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

reply to post by easynow


In that Apollo 12 Technical Debrief they talk about that, they say that when looking at a scene cross-sun the landscape looked brown, but down-sun it looked grey, so I guess it's just a question of scene brightness, a stronger light makes things look grey while a softer light shows that they are really brown.

PS: from what I read of that Technical Debrief it looks like a very interesting document, because it has the astronaut's opinions about what they did during the mission and the things that should be done in a different way or just dropped from the mission's plans.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by LunaCognita
They were describing the scene during that period, but they were doing it over the covert channel from atop the LM, talking to people who were not sitting in the public Mission Control Center in Houston.

And there's the problem. It's easy enough to idly imagine a separate team of experts, unknown to any of the 'standard' flight control team and trained by another top secret group on separate simulators and pressure chambers in secret buildings, directed by a different set of leaders who never actually had worked on space missions before, using communications links installed secretly that bypass all standard communications links, carrying cameras whose film would be dropped into appropriate custodial equipment from the recovery carrier through the medical isolation facilities into the photo labs and on to exploitation facilities -- anybody with enough time on their hands can 'imagine' anything being possible.

I don't see why they'd need separate simulators and pressure chambers, but otherwise, yes they'd need separate facilities for the things you mentioned. And that sure seems like a lot of trouble to go through to just do your observations out the top instead of out the window.
==========================

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by easynow

 

In that Apollo 12 Technical Debrief they talk about that, they say that when looking at a scene cross-sun the landscape looked brown, but down-sun it looked grey, so I guess it's just a question of scene brightness, a stronger light makes things look grey while a softer light shows that they are really brown.

Why do you say they are really brown? What makes you believe it's the softer light source that reveals the true color and not the stronger one?

I know from my experience with underwater photography that the colors I see visually and record with the camera with softer illumination are NOT the accurate ones, and the colors recorded with brighter illumination are the accurate ones. How do I know this? Because I have looked at the same species of fish I am photographing underwater at the surface also where I can see the true colors with no color distortion from the water, and the brightly illuminated colors underwater always match the "real" colors better than the dimly lit scenes.

I have also been in factories making colored products, and am aware that to do the quality control check for correct color, those facilities that do not use spectrophotometers to measure the color usually have a brightly lit area set up to check the color accuracy. Why? Because the human eye and cameras have difficulty discerning the correct color at lower lighting conditions, more than at brighter lighting conditions.

Maybe there is something about moon photography that makes the softer illumination more accurate and I have no personal experience with moon photography to contradict this, but I have a lot of other experiences in other conditions that bias me to think that observations and photos using brighter light sources usually portray color more accurately.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

And that sure seems like a lot of trouble to go through to just do your observations out the top instead of out the window.

gee just ignore that they had a private radio channel for the entire mission why don't ya. and you insinuating that they would only have it for the Secret EVA is laughable thanks

Originally posted by easynow
gee just ignore that they had a private radio channel for the entire mission why don't ya. and you insinuating that they would only have it for the Secret EVA is laughable

thanks

OK so is the radio channel private? Or top secret as suggested earlier? The latter involves security protocols that the former wouldn't necessarily employ. Do you have a source and link about this other radio channel that may clarify whether it was top secret, or just private?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


how would i have a source or link to top secret info ?

and the Moon is Brown..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ecbf4cabf949.jpg[/atsimg]
www.mentallandscape.com...

Originally posted by easynow
how would i have a source or link to top secret info ?

Well I can post a link to information about project mogul and it used to be top secret, but it's not anymore, so if it's still classified top secret you can't but if it's been declassified by now, you could. And if it was just a private link, that was never top secret, then by now I'd expect information about that to be available. So which was it, top secret, or just "private"? And if you have no source information about it how do you know anything about it at all?

Project Mogul

Project Mogul (sometimes referred to as Operation Mogul) was a top secret project by the US Army Air Forces involving high altitude balloons

I'm trying to piece together whether it was just the standup EVA that was a secret mission, or now what you seem to be implying is that the same top secret channel was used throughout the entire mission so other parts and communications of the mission were top secret also? That's a broader scope than my impression after reading the first page.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

if it's still classified top secret you can't

bingo !


image of the Moon taken by the Galileo spacecraft

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c577dc5cff7.png[/atsimg]
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think that when people (near or on the Moon) see the Moon as brown that is the real colour, because there are astronaut's references about it, I have seen a photo of an astronaut's suit that had brown dust on its legs and boots and because a very strong light makes colours more washed out.

But that does not mean that I think that the whole Moon is brown, I just think that there are some brown areas, I have also seen astronaut's references to the colour being grey and I have seen a photo of an astronaut's suit with grey dust on it, but that was probably what we see on the photos as almost white dust.

To bad we cannot make a weekend trip to the Moon to clear these doubts.

Originally posted by ArMaP
To bad we cannot make a weekend trip to the Moon to clear these doubts.

We can't, but according to Michael Light:

history.nasa.gov...

