PDA

View Full Version : Apollo UFO photos



ToSeek
2003-Oct-02, 03:23 PM
More silliness: Apollo Moon Conversations and Pictures Show NASA Cover-up (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html)

Apologies if this page has been posted before. I particularly like the "Neil Armstrong's photo of a ball of light on the Moon," which is plainly from Apollo 17. Jay can have fun with the rest if he wants.

EDIT: Just realized that this is part of "Cosmic Dave's" stuff. Well, those who haven't seen it before can have some fun.

JayUtah
2003-Oct-02, 04:42 PM
The "conversations" are from Don Wilson's book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon published in 1975 or 1976. He purports to have taken these conversations directly from the first printed transcripts, but when we go back to the recordings and the transcripts from ALSJ (which have the benefit of years of group editing and correction) we see just how naughty Wilson has been. In many cases we can find the original conversations in later transcripts, which appear in a highly butchered form in Wilson. In a few cases the conversations are simply made up.

Wilson's thesis is that NASA "must" be hiding something because the astronauts are always speaking in code, or using words that he says refer to their observations of alien technology. But of course what it boils down to is Wilson's almost total ignorance of the vocabularies of flight, geology, and other specialized fields. Many of his "code words" are simply the phonetic alphabet used by pilots -- "alpha" for A, "bravo" for B, etc. And if something isn't mysterious enough for him, he just edits out the statements where it's explained or makes up something. Since Apollo was funded by layman taxpayers, says Wilson, the astronauts should have spoken in plain English for the benefit of those laymen taxpayers. The reader, who probably doesn't know the special vocabularies either, trusts that Wilson's opinion is an informed one.

As for the photographs, what can I say? The original Hasselblad photographs are of acceptable quality. The ones we see on the page are extremely poorly reproduced, and the smudges and blobs that are touted as alien spacecraft are almost all products of the poor reproduction. And the author can't tell one mission from another, so we can't have much faith in his judgment.

mr. show
2003-Oct-02, 05:22 PM
are these the same conversations containing Armstrong's comments of a "presence" watching them from the rim of the crater?

did armstrong really say any of that?

JayUtah
2003-Oct-02, 05:30 PM
No, that comes from Maurice Chatelain, who billed himself as a high-ranking engineer in NASA's communication structure and who alleges, as part of his UFO lectures, to have heard Armstrong report UFOs. An examination of Chatelain's claims of first-hand knowledge reveal he was a low-level electronics technician for a subcontractor and was fired long before Apollo 11. He was nowhere near MOCR when Armstrong was on the moon.

CincySpaceGeek
2003-Oct-02, 06:39 PM
Doesn't it just figure?...The majority of the photos he cites as being authentic NASA imagery can't be found on either the ALSJ or in the JSC archives at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary. I did a Google search on some of the photo names and had a couple of valid hits. One foreign site ( http://www.edin.blogger.com.br/ ) had a number of the images listed and did show some interesting anomalies but I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion.

As for the supposed Apollo 11 transcript?

a) Wasn't the LM transmitter a directional antenna? I'm no ham operator but if a couple of hunderd hammers were able to pick up the low-power A11 radio transmission from 200K+ miles using just their home sets when NASA had to use large parabolic dishes, maybe they knew something NASA didn't! And it's a shame 'cause you just don't see very many backyard 64 meter dishes anymore! :wink: Does anyone if the comm could have been tapped en route thru MSFN?

b) I know of no astronauts that talk that way. "Over and out"? "Repeat your last information"? Chris Craft on the comm loop? :^o And Houston has never...NEVER...referred to itself as "control". This part isn't just specious, it stinks like skunk roadkill!

JayUtah
2003-Oct-02, 07:33 PM
if a couple of hunderd hammers were able to pick up the low-power A11 radio transmission from 200K+ miles using just their home sets when NASA had to use large parabolic dishes, maybe they knew something NASA didn't!

I think "hundreds" of hams is probably an exaggeration. You needed some uncommon equipment to pick up the voice transmissions. And keep in mind that voice wasn't all that was being communicated over air-to-ground. You had telemetry and television. Those have very stringent minimum SNRs in order to be useful. You can tolerate a low SNR if you're just listening to voice traffic for entertainment.

Does anyone if the comm could have been tapped en route thru MSFN?

