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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

"Top Secret" is a term very carelessly thrown around, from the title of this website to individual postings. Usually I presume it's meant to be equivalent to "super-duper secret" in the figurative sense, not to the actual military classification system. As a former custodian of Top Secret materials (at Kirtland AFB in the early 1970s), and one who occasionally worked with someSecret materials during my time in Mission Control, the terms have a much more specific meaning with specific connotations for physical control -- as I gave discussed earlier.

But I think an overly focussed attention on literal 'Top Secret' custodianship may not be constructive in dealing with the current challenge of finding ways to get access to information of any formal classification level (or not EVEN 'formally' classified) that is still denied to the public -- and which could well cast light on the mystery we all are fascinated with, from many different angles.

38 levels above top secret !

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

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

and the Moon is Brown..

cherio easy......

check this video from jose.....



thanks for everything.....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JamesBondLovesLucy
The Apollo moon landings were faked in the western deserts, likely Arizona.

Welcome to ATS.

ATS is a conspiracy site so you've definitely come to the right site to discuss the faked moon landing theories, but not quite the right thread, as the premise of this thread is that the moon landing did happen but there was a secret mission, a different topic than the hoax topic.

So you have a couple of options, do a search for "moon landing hoax" and contribute to an existing thread on the subject (there are lots to choose from), or if you have something extremely unique to share you could start a new thread with your unique information on the moon landing hoax, but it seems off-topic in this thread to say the landing was hoaxed completely, though that would be on-topic in another thread. Thanks.

Thank you for your kind welcome and direction, I at a glance did not find a more appropriate thread. Thank you for your extensive explanation and caring, and directing me to a more appropriate thread for my belief that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

I am intrigued to learn that the poster is the real Jim Oberg who worked for NASA. I quoted him in my senior high school International Baccalaureate paper. I believe Oberg is a disinfo agent for NASA (not intended to offend, but a fact imo).

I am sure NASA never went to the moon, but US and USSR did in the fifties and US on Mars in 1953. However, I will post my views on more appropriate threads.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

A weather balloon from Project Mogul was all that crashed in Roswell. The CIA and USAF invented the crashed disc story, and the CIA invented the dead alien bodies addition to the hoax in the late 1980s. Its disinfo (Roswell is, and a hoax).

in regards to the above video..... here are some more details.....





these quotes are from....

Apollo 11 Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription, July 1969, 626 pages

furthermore....





and these are from....

Apollo 11 Onboard Voice Transcription-Command Module, August 1969, 248 pages

and finally.....



www.llnl.gov...

Excellent post mcrom901! Thanks for highlighting those color comments. The DSE/DSEA transcripts from the Apollo Program offer us some very interesting, candid reports straight from the astronauts themselves that relate to naked eye color observations, clearly demonstrating that there is indeed visible color information up there on the lunar surface that is not detectable when viewed through Earth's atmospheric veil down here on Terra Firma, some 400,000 kilometers away.

Another good source I have found for these types of color-related comments from the astronauts are the post-mission debrief documents from each Apollo mission. After the Apollo 10 mission for example, the crew was debriefed about the naked-eye color of the Moon by a photographic analysis team led by Dr. Farouk El-Baz, the lunar guru from BellComm who was one of the most powerful and knowledgable men attached to the Apollo Lunar Program.
While working for BellComm during the Apollo era, Farouk El-Baz played an instrumental role in the construction and implementation of the Apollo scientific/selenographic cover-story that the public was fed, and behind the scenes he was (and is) deeply involved in the true classified aspects of the lunar sciences as well. During this debriefing of the Apollo 10 crew in June of 1969, El-Baz and his team inquired about (among other things) the astronaut naked eye color observations of the Moon. The debriefers used color photographs that the astronauts had just taken a couple weeks earlier during the Apollo 10 flight, showing them to Stafford, Young and Cernan to let them conduct their own memory-versus-imagery comparative analysis to help determine the accuracy of the color data represented in the photographs.

Here is how Farouk El-Baz consolidated the naked-eye color observations from the Apollo 10 crew, as published in a BellComm document from June 12th, 1969 titled "APOLLO 10 PHOTO DEBRIEFING - CASE #340".


I dunno if that frame capture above is going to appear properly or not, so here is the direct photobucket link to the cropped quote.
i276.photobucket.com...

Here is the link to the full BellComm "Apollo 10 Photo Debrief - Case #340" document (PDF format)
ntrs.nasa.gov...

Here are the links to the low-res NASA/LPI archive versions of the two frames of color film that are directly referenced in the BellComm document - frames AS10-34-5149 and AS10-34-5079.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The whole "true color of the Moon" issue is definitely a bizarre one that the general public seem to have been hoodwinked by ever since...well, ever since troglodytic cavemen first gazed skyward to marvel and wonder about that closest celestial neighbor in the Heavens. There is no question that there is indeed color data being reflected off the Moon that is, for a variety of reasons, simply not discernible from way down here on Earth , and these are facts that have been in large part simply ignored by the public. We have been conditioned to think that the terrestrial naked-eye view of the lunar disc must be giving us a color-accurate representation, and that simply is not the truth at all. We are only seeing a very small part of the very big picture.