Color on the moon, as you know, is a very subjective phenonmenon; it is also quite variable in terms of actual physical phenomena, ie, the color changes depending on the angle of the sun and one's orientation to it. 'Mouse grey,' 'mouse brown,' 'concrete,' 'asphalt,' etc. -- ask the 12 moonwalkers what the color of the moon is and you'll get 12 different answers.

Even the people that went to the moon and saw it in person would give different descriptions of the color, and if you and I made a weekend trip there and saw it in person and added our two descriptions, then there might be 14 different descriptions instead of 12 .

Even NASA doesn't sound too sure about the color, in this statement:

www.nasa.gov...

The lunar surface probably has less pronounced color then indicated by this print.

"Probably"? See, they don't sound too sure. But what you and Michael Light described as "the color changes depending on the angle of the sun and one's orientation to it" is most likely a metameric effect, and that explains some of the confusion, as not too many people have a good familiarity with metamerism.

It's a somewhat complicated science which I happen to know quite a lot about but am by no means a leading expert in the field. It basically explains why when you change the lighting conditions the color of an object can appear to change. I should do a thread on "what color is the moon?" but I have to figure out how to keep it in the aliens and UFO section without it being off-topic, as it seems a little off-topic here.

Hey fellas,

Parts of the moon are also greenish:

(Apollo 17)



Some parts of the moon are reddish:

(Apollo 14)




And yes, some parts of the moon are also brown:

(Apollo 11)




And here is one of those brown areas that even looks like a snow covered prairie (...a place that would "make a great Christmas card" - according to one of the astronauts):

(Apollo 15)




Looks like there might even be snow on some parts:

(Apollo 15)




....And sometimes there are even strange lights down on the surface (according to the astronauts who were actually orbiting the place):

(Apollo 8)


I am glad to be of assistance.

Keep up the good work Easynow and Lunacognita!




[edit on 12-11-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


thanks Exuberant1 for those interesting descriptions this is really strange that nobody can say exactly what color the Moon is. it seems as if it might be different colors and the light from the sun and reflectivity of the surface can make it change colors weird

this picture supposedly taken by the Galileo space probe is interesting and shows alot of brown ?



brown dirt and water on the Moon ? all we need is a some atmosphere and were in business !

NASA has admitted to "manipulating" scanned photographs in settings such as brightness, contrast (probably color adjustments too) like many people and organizations tweak photo settings before publishing them.

This describes the processing that is done when scanning images from the Apollo flight films:

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Image Processing Notes

The scans of the Apollo flight films are processed using a standard set of procedures. First, the unexposed portions of the film along the edges of a scanned frame are cropped, and the frame is straightened. Second, the background is removed from all of the scans, by assuming that the average DN values of the unexposed regions at the edge of each raw scanned image represent the background (i.e., film base and fog). Third, a flatfield correction (derived from the actual image data) removes vignetting to the first order. Fourth, the reseau patterns (the small crosses visible on Apollo images published elsewhere) are removed from the images. Fifth, a logarithmic histogram transformation is applied to the image. This is necessary because of the logarithmic response of film, which makes the raw scans appear very contrasty. Since photographic paper also has a logarithmic response and reverses the films response, conventional paper prints have a natural contrast range. The logarithmic histogram correction applied to the scanned images therefore produces a virtual print that simulates the natural contrast of a conventional paper print. Sixth, since the uncompressed images produced by the initial scanning process result in extremely large images, the scale is reduced by a factor corresponding to the square root of 2, which serves to reduce the image size by 50%, and the images are converted from 16-bit to 8-bit. The original, unprocessed raw scans are provided on this website as a full-resolution 16-bit TIFF file. More details about the file formats are provided in a following section.

good find , i wonder if that is true or just a bunch of dis info ?

if they remove the background from all the scans than it's safe to say every image is a fraud ?



[edit on 13-11-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


That information only applies to the work being done by the Apollo Image Archive project, it's a description of the process they use.

As they have published only metric camera photos (photos that were taken vertically over the Moon, so they have no background, at least on most photos) that problem does not apply for the moment.

Also, that shows one of the reasons I like the photos from the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, they show the full frame, including areas not exposed (and probably without emulsion).

After wading (Moving Problematically) Through Several Pages of this So-Called () " Topic " , I will spread Truth (Light)

Yes , Alien Contact was made On the Apollo 12 Spaceship

Yes , There was an exchanging of Astronaut for Gray - (Hostage Exchange , as practied in Human History by Kings , Dukes, Lords , Barons etc. etc. et all.)

