PDA

View Full Version : Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA, Enlarged and Revised Edition



jrkeller
2009-Apr-13, 08:01 PM
Mark your calender!!!!!!!

Hoagland is updating his book Dark Mission (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Mission-History-Enlarged-Revised/dp/1932595481/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239652565&sr=1-11) and it is due to be released on September 1st 2009.


The New York Times bestseller about the strange history of NASA and its cover-ups regarding its origins and extraterrestrial architecture found on the moon and Mars is even more interesting in its new edition.

Buyers of the new edition will be provided a code that will enable them to log on to DarkMission.net to download hundreds of images discussed within the book.

Swift
2009-Apr-13, 08:45 PM
Boy, I bet it will twice as good at the first edition. ;)

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-13, 09:06 PM
How dare he release it on the anniversary of the day my hero Robert Ballard discovered the Titanic!

;-) (I'm offended, but not as much as the above comment implies.)

Skyfire
2009-Apr-13, 10:19 PM
<sarcasm> Wow! I can't wait!</sarcasm>

In fact I can wait. I'm happy to wait years! Will there be more "secret NASA photos and footage never meant for release" or some such? All of which are more than likely freely available if you know where to look ....

And also I wonder how many days, hours, or even minutes after publication it will be before the code for the extra images is available somewhere on the internet.

Mellow
2009-Apr-14, 04:34 PM
It would be a real shame if someone legitimately purchased the book and the code, then circulated the code so that other people could see these so called exclusive images for free. I really hope that doesn't happen, if it does, of course I'll take a look myself, but I won't like myself for doing so.... ;-)

JayUtah
2009-Apr-14, 05:11 PM
I'm just savoring the irony of Hoagland selling access to publicly available pictures in conjunction with a book arguing that NASA is hiding and controlling access to information.

jrkeller
2009-Apr-14, 05:48 PM
I'm just savoring the irony of Hoagland selling access to publicly available pictures in conjunction with a book arguing that NASA is hiding and controlling access to information.

I have a feeling that someone may post this comment of Hoagland's site or at least under the amazon comments.

Grashtel
2009-Apr-14, 07:04 PM
Mark your calender!!!!!!!

Hoagland is updating his book Dark Mission (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Mission-History-Enlarged-Revised/dp/1932595481/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239652565&sr=1-11) and it is due to be released on September 1st 2009.
Oh joy, another book to add to my mustn't buy and not to read lists.

BigDon
2009-Apr-15, 02:31 PM
Oh joy, another book to add to my mustn't buy and not to read lists.

Oh man, you beat me to it!

Torch2k
2009-Apr-16, 03:50 PM
Was just wondering what the law was 'down there' regarding the use of NASA images. (I assume such images will be used as 'proof'.) Is it something along the lines of rebuttal constituting fair use?

It just seems rather rude to slander an agency with the very material it provides free of charge as a public service. Especially if an admission fee is required to view them.

jrkeller
2009-Apr-17, 02:43 PM
Was just wondering what the law was 'down there' regarding the use of NASA images. (I assume such images will be used as 'proof'.) Is it something along the lines of rebuttal constituting fair use?


You can use them as long as you credit NASA.

Braille
2009-Apr-17, 03:11 PM
I saw this the other day. It explains what some of the shuttle mission patches symbolize. The first one is about a Dark Mission. Some are about missions carrying top secret payloads, the others are satellite launches we know about.


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1197/1

JayUtah
2009-Apr-17, 03:20 PM
Most photographs released publicly by NASA are considered in public domain -- that is, entirely free of copyright or other intellectual ownership. One is not strictly required to give credit. It is however scholarly convention to credit the source even for public-domain material as a means of establishing authority and origin: you say you got it from NASA so that people know where it came from, not because NASA desires or requires the credit. That is not true of all NASA material, but most historical photography from NASA has no property rights associated with it.

The provision you must respect, however, is the privacy of individuals depicted in the images. There are certain commercial and editorial uses of photographs that may violate the rights of people recognizably depicted in them. You cannot, for example, use a photograph of recognizable Mission Control operators smoking cigars in order to sell your tobacco products in the United States: that violates the right against someone's likeness being used for commercial activity without his consent.

Hoagland (and any other author) may create a derived work from a public-domain item. If I obtain from NASA a public-domain photograph and annotate, compose, or otherwise transform the item so as to create a substantially new original work from it, I have rights in that derivation. I may charge people money to view it, even if the original material is free.