Remember that (according to the official public record at least) only 24 sets of human eyeballs have ever ventured beyond the upper exospheric layer of our planet’s atmosphere, and those eyeballs belonged to the 24 astronauts who made the voyage from the Earth to the Moon during the nine Apollo lunar missions. Their subjective observations are therefore very important evidence that the Moon does indeed have color.

Cheers,
Luna


Mod edit: corrected image tags.

[edit on 22/11/2009 by ArMaP]

reply to post by LunaCognita

I like these versions better, the photos from the LPI site always look too contrasted.

AS10-34-5079

AS10-34-5149

reply to post by ArMaP


Excellent! Thank you very much for posting those two image links there ArMaP (and also, thank you for fixing that image link in my above post). I actually was going to include in that above post I made the links to those two versions of those two frames that you posted as well and get into the differences, but I am limited to only 4000 characters per post, and I ended up having to delete a couple paragraphs to get under the limit.

At any rate, what I was hoping to say up above I will just continue on and say here - that those dramatic variations in color presentation between different archive versions of the same photograph does a good job of highlighting how we really cannot rely on or expect the Apollo-era orbital Hassey imagery to provide us with an accurate true color representation of what the Moon looks like to the naked eye from cis-lunar space or lunar orbit. There are just too many variables at play; too many different versions of the same image presenting subtle to entirely different color data; too many astronaut observations that conflict with the color data the imagery shows (or doesn't show); no real method of proper color calibration to establish true photographic color accuracy when printing the imagery - in fact, there are actually more reasons that we should NOT trust the color accuracy of the Apollo orbital Hasselblad imagery than there are to suggest we should trust it! I think this makes the subjective astronaut color observations found in the DSE/DSEA transcripts and in the post-flight debrief documents all the more important for us to analyze when considering the question of what is the true color or colors of the Moon.

Apollo 17 LMP Harrison Schmitt, being the only astro-geologist to go to the Moon, has in the years since his mission published several articles in different scientific publications where he describes some of the color observations he made while in lunar orbit. As one example, in the February 1974 issue of Geology magazine, Schmitt wrote an article titled "LUNAR MARE COLOR PROVINCES AS OBSERVED ON APOLLO 17". In this article, Schmitt describes variations in the color on certain areas of the lunar surface. I have a copy of the original article around here somewhere I think, and I should dig it out and scan it. In the meantime, here is the abstract from the article I am referencing.

"LUNAR MARE COLOR PROVINCES AS OBSERVED ON APOLLO 17" Geology; (February 1974; volume 2; issue 2)
"Four major and several minor mare color provinces exist between longitudes 20° W. and 90° E. on the Moon. These provinces were clearly visible to the unaided eye during the Apollo 17 mission when viewed from distances up to a few thousand kilometers. It is probable that the mare color provinces correlate with rather specific compositional differences between mare surfaces."

Notice how Schmitt mentions these "color provinces" are only visible from distances of "up to a few thousand kilometers". This just further confirms the idea that the Moon, when you get up close and personal to it, offers the naked eye detectable color reflectance information that just is not visible at all from Earth - or even from LEO, and in some cases, even from cis-lunar distances! I may as well mention now that part of the reason for this has to do with a phenomena known as "lunar luminescence" and it's effects on "seeing conditions" at different ranges, but that is another whole big can of worms altogether!

Cheers,
Luna

reply to post by LunaCognita


cherio... thanks... i'm still confused as to how all those coloured pix of the earth were captured from the moon are they in false colours?

quite a weird phenomenon.... albedo physics.....

but what really pisses me off is this 'b/w lunar myth'.... which nasa happily feeds the general masses....

anyways.... check these......

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. Of course we know that there is color on the moon (the green rocks, the reddish hues, localized phenomena like Shorty Crater's orange), and Dave Scott put it well in our gallery walk-through at the Hayward Gallery (London) last year: "You see what you expect to see: you have to open your mind." (That got the more youthful partying astro-wannabes in the crowd going, let me tell you ;-].)

Setting the subjectiveness and variability of lunar color aside, my involvement was of course with the still photography done by the astronauts, and here one runs primarily into the limitations and biases of film itself. One must not forget that these are just photographs, not the real thing. What appears on the film is the product of countless interactions between a machine and reality itself.

history.nasa.gov...

the following sites are related to this mike chap....

www.michaellight.net...
www.josephbellows.com...

more stuff.......