Yes , That Gray Return to Earth and lived at Fort Deterick Maryland Until her death on March 2nd, 1978 , Human Doctors were unable to Save the Create , As Vengeance the Grays (Ming-Kuh-Bar) forcibly Dissected the Human counterpart as Punishment for us Insolence (Fear Event) . His organs (Yes even the penis) were then Eaten (Ingested) by the Grays

As you can tell , there are several Photos (recorded images) Of the Alien Craft meeting the Apollo 13 - Saturn 5 Spaceship , The Alien Grays are not Filmed Though , What other Questions Do you have? I am trying to search Youtube for The Vidoes of the Alien Spaceship and Saturn 5

[edit on 13-11-2009 by fishspeaker]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by fishspeaker]

reply to post by easynow


No one can say that you didn't do an extensive job in your preparation. But as much as I enjoyed reading almost the whole thing plus video and photos, I'm wondering if the original report about the undisclosed EVA really needed that extensiveness to present.

IOW, you could have gotten away with just saying that you discovered that there was an undisclosed EVA for whatever reason and it was sort-of hushed up to public knowledge. If they looked through the top of the cabin to get their bearings and they took photos while doing so, what we see of the terrain does not offer much for a conspiracy. The area is unusually flat and pockmarked with small craters which they were fortunate not to land in and possibly topple the LM. It is amazing that no hills or mountains are visible.

I can't come up with a reason why the EVA was not mentioned and what they could have photographed while doing so. Your post, as excellent as it is, could have been a heck of a lot shorter and still have made us wonder what happened for the "secrecy."

The video does show that those moon-hoax enthusiast that question the lack of stars in photos cannot come to their conclusion because they obviously have not seen all that's available from NASA. The video shows plenty of stars in the dark sky.

The "UFO(s)" in the photos looks good but I have a problem with such claims when one can see that the photo is of an extremely bright area with objects that could cause lens flares. Again, the "UFO" looks good but it's not clear enough or has enough detail to be certain that it is a UFO.

Great job, easynow.

reply to post by The Shrike


thanks for the reply The Shrike

i am deeply saddened that you don't understand the material in the article and how and why it is important to discuss along with the document. if you would like to specifically pick something out of it that you don't think is relevant than please do and either myself or LunaCognita will explain why it was important and included.

no offense but..
we passed you the ball and you dropped it

reply to post by easynow

While I often find myself agreeing with the Shrike, I have to agree with Easynow here, I thought easynow's OP and LunaCognita's article was relevant. They presented a good case.

In fact you may have noticed I was asking about evidence of the private channel, and LunaCognita goes into some length to talk about that but says details will be forthcoming in a future article. So if anything, I would argue that such details may have provided additional support for the case they made, therefore rather than having too much information, I would say that I might have liked to see a little more, such as that in particular. But they did a good job making a case I think.

BTW the author of the "smoking gun" document at NASA didn't reply after 5 days to my inquiry about what source she used, and I don't think anyone will be shocked by that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
BTW the author of the "smoking gun" document at NASA didn't reply after 5 days to my inquiry about what source she used, and I don't think anyone will be shocked by that.

Same here.

Did you try telephone or email?

Have you asked the NASA JSC press office for a 'clarification'?

more:

2008 her report on lunar dust hazards:
ston.jsc.nasa.gov...

Also, interviewed in ‘New Scientist’ on moon dust dangers:
www.newscientist.com...
“Sandra Wagner, head of planetary environment management and integration at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, US, says NASA is interested in how electrical charges affect lunar dust.”

Her contact information is on an attendee’s list here:
est.msfc.nasa.gov...




[edit on 15-11-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In fact you may have noticed I was asking about evidence of the private channel, and LunaCognita goes into some length to talk about that but says details will be forthcoming in a future article.

I think we may be describing the same thing in different ways. NASA used a pre-set array of radio frequencies for voice comm, but could 'privatize' any of them for medical, family, and other purposes.

When I got into arguments denying that additional 'secret channels' did not exist, I was aiming at the wrong targets.

Additional channels still do not exist, but existing channels can be configured into 'private' mode for conversations not accessible to the main Mission Control Center front room -- but are piped to (and only to) specific back rooms.

So in effect, the ability to have conversations not overheard by the public or the press was always there -- I got distracted into criticizing a particular (and wrong) implemementation scheme for such an ability.

I hope this makes it clearer.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
BTW the author of the "smoking gun" document at NASA didn't reply after 5 days to my inquiry about what source she used, and I don't think anyone will be shocked by that.

Did you try telephone or email?

Have you asked the NASA JSC press office for a 'clarification'?

Interestingly it was a different attendee list I got her contact information from, so i guess if someone wants to keep their contact information private, they should be careful about attending conferences!

I sent her an e-mail on Monday, and I didn't expect an immediate response, but I wanted to give her a chance to reply to the e-mail before calling her. I hadn't thought about contacting the JSC press office. I'm not a member of the press, so I didn't know that was an option for me.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In fact you may have noticed I was asking about evidence of the private channel, and LunaCognita goes into some length to talk about that but says details will be forthcoming in a future article.

So in effect, the ability to have conversations not overheard by the public or the press was always there -- I got distracted into criticizing a particular (and wrong) implemementation scheme for such an ability.

I hope this makes it clearer.

That does make it clearer but that's about what I expected. Part of my inquiry was whether it's just private or really "Top Secret", the latter involving a lot more protocols than the former.