Once published, that new derived work is itself subject to Fair Use doctrine.

Torch2k
2009-Apr-17, 11:57 PM
Thanks for the explanation, all. I could see that the promotion of products by associating them with NASA would be over the line, but wasn't just sure where the line was drawn, and this makes it more clear.

Still, the whole business DOES seem pretty scuzzy to me. Then again, IANAL.

djellison
2009-Apr-18, 12:43 PM
I'm astonished that anyone would want to buy this crap. 5 seconds with google and you can debunk an entire chapter. Glass domes on the moon being the easiest. Half an hour, and the entire premise of the whole book falls to pieces.

This book is a total work of fiction, and Hoagland knows it. Amazing how all his attention has turned away from Mars now that the data from MRO demonstrates just how moronic his Cydonia obsession was.

Jason_Roberts
2009-Apr-19, 12:40 AM
I've had the most unpropitious opportunity to carefully search for, and briefly evaluate every RCH "anomaly" photo available on the web. This consumed at least six months of my life, and was nothing short of absolute drudgery.

Some groups of self-appointed "anomaly hunters" usually commit the typical folly of pareidolia or .jpg image compression. However, RCH brings things down further by depicting blatantly obvious film and camera defects as alien constructs.

Which brings me to why I am astonished that this image never showed up in any of his books, or any of the abominable publications related to the subject by other authors. It's a doozy: (Lunar Orbiter image lo5-125-h2a) (http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g287/robertsthevile/LOIMG.jpg)

It's a veritable paradise for pareidolic eyes! Conversely, when considering that, I'm glad these images never came up before for that same reason.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever had a decent chance to have a lunar geologist elaborate on it's features for me. But that taken into account, they are quite plainly diverse geological formations accompanied by some very beautiful (and long) shadows.

I like to pull it out whenever someone insists that the moon is just a cratered, flat and barren landscape. They seem to forget that impacts and even possible lunar volcanism can craft some very pretty, and downright gorgeous landscapes. The lack of an atmosphere magnifies this natural beauty and makes it all the more fantastic. (Did I just say cratered AND flat? Meh, ah well...)

One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon.

That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough.

Starfury
2009-Apr-19, 03:31 PM
I'm astonished that anyone would want to buy this crap. 5 seconds with google and you can debunk an entire chapter. Glass domes on the moon being the easiest. Half an hour, and the entire premise of the whole book falls to pieces.

This book is a total work of fiction, and Hoagland knows it. Amazing how all his attention has turned away from Mars now that the data from MRO demonstrates just how moronic his Cydonia obsession was.

I guess Hoaxland needs to keep food on the table somehow. :lol:

algorithms
2009-Apr-19, 04:09 PM
It is amazing that there remains a small, but hardcore group of so-called "anomaly hunters" who, dspite the obvious science to the contrary, continue to claim there are alien-made ruins on the moon and Mars. The contorted machinations they require to keep the assembly line running at Hoagland's nonsense factory are engineered from sheer naivety. That anyone would actually buy this book for anything other than litterbox lining speaks to how far we have yet to got to climb out of our caves of ignorance.

Hans
2009-Apr-19, 06:45 PM
It is amazing that there remains a small, but hardcore group of so-called "anomaly hunters" who, dspite the obvious science to the contrary, continue to claim there are alien-made ruins on the moon and Mars. The contorted machinations they require to keep the assembly line running at Hoagland's nonsense factory are engineered from sheer naivety. That anyone would actually buy this book for anything other than litterbox lining speaks to how far we have yet to got to climb out of our caves of ignorance.


Howdy Algorithms!

Would these lines be directed at the foolish few who posted at the Red planet discussion table website? Is that thing still running? There was another one too, that SNC, Gordon de Spain, etc and other うんち lived? Long time no read old comrade.

Jason_Roberts
2009-Apr-19, 08:36 PM
It is amazing that there remains a small, but hardcore group of so-called "anomaly hunters" who, dspite the obvious science to the contrary, continue to claim there are alien-made ruins on the moon and Mars. The contorted machinations they require to keep the assembly line running at Hoagland's nonsense factory are engineered from sheer naivety. That anyone would actually buy this book for anything other than litterbox lining speaks to how far we have yet to got to climb out of our caves of ignorance.

That sounds depressing, but unfortunately true.