The Measurement of Lunar Color Differences

A Recent Observation of Lunar Color Phenomena

Color-coded topography and shaded relief map of the lunar near side and far side hemispheres / U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey ; prepared for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

How to capture the color of the Moon

Lunar color boundaries and their relationship to topographic features

Lunar Color Phenomenon

Another Lunar Color Phenomenon

Lunar Orbiter - Moon Color Map

CLEMENTINE COLOR MOSAICS OF LUNAR FAR SIDE MARIA

these ones have been making the rounds for sometime....

ser.sese.asu.edu...

pdsmaps.wr.usgs.gov...

lets see whats comes up next....

btw... thanks for all your great work......

Originally posted by LunaCognita
there is indeed visible color information up there on the lunar surface that is not detectable when viewed through Earth's atmospheric veil

Not detectable? Or not normally seen?

Some color may be detectable as this enhanced photo taken from the Earth's surface shows:
blog.deepskycolors.com...


The photographer says:

SITE & CONDITIONS: My front yard in Sunnyvale, CA
Processing: Photoshop & PixInsight
Is the moon really like this? Well, sort of. This is what happens when you take a picture of the moon, neutralize the colors (so the median of the values of R, G and B is the same) and then saturate the image. So in a way, yes, those colors are real, and the only difference is that they've been exaggerated a bit. This was the first time I attempted to take a "colored moon" photo, but I enjoyed it so much I expect to do some more in the future :-)

reply to post by mcrom901

Thanks for all the links, I'm going to check them out when I have time!

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

i dont know whether these have been posted before or not..... but anyhow here is this weird anomaly captured via apollo 12......

also check these 'real color' lunar photos captured via clementine.....

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...




[edit on 22/11/09 by mcrom901]

Wow, neat thread both the opening and the slight divergence into the 'colors' of the moon discussion. Moons sure pretty.

Interesting thing to me is how some images are green or have a green tint, whats bizarre about that to me is I always remember as a kid people using the old phrase the 'moon is made from green cheese' , even in cartoons they often made fun of this supposed myth... then it goes to say, why use green?.. some of these pics just go to show, someone was either very lucky in guessing or knew something.

Also I always thought those large flat mostly featureless areas on the moon were lava beds that had hardened, if so ... why would the material be blue or have some form of blue tint to it, even if so ever slight... terrestrial lava tends to be red and brown/black once its solidified and the like?

So are those large featureless areas really old lava beds... or does lunar lava due to lack of atmosphere come out different, or is it in no way similar to our own.

Either way nice thread, think I learned alot.

reply to post by BigfootNZ
You're right, the darker areas are called maria (plural) which resulted from igneous activity, and the Mare Tranquillitatis (or sea of Tranquility) where Apollo 11 landed has a bluish tint.

The cause of the bluish tint:

www.absoluteastronomy.com...

This Mare has a slight bluish tint relative to the rest of the moon and stands out quite well when color is processed and extracted from multiple photographs. The color is likely due to higher metal content in the basaltic soil or rocks.

If you look at enough different igneous rock samples from Earth you will see lots of different colors, perhaps some with a bluish tint. For example look at the top right picture in this link, a basaltic lava flow in Idaho, it's dark, but doesn't it look somewhat bluish?

www.athro.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/523b4a6df2be.jpg[/atsimg]

Regarding the green, I seem to recall the astronauts saying that green was one color recorded in some photos they don't remember detecting with their eyes. But it seems the other colors they described are confirmed by photos.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Regarding the green

some of the Apollo 17 video taken from orbit around the Moon that shows the surface does have alot of green color. i don't have that video right this minute to post but this pic taken with a telescope does show some green colors.


(18 meg file)
www.thelivingmoon.com...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

reply to post by easynow

I agree the photos show greenish colors on the moon, in fact kind of bluish greenish hue to some of the maria which is how some igneous rock on earth is described, as having a greenish-bluish tint.

Actually I may have been thinking of the Earth where they said they couldn't see the green, it's in the quote higher up on this page, this one:

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you look at enough different igneous rock samples from Earth you will see lots of different colors, perhaps some with a bluish tint. For example look at the top right picture in this link, a basaltic lava flow in Idaho, it's dark, but doesn't it look somewhat bluish?

www.athro.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/523b4a6df2be.jpg[/atsimg]

Regarding the green, I seem to recall the astronauts saying that green was one color recorded in some photos they don't remember detecting with their eyes. But it seems the other colors they described are confirmed by photos.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Hmmm That makes sense now that I think about it ... i always thought the often blue ting lava beds we've got on earth was due to sky reflection from all the little crystal shards scattered through out the lava (such as how pumice looks fairly matt, when you crush it or look closely at it, its actually mostly lots of fairly reflective mineral like crystals), or due to poor camera settings on the picture takers end (Ive found alot of pics i take of black or dark objects get a bluish tint thanks to the sky, thats stronger than with the naked eye... heck my black cat often looks highlighted in blue on bright cloudless days ).

I just assumed lunar lava was terrestrial lava, without thinking about it deeper. The mineral wealth up there must be enormous.