Easily. The MSFN routing was convoluted enough that there were many places where someone might have tapped it. Not that I know if anyone did, but there was the opportunity to do so.

I know of no astronauts that talk that way. "Over and out"?

"Over" ("I'm expecting an answer from you") and "out" ("The conversation is over") are mutually exclusive. The phrase "over and out" is pure Hollywood and would never used by someone who was conversant with voice radio protocols.

Kraft would never have used or allowed such profanity on the air-to-ground loop, and the "Mission Control calling Apollo 11" is completely improper. Apollo 11 at this point consisted of two crews, therefore the call signs were "Tranquility Base" and "Columbia". Needless to say it's not very difficult at all to write this conversation off as a pure fabrication by the UFO community.

Dave Cosnette is simply doing what he does best: copy random stuff from whatever unverified source and call it authoritative.

JayUtah
2003-Oct-02, 09:03 PM
Oh, another thing. The page refers to "unnamed" ham operators who heard these offbeat things. However, we can speak to named ham operators who confirm that what they heard and recorded is what everyone heard and what got written up in the transcripts.

NASA Fan
2003-Oct-02, 09:32 PM
What a load of ... I want to call it garbage, but that is an insult to the stuff in my trash bin.

Well at least he admits that we have been to the moon. At first glance he appears to contradict himself. It was on soundstages but when the went to the moon they found...

I was bothered by the comments on the photos. First of all the comments about the limited number of photos available. To paraphrase Phill, (on the moon hoax section) there were lots of pictures taken, but they only show the good ones--why show off the bad ones. I wonder how hard a concept that is to grasp.

He claims that they had millions of photos, that avareges to 166,667 pictures per mission. At 50 photos per film that makes about 3,333 films per mission. That is just too many films per mission (IMO). For the sake of argument, lets say that they had special film with 200 pictures per roll. That would be about 833 films--still too many. To sound more authentic to sceptics he should have written something like "1000's of pictures" that may still be to many, but at least it is better than "millions." that would make 150 to 200 pictures per mission. That number may be too small or to large, but it sounds more reasonable to me.


The original size were 32"x24" (or something similar to that), that sounds a bit large to develop each photo until you have made sure that it is a decent photo. I for one am glad that the photos in my history book, and photos in other books were scaled down to to fit the pages, imagine the size of the books if all photos were enlarged to 32 by 24 inches or larger :D My text books were heavy enough as it was.

I am not going to claim to be a photo expert, but my understanding is that as long as you are using the negative you can enlarge or reduce the photo to almost any reasonable size you want without loosing the original details. You have to enlarge it alot (near life-size) before it becomes grainy and you loose clarity. Obviously if you reduce it to 1 inch by 2 inches, yes you loose details.

(I think I am done ranting for now).

JayUtah
2003-Oct-02, 10:45 PM
Well at least he admits that we have been to the moon. At first glance he appears to contradict himself.

No, at all subsequent glances he continues to contradict himself. "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette still maintains that the moon landings were faked.

He claims that they had millions of photos...

Obviously unsubstantiated and unlikely.

There are about 20,000 Hasselblad photographs from all the Apollo missions, although not all of them pertain to moon landing missions.

(Quoting "Cosmic" Dave) The original size were 32"x24"

Patently wrong. The original size was 70 millimeters square.

I am not going to claim to be a photo expert...

I will.

...as long as you are using the negative you can enlarge or reduce the photo to almost any reasonable size you want without loosing the original details.

Yes, "reasonable size". It depends on the negative size. Small negatives such as the old "slim" cartridge cameras used can't be enlarged much beyond 4"x6". Typical 35mm negatives can't be usefully enlarged beyond about 12"x18". A 70mm negative can be enlarged to wall portrait size without showing too much grain. The suitability of enlargements is subjective.

Obviously Dave Cosnette's page is unmitigated crap from beginning to end, and debunking it completely would be quite an enterprise. And from what we've seen, it's likely that Dave would pay absolutely no attention to even the clearest argument against his findings.

AstroMike
2003-Oct-02, 11:20 PM
The first photo on that page isn't from Apollo 11 but Apollo 12 taken by Al Bean.