These kinds of ideas seem to come up more frequently as opposed to dwindling away (to me, anyway.) Large groups of people are demanding copious amounts of fantasy and escapism and are caring less and less about the heavy price these things carry in the long run.

Then there are misinformed people who genuinely don't know any better.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Apr-19, 09:38 PM
Howdy Algorithms!

Would these lines be directed at the foolish few who posted at the Red planet discussion table website? Is that thing still running? There was another one too, that SNC, Gordon de Spain, etc and other うんち lived? Long time no read old comrade.

MARS...A Red Planet Roundtable Discussion (http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/8728.html) is still alive and kicking. Our old friend MARS REVEALER (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/65320-faces-mars.html) has resurfaced there today and continues with his obsession of Hoagland.

Torch2k
2009-Apr-19, 11:48 PM
I'm sure the 'assembly line' will keep running as long as there's a market for the product. There must be some profit in it, or purveyors of such material would undoubtedly move on to other pursuits.

I suppose at least a few of these authors genuinely believe the claims they make, and are doing their best to 'get the word out', but most of them seem suspect to me. I can't help but think that many who make a living as proponents of such 'theories' really know better, but find it too easy (and much too lucrative) to capitalize on the ignorance and naiveté of certain groups within society.

As for their readership, I wonder whether need doesn't play as much a part as gullibility. Isn't our society historically chock full of beliefs in elves, gnomes, sprites, pixies, angels, etc? Are aliens the contemporary equivalent of these creatures? Maybe these authors are just using modern terminology to fulfill the innate need for mythology that exists within a certain segment of the population.

What strikes me is that they use real technology against itself, so to speak. Their reliance on photographic 'evidence' abuses the inherent flaws in the methods used to gather, retrieve, and reproduce images of the moon, Mars, etc. To an experienced observer, dust, scratches, blurs, flares, and other imperfections are common flaws in any photograph produced or reproduced by mechanical means. Likewise, pixelation, artifacting, and other byproducts of image digitization and conversion are well known and well considered when viewing digitized images. Anyone used to working with images (and especially digital images) as evidence would appreciate that there are certain limitations inherent in the technology.

And it's these gaps that the conspiracists exploit. A trained analyst could explain (and even an untrained, objective observer could assume) that the image was flawed, somehow, and that there's nothing noteworthy in the imperfections. But for those who are looking for a miracle in the gaps, they're well served by the hucksters and charlatans who are willing to feed their desires.

Hans
2009-Apr-20, 02:25 PM
Thanks for the link Alan, interesting to note it is still there with what - seven posters!

Enjoy. That website remains on my F list, while BA is on my C list and you can see how often I post here.

Good reading you again Alan

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-21, 12:33 AM
As for their readership, I wonder whether need doesn't play as much a part as gullibility. Isn't our society historically chock full of beliefs in elves, gnomes, sprites, pixies, angels, etc? Are aliens the contemporary equivalent of these creatures? Maybe these authors are just using modern terminology to fulfill the innate need for mythology that exists within a certain segment of the population.
I have always interpreted the interest in SF, UFOs and the comics featuring "Cosmic" heroes from Marvel and DC (Characters such as the Silver Surfer) as people wanting a "mythology for the age of space travel".

JonClarke
2009-Apr-29, 08:54 AM
I have always interpreted the interest in SF, UFOs and the comics featuring "Cosmic" heroes from Marvel and DC (Characters such as the Silver Surfer) as people wanting a "mythology for the age of space travel".

I think it unfortunate that you lump a whole field of literature (the good the bad the ugly) into the same bag as UFOs and comics.

Jon

KaiYeves
2009-Apr-29, 11:46 PM
I didn't say there was anything WRONG with being interested in SF or comics.

NEOWatcher
2009-Apr-30, 02:51 PM
I think it unfortunate that you lump a whole field of literature (the good the bad the ugly) into the same bag as UFOs and comics.
I would tend to call that lump "fiction". ;)
It all depends on the context of the lump.

JonClarke
2009-Apr-30, 10:25 PM
I didn't say there was anything WRONG with being interested in SF or comics.

Didn't say you did. I said it was unfortunate that you lump creative fiction with the misinterpretation, ignorance and deliverate lies that typify UFO "reports".

Jon

JonClarke
2009-Apr-30, 10:27 PM
I would tend to call that lump "fiction". ;)
It all depends on the context of the lump.

