaska).

PS...new book, out recently. "Rocket Men"

I recommend it, to further education on the reality of those days, that era.

Good insight into Neil Armstrong's personality, too. So that stupid YT video of the post-Apollo 11 press conference will be put to rest.



[edit on 9 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


did you even bother to click on the link and see what it say's ?

no you didn't

HAHA you edited your post and added something else because your grasping at weeds......LOL

I find it difficult to sit here and see the hard work and effort of so many people who helped make the space program what it was, then, and achieved what they did, be denigrated so cavalierly.

i understand weedy, your whole world is crashing in on you and it's such a terrible thing to finally find out that NASA has been lying to everyone. despite the facts about the Secret EVA you keep defending them at all costs. how sad


i guess you will continue to ignore the opening post of this thread and keep attacking everything else....am i correct ?


[edit on 9-12-2009 by easynow]

Apollo 12 landing site


www.universetoday.com...

www.nasa.gov...




[edit on 9-12-2009 by easynow]