AS12-49-7319 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7319.jpg)

NASA Fan
2003-Oct-03, 04:19 AM
JayUtah, I am not sure if you are correcting me and my impressions, or if you thought that I was quoting from his web site. The only place that I know that I quoted was the size of the photos. Everything in there was my opinion and limited knowledge. I assume that you were just expaning on my opinions and giving facts where I was not sure. If I did not make it clear that I was giving my opinions I apologize.

Edited to add:

Thanks for giving the details that I did not know.

JayUtah
2003-Oct-03, 05:23 AM
JayUtah, I am not sure if you are correcting me and my impressions...

No, not really.

if you thought that I was quoting from his web site.

It was obvious to me that you were quoting from the web site, or at least reproducing the gist of it to comment on it.

I assume that you were just expaning on my opinions and giving facts where I was not sure.

Exactly. You brought up some of the sillier arguments from the page, and I interjected detail where I thought it would be appropriate. I can see now where you think I might have been taking you to task, but I assure I was not and I deeply apologize if I've offended you. I think we see eye to eye on the wrongness of Dave Cosnette.

To be accurate, Dave Cosnette reproduces Aulis' attempt to walk the fine line between faking the record and faking the missions. In my opinion neither of them succeeds. While both Dave and the Aulis authors state explicitly that they accept the possibility of actual lunar missions, they both make arguments that seem aimed toward having had no successful missions. It may not be fair to claim, based on the web pages, that Dave argues the landings themselves never happened. But he has said the following things recently in the Apollo-hoax Yahoo group:



also may be you would like to explain the blue sky out of the appolo window
at 200.000 miles from earth if we have in deed been to the moon why are we
building a space station in near earth orbit so near in fact its visible
from earth




well your wrong there ask nasa sts flight engineer he says we dont have the
technolgy to go back to the moon so weve lost it that is if we ever went




Can I ask if this group has been set up by the people who hang out at Bad
Astronomy? I was just wondering because it seems like Jay Utah and his
little buddies are at it again - setting up groups to shoot down other
peoples websites and ideas. Havent you lot got anything better to do?

Anyway, heres a few things that come to mind about Apollo!

The estimate for man to return to the Moon if we started to prepare for it
in 1987 was 25 years (The Ride Report - investigated by Sally Ride, herself
an astronaut).

During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon,
took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of technology.
An 86% success rate. Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with
increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their
missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded.

Not one thing that appears on the surface of the Moon had to be placed by
Man. Be it mirrors to reflect lasers from here on Earth to calculate
distances or seismology equipment. The placement of mirrors on the Moon to
reflect laser tests which are often carried out by schools and university's
around the World are always thrown in to the argument to prove that Man must
have gone to the Moon. All could have been placed there by robotic machines.
It wouldn't necessarily need a human to place them there.

Why scrap the Saturn V rocket for an inferior Shuttle? NASA could have
easily launched the Shuttle on top of the second stage of the Saturn 5
rocket? The first stage would have dropped into the Ocean and the second
stage and the fully loaded shuttle orbiter would have travelled into low
Earth orbit. The second stages could have then been left in orbit and
assembled to make the Space Station, which would have been well on its way
to completion by the time the Shuttle was first launched in 1981. If man
really went to the Moon, why did NASA drop the successful Saturn 5 launch
rocket after the last Apollo mission? The shuttle weighs 3/4 heavier than
the Saturn 5 Rocket, puts only 1/6th of cargo weight into orbit and costs 3
times as much to launch. Why scrap a rocket that can outperform its newer
model? The Shuttle was first flown 2 years behind schedule. They could have
had the first launch of the shuttle a whole 5 years before it was finally
launched and saved the American taxpayer 20 billion dollars. And talking of
the Space Station - why didn't they build it on the solid surface of the
Moon if they have been there?


Well, thats just for starters, I can continue if you want!




Since it only took 8 years from President Kennedy's announcement till the
first mission, why would it take 23 years to send man back to the Moon for
the 7th time?

Why didn't Russia even bother to land a cosmonaut on the Moon after the
Americans beat them to it??? Many people would say that its because it was
too late, but if you want to look at it like that, why didn't this apply to
NASA when the Russians beat America in putting the first satellite, animal,
man, woman and space station into orbit? Russia would not have thrown in the
towel just because America had beaten them at one single thing in Space!