And why should creativity be lumped in with UFOs? It is like lumping tax fraud and the Nobel prize for economics together just because they both deal with money.

Jon

captain swoop
2009-May-01, 08:42 AM
There is a lot of creativity in those UFO books and DVDs. As much as in most Sci-Fi and any comic I have ever seen.

NEOWatcher
2009-May-01, 12:00 PM
And why should creativity be lumped in with UFOs?
The good captain said it well.

It is like lumping tax fraud and the Nobel prize for economics together just because they both deal with money.
Exactly. But; finding a good context would be hard to find.

JonClarke
2009-May-01, 12:51 PM
There is a lot of creativity in those UFO books and DVDs. As much as in most Sci-Fi and any comic I have ever seen.

Maybe, but not in a good sense, so it is still an invidious comparison.

thoth II
2009-May-01, 04:45 PM
]
I've had the most unpropitious opportunity to carefully search for, and briefly evaluate every RCH "anomaly" photo available on the web. This consumed at least six months of my life, and was nothing short of absolute drudgery.


One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon.

That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough.

Yes, and I commend your effort of 6 months because it confirms that he is a fraud.

An inspirational image:

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~7~7~30935~134798:Apollo-11-Lunar-Module-ascent-stage?qvq=w4s:/what/Apollo+11/;q:apollo+11;lc:nasaNAS~5~5,NVA2~14~14,nasaNAS~20~ 20,NVA2~1~1,NVA2~13~13,nasaNAS~16~16,NSVS~3~3,NVA2 ~8~8,NVA2~19~19,nasaNAS~8~8,NVA2~4~4,nasaNAS~6~6,N VA2~18~18,nasaNAS~4~4,nasaNAS~2~2,nasaNAS~13~13,NV A2~17~17,nasaNAS~12~12,nasaNAS~22~22,NVA2~16~16,NV A2~9~9,nasaNAS~10~10,nasaNAS~7~7,NVA2~15~15,nasaNA S~9~9,NVA2~20~20,NVA2~21~21&mi=378&trs=665

R.A.F.
2009-May-01, 04:55 PM
Maybe, but not in a good sense, so it is still an invidious comparison.

I can understand why you would hold that opinion about "certain" UFO books, but what in the world do you have against comic books??

Gillianren
2009-May-01, 05:17 PM
Yes, and I commend your effort of 6 months; because now you know he is a fraud.

It doesn't take six months to know that . . . .

KaiYeves
2009-May-01, 07:52 PM
An inspirational image:

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...mi=378&trs=665
Inspirational indeed!


I can understand why you would hold that opinion about "certain" UFO books, but what in the world do you have against comic books??
That's the impression I got from his statements as well.

01101001
2009-May-01, 08:00 PM
An inspirational image:

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servl...mi=378&trs=665

Inspirational indeed!

Link got broken. From farther back it is:

NASA Images: Apollo 11 Lunar Module ascent stage photographed from Command Module [with Earth] (http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~7~7~30935~134798:Apollo-11-Lunar-Module-ascent-stage?qvq=w4s:/what/Apollo+11/;q:apollo+11;lc:nasaNAS~5~5,NVA2~14~14,nasaNAS~20~ 20,NVA2~1~1,NVA2~13~13,nasaNAS~16~16,NSVS~3~3,NVA2 ~8~8,NVA2~19~19,nasaNAS~8~8,NVA2~4~4,nasaNAS~6~6,N VA2~18~18,nasaNAS~4~4,nasaNAS~2~2,nasaNAS~13~13,NV A2~17~17,nasaNAS~12~12,nasaNAS~22~22,NVA2~16~16,NV A2~9~9,nasaNAS~10~10,nasaNAS~7~7,NVA2~15~15,nasaNA S~9~9,NVA2~20~20,NVA2~21~21&mi=378&trs=665)

It is AS11-44-6634.jpg if my link breaks. (Another simpler URL for it (http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~7~7~30935~134798:Apollo-11-Lunar-Module-ascent-stage).)

JonClarke
2009-May-01, 10:33 PM
I can understand why you would hold that opinion about "certain" UFO books, but what in the world do you have against comic books??

I am not a personal fan of graphic novels but I have nothing against them and I certainly don't lump them into the same catory as fraudulant UFOn stories. If I gave that impression my appologies.