>>>Long term space bases on the moon are subject to radiation problems.
>>>Now,
>>>don't even start arguing about the Apollo atronauts and their exposure:
>>>They weren't in it for long enough to have any serious detrimental
>>>effect. However, radiaton damage is cumulative. Stick someone on the moon
>>>for months and they will start showing signs of radiation sickness. The
>>>station is within the Van Allen belts, so requires less shielding,
>>>therefore each section is
lighter and easier to lift into orbit.<<<

Are you absolutely sure that radiation in the Van Allen Belt would have not
effected the Astronauts? Perhaps you could read the following and give me an
answer!

In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three
hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the
Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which
the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able
to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as
well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which
lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it
would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with
your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of
aluminium shielding!

CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may
be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they
supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The
phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered)
'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248
miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear
Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen
Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better.
What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than
the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo
and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25
times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how
wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer
of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA
say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4
hours within the belts.

Why did NASA carry out experiments on a dummy filled with flesh on the
Shuttle if they already knew the results that radiation would have on the
human body?

As regards to the Moon Station - didnt you know that this was NASA's orginal
objective - to build a base on the Moon?


Anyone reading these would, I believe, argue that Dave probably doesn't believe anyone landed on the moon, overtly or secretly.

captain swoop
2003-Oct-03, 08:52 AM
Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248
miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear
Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen
Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better.
What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than
the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo
and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25
times more radiation than the other 2 belts. .


??

What's this about. I have never heard of it.

DataCable
2003-Oct-03, 10:48 AM
Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248
miles above Earth in 1962?...
What's this about. I have never heard of it.
It sounds very much like... oh, dangit, what's the term... it's something highly technical... it's right on the tip of my tongue... oh yeah! "A load of crap." :roll:

JayUtah
2003-Oct-03, 01:08 PM
Operation Starfish was real, but it was not an attempt to "punch a hole" through the Van Allen belts. It was, instead, an test to see whether high-altitude nuclear explosions would serve to cripple Soviet satellites or missiles. The notion that the radiation belts could be "cleared" or mitigated in some way by a nuclear explosion doesn't really have any basis in physics. And so it's pretty clear that the source of those rumors that the "real" reason of the tests was to affect the Van Allen belts in some way come from the conspiracists, who have no skill at science.

Some conspiracists go on to speculate about a supposed Project Century nuclear detonation that was supposed to have trapped huge amounts of electrons in a so-called "third Van Allen belt", and whose effects lasted for years instead of the typical days or weeks for such an event. However, those who witnessed the Fishbowl detonations -- and there were many thousands of witnesses -- can attest that it's not possible to hide the visible effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion. Nor is it possible for the speculated physical effects on satellites to have gone unnoticed.

Dave Cosnette gets his information from David Percy and Mary Bennett, who -- in addition to displaying colossal ignorance about the physics of such a detonation -- seem to have confused the stories of three different detonations: the 1958 Operation Argus detonation to study the mechanics of the Van Allen belts, the 1962 Operation Starfish Prime detonation, and the entirely mythical 1965 Project Century.

The Project Century myth was given a shot in the arm by a mainstream press report written by Richard Sale and published by UPI in 2000.

There's a picture of an aurora from the Starfish Prime test at the bottom of http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html and if you get Peter Kuran's Trinity and Beyond you can see film of the detonation. It's very pretty.

Hypatia
2003-Oct-08, 05:08 PM
Ummmm.. there ARE domes & tunnels on the Moon....albiet, natural ones, probably formed by volcanic activity.

Amatuers astronomers have great fun trying to observe domes. They do seem to "disappear" as they only show up in the when the Sun shines on them the right way, but I have never heard of them "moving".

Many rilles are either intact or collapsed volcanic tunnels.

As for the rest of the page - vacumm compresses the soil so the Buggy shouldn't throw up dust???????? The guy is obviuosly clueless.......

Superluminal
2003-Oct-09, 12:29 AM
Does anybody remember this? Reading that silly page brought back a memory. During one of the last missions, 16 I think, an astronaut was standing next to the rover at the end of one of the EVAs. There was a flicker of light at the top of the screen, the astronaut turns around and exclaims what was that? Next thing we see is Walter Cronkite sitting there looking down, realizes he's on tv, looks up and says, "We seem to have temporarilylost the video feed from the moon." They go to a couple of commercials, and then go back to the moon as if nothing happened. Does anybody remember that, or is it just bad memory. I have slept a couple of times since the Apollo program.