R.A.F.
2009-May-01, 10:41 PM
I am not a personal fan of graphic novels...

Neither am I...I was speaking of the old dime a copy comic books.

JonClarke
2009-May-01, 10:52 PM
I am not a fan of those either. Not a big feature of my youth. But again, I would not put them into the same category as fraudulent UFO stories.

Jon

SpecialEd
2009-May-02, 02:25 AM
I've always been a fan of both sci-fi and comics, but I credit that with my having become interested in science-not in fantasy.

Gillianren
2009-May-02, 03:05 AM
Heh. I like fantasy. Not delusions.

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-02, 08:15 PM
It doesn't take six months to know that . . . .

I went through the images because I was really curious about what he was seeing and why I couldn't.

Plus, I have an endless supply of free-time and will always have that 'way of life ' (er, unlife?) at my disposal.

Six months can sometimes feel like six hours, so it wasn't all that bad. Almost every minute of my day is spent trying to absorb random information anyway.

Gillianren
2009-May-02, 11:42 PM
I went through the images because I was really curious about what he was seeing and why I couldn't.

Plus, I have an endless supply of free-time and will always have that 'way of life ' (er, unlife?) at my disposal.

Six months can sometimes feel like six hours, so it wasn't all that bad. Almost every minute of my day is spent trying to absorb random information anyway.

Oh, don't get me wrong--I'm not saying you shouldn't have done what you did, and we all know that I really don't get to lecture other people on having too much free time. (Ditto, as it happens, as to the way of life.) I'm just saying there's no way it should take six months just to know Hoagland's a fraud!

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-03, 08:30 AM
Oh, don't get me wrong--I'm not saying you shouldn't have done what you did, and we all know that I really don't get to lecture other people on having too much free time. (Ditto, as it happens, as to the way of life.) I'm just saying there's no way it should take six months just to know Hoagland's a fraud!

Yeah, sometimes just a few seconds will do.

I showed "Enterprise Mission" to my younger brother Michael once, who only glanced over the garish banner-links and star field background and said "This is a practical joke, right? There's no reason why anyone would take this guy seriously - so obviously he's pulling someone's chain."

Then I told him that he's been published and has a small following of CT types...

I'm not sure if I have ever seen him online since.

TJMac
2009-May-03, 04:21 PM
Ok, I am new to this site, and apparently new to the "esteemed" Mr. Hoagland, and his ideas. I have never pretended to be the sharpest knife in the block, but by all things good and fuzzy, how does anyone take his ideas seriously?

In about 30 minutes of linking to his site, checking out some random claims, I am totally befuddled at what he is saying! I found myself saying, "What the....?" I lack vocabulary to express myself appropriately.

Maybe some one could explain one thing to me. What would possibly be the reason NASA would have to hide any type of artificial constructs, either on our moon, Mars, Europa, or the moons of Uranus? Maybe I am approaching the issue sideways, or completely incorrectly, but there DOES have to be some sort of motive, no?

Is it because the ruling elite, or the Illuminati, (are they one and the same? I dont remember) will make trillions from the Aliens, or ALREADY ARE!?

I will add this. I am quite pleased to have found a group of rational thinking individuals on the internet.

R.A.F.
2009-May-03, 04:35 PM
There's no reason why anyone would take this guy seriously -

I've been curious as to why Paramount hasn't sued Hoagland for copyright infringement for using the name and likeness of the USS Enterprise on his site...

I guess Paramount doesn't take Hoagland seriously, either. :)

Laguna
2009-May-03, 08:15 PM
I've been curious as to why Paramount hasn't sued Hoagland for copyright infringement for using the name and likeness of the USS Enterprise on his site...

I guess Paramount doesn't take Hoagland seriously, either. :)
Possibly because they don't want to wake up sleeping bears as the US Navy could then start suing them... :)

JonClarke
2009-May-03, 10:28 PM
Ok, I am new to this site, and apparently new to the "esteemed" Mr. Hoagland, and his ideas. I have never pretended to be the sharpest knife in the block, but by all things good and fuzzy, how does anyone take his ideas seriously?

I agree, but you would be surprised. I was once a moderator on another space science forum and we went through a period (nearly a year I think) called "The Hoagland Wars" when we were visited by a through of perhaps half a dozen Hoagland supporters (they were active on his web site) who were a sort of tag team to promulgate Hogalnd ideas. Hyperdimensional physics, the face on Mars, the true colour of Mars, Iapatus, glass towers on the Moon, all were discussed at great length. Eventually nearly all of them were banned because they could not stick to the forum rules.

Exactly why Hogalnd is so popular I have no idea. Porbably something to do with the appeal of having secret knowledge that the rest of the "sheeple" don't have, of not being taken in, and a general lack of basic understanding of science and critical thinking. But thesw people are not neccessarily stupid either. They just think very differently and it is very hard to build a bridge.

Jon

LaurelHS
2009-May-03, 11:10 PM
I once talked with someone who'd heard Hoagland interviewed on the radio and taken him seriously (after all, he was on the radio! ;) ) and she went on about artificial structures on Mars. She seemed to like the idea of mysterious extraterrestrials. Based on some other things she said during the conversation, I also got the idea that she was a little paranoid, so it was probably easy for her to believe that NASA and the government were covering things up.

thoth II
2009-May-04, 11:34 PM
Exactly why Hogalnd is so popular I have no idea. Porbably something to do with the appeal of having secret knowledge that the rest of the "sheeple" don't have, of not being taken in, and a general lack of basic understanding of science and critical thinking. But thesw people are not neccessarily stupid either. They just think very differently and it is very hard to build a bridge.

Jon

For some reason, even though I know he is a quack, I like listening to him. He has a certain charisma or energy in his voice, and did have a background as a legit CBS science news announcer. I have the same opinion of Stan Friedman.

These guys are probably good people, they seem like it, but somewhere along life's road, they took a turn down the wrong road. In Stan's case, he was doing legit nuclear airplane stuff, but found he could make a living with the UFO stuff. In RCH case, I don't know what happened, but it might have something to do with a grudge with NASA . One poster said something, I don't know where, about him bringing an idea to NASA and they turned it down.

Peter B
2009-May-05, 02:02 AM
For some reason, even though I know he is a quack, I like listening to him. He has a certain charisma or energy in his voice, and did have a background as a legit CBS science news announcer. I have the same opinion of Stan Friedman.

It's good that you analyse why you like listening to someone, especially if you think it's to do with how they speak, rather than what they say. It suggests that, for people like this, delivery is more important than content.


These guys are probably good people, they seem like it, but somewhere along life's road, they took a turn down the wrong road. In Stan's case, he was doing legit nuclear airplane stuff, but found he could make a living with the UFO stuff. In RCH case, I don't know what happened, but it might have something to do with a grudge with NASA . One poster said something, I don't know where, about him bringing an idea to NASA and they turned it down.

Or it might be to do with the money. I suspect these people do quite well out of what they do - better than they did in their old lives.

JonClarke
2009-May-05, 08:54 AM
These guys are probably good people, they seem like it, but somewhere along life's road, they took a turn down the wrong road. In Stan's case, he was doing legit nuclear airplane stuff, but found he could make a living with the UFO stuff. In RCH case, I don't know what happened, but it might have something to do with a grudge with NASA . One poster said something, I don't know where, about him bringing an idea to NASA and they turned it down.

I suspect he was originally genuinely sincere about the face on Mars and was embittered how almost nobody took it seriously in the space science community. He took it out on NASA and the rest is history.

Of course most people don't do this when professionals don't accept our ideas from left field. They learn from it and move on. So there has to be a certain personality quirk there in the first place. Maybe his close association the PR side with several space missions made him think more highly of himself than he should have.

Jon

Gordon DeSpain
2009-Jun-16, 07:54 PM
Howdy Algorithms!

Would these lines be directed at the foolish few who posted at the Red planet discussion table website? Is that thing still running? There was another one too, that SNC, Gordon de Spain, etc and other うんち lived? Long time no read old comrade.

Hi Hans,

Thought you might like to know that I really am still around, although I don't go to any of the Forums you mention, anymore: Anomaly Hunters or the Red Planet Roundtable Discussion. I just hit a reference to me in a Google Search for somethng else, and, it led here.

I have no objection to your comments, they're fair enough, but, you really should know a little more about me before proceeding. At the moment, and, for the last four years, I've been in Baghdad, which, as a bonafide adventurer is exactly the place I want to be.

FYI, when I was in the fifth grade they started trying to put me in 'Special Education' because I was telling them things they didn't want to hear, like, you can't prove a Negative with a Positive: "You can't use a Unit of One, the Earth, which has life in every known niche, to prove there 'can be no life' on other Planets, and, you can't use the Solar Sytem as a Unit of One to prove there can be no other Planets in the Universe...it's just not logical."

In the 6th grade they tested my IQ (knowledge level, really), and called it Second Year College. They tested it again in the 7th Grade, and, judged it to be 2nd Year Graduate Student ++. I asked the teacher giving the Test what he meant by ++, and, he said that's as high as our scale goes, and, you finished the test without missing a question in less than half the alloted time. Then, he looked it up on a crossreference and said my IQ was 170++. I said, what does the ++ mean? He said, It's as high as our chart goes, and, your score goes straight up off the chart.

Maybe, you've been on some other Planet (that we know can't exist), and, missed the fact that Astronomers have found the Markers of Life in every place they've looked, as 'Far' as they've looked, and, they've found over 340 Exo-Planets circling other Stars...you do know that, don't you? Hmmmmm?

I knew that when I was in Grade School. Nobody had to show me a picture of an Exo-Planet and prooovve anything to me...I knew they were there.

I'm a lot of other things you might not suspect, as well, I'm one of two men in the History of American Archery to have ever shot a perfect Chicago Round (Indoors, 20 yds, 2 1/2" Bullseye, 96 Arrows), and, I won the match by 1 arrow in a sudden death shootout that lasted 4 hours and 3 minutes, in Feb of 1964. The late Dr David Boyles and I are tied at 5 rounds each, shot in that shootout. I'm an ex-professional Motorcycle Racer, and, the only undefeated King of the Punching Bag at Gilley's...the real, original Urban Cowboy, but, I walked away from the movie to go on my first "great adventure" in the North Sea. I'm not interested in making a movie, especially about someone as booring as me.

I've been on every Continent, several Islands including Borneo, and, around the world a dozen times, chasing adventure, which, is what I'm doing in Baghdad. War is the greatest adventure.

Oh, and, I don't do Scratches, Bubbles, dust, cracks or JPEG Artifacts, I never believed in zooming images until they begin to break down. And, the person that taught me the most about image analysis is the man that NASA hired to reprocess all the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo images, to include the Lunar Landing images (you might want to look that up, he's one of the founding members of the "Anomaly Hunters").

But, don't pay any attention to me, I'm just another Abductee.

See ya...

Swift
2009-Jun-16, 08:13 PM
Gordon DeSpain,

First, welcome to BAUT.

Second, if you are going to continue this discussion, I would strongly urge that you read the rules of this board, particularly as they relate to Conspiracy Theories, and the Advice for conspiracy theory supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html).

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-17, 01:44 AM
Welcome to the board, Gordon.


I've been on every Continent, several Islands including Borneo, and, around the world a dozen times, chasing adventure, which, is what I'm doing in Baghdad. War is the greatest adventure.

I think it was President Kennedy in 1962 who said that space was now humanity's greatest adventure.

LaurelHS
2009-Jun-17, 02:11 AM
I think you're referring to Kennedy's speech (http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/jfk-space.htm) at Rice University on September 12, 1962. It's the last line.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-17, 04:27 AM
Yes, thank you, LaurelHS.

Perhaps Gordon should have wrote that something else is the greatest adventure. For example, electricity. Adventures with electricity can be hair-raising.:eek:

Gordon DeSpain
2009-Jun-17, 02:21 PM
Hi Swift,

Actually, I don't do conspiracy theories, there are too many things happening today that are real, and, really worthy of concern. But, I'm not here to talk politics, or, my ongoing advocacy of Constitutional Rights.

If I consider this anything, it would have to be simply interesting. I've studied every image ever taken of the Moon through the agency of a Space Craft, and, found tons of interesting things that really should not be: they're out of place, and, don't fit the surroundings...like Halley's Rille, and, even Halley's Peak.

Then, there's a small Crater on the Far Side (name unknown), that has a strange Berm following around the inside of the Rimwall that suddenly ends, and, a Pipe emerges (60 inch?) that continues on for about 10 feet, then, suddenly reduces to half size as it 'Y's into two pipes (30 inch?) one continuing straight, the other 45'ing off to the right. About 10 feet further, the second Pipe elbows back parallel to the first on top of what appears to be a Pipe Support (I do Pipe, among about a million other things). This is perfectly clear, because both Pipes are elevated off the surface with a shadow diverging to the right that shows the support, and legs beneath. Then, with the Pipes travelling parallel, both suddenly elbow straight down into the surface, one about 2 feet beyond a second support, the other about 4 feet beyond.

Conspiracy theory? I don't think so, but, those Pipes tell some kind of story.

Incidentally, I knew Hoagland back then, and, exchanged lots of Posts with him, but, I don't necessarily follow a lot of what he says. I've studied a lot of things he uses in his theories, and, well, I've got other theories that go back a long time before the first Civilization existed on this Planet. And, there is evidence of that...one thing is a Cuniform description of Cloning (Clay Tablet) that is at least 8,000 years old (the young god, Horus, was a Clone of the long dead Osiris: called by Egyptians, the "god with two Mothers," Innana/Isis wife of Osiris, and, surrogate mother, Hathor, sister of Isis).

We all have theories, but, without proof, that's all they are...interesting though they be.

djellison
2009-Jun-17, 02:50 PM
H.like Halley's Rille, and, even Halley's Peak.

Do you mean Hadley.

And I doubt your claim about having looked at every image taken of the moon by any spacecraft. There are thousands taken by Smart 1, Chandrayaan 1, Kaguya, Chang'E 1..which have not yet been released to the PDS. Dozens and dozens of rolls of Apollo mapping camera film is out there, it's not all digitized. Could you retract/clarify which images you have seen, from which spacecraft, and where you saw them.

I also strongly doubt your claim of a 60 and 30 inch sized features. With which spacecraft and which camera are you looking at these features. I would suggest that no spacecraft to date has taken images of the surface at a high enough resolution such that a sub-meter sized feature could be identified and characterized.

Gordon DeSpain
2009-Jun-17, 03:41 PM
Do you mean Hadley.

And I doubt your claim about having looked at every image taken of the moon by any spacecraft. There are thousands taken by Smart 1, Chandrayaan 1, Kaguya, Chang'E 1..which have not yet been released to the PDS. Dozens and dozens of rolls of Apollo mapping camera film is out there, it's not all digitized. Could you retract/clarify which images you have seen, from which spacecraft, and where you saw them.

I also strongly doubt your claim of a 60 and 30 inch sized features. With which spacecraft and which camera are you looking at these features. I would suggest that no spacecraft to date has taken images of the surface at a high enough resolution such that a sub-meter sized feature could be identified and characterized.

All those things are gone away, now, along with the Computers and Books they were in, in an age long ago, and, far away. Strangely, i've been away from it so long, I don't recognize any of the Space Craft you name. But, just for your information, I knew some of those Astronauts, personally, and, mourn their deaths, still (Grissum, Chaffee, White were the first I mourned).

I'm referencing Space Craft that had flown before I got away from Anomaly Hunting: Ranger, Clementine, and, the Apollo Missions, there were few released that were taken by Space Craft from other nations at that time. But, yes, I looked at every one I could find that was released by whatever mission. I grew up hunting in fields that are now occupied by NASA Clear Lake, and, I've been doing this since before most of you got out of Grade School, or, were born. But, I walked away from it in the late '90's, and, never looked back.

Oh, yeah, I've looked at all the "Released" Ranger, Clementine, Voyager, Gallileo, Mariner, and, other Missions to the Inner and Outer Planets (including Venus, and, the early Soviet/Russian missions), and, almost every image taken of every Moon in the Solar System, before I walked away, with new interests and other objectives.

You have a good day, now, and enjoy your great attitude...it's going to take you many places, but, probably not up because you'll waste time looking at things from a negative attitude of "that could never be," rather than what just 'might' be.

The Universe is a big place, and, "impossible" is a word that was designed to be proven wrong.

djellison
2009-Jun-17, 03:54 PM
I don't want to be rude, but who you know or knew, where you've been or done has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Nor does how old you are.

Perhaps you should have said that you have seen many of the images from some of the spacecraft that have visited the moon, rather than every image ever taken. Regardless of your philosphical end phrase - it IS impossible for you to have seen every image ever taken as you at first suggested.

Making claims, but not bringing any data to the discussion is, in the context of a meaningful discussion, a very negative attitude.

If you want to have a discussion, then lets start with some data. You claim you have seen things that are 'out of place'.

Show us.

Could you clarify from what spacecraft and with which instrument you have seen a 30 inch feature, and please cite the specific image.

The specifications and abilities of the spacecraft that have visited the moon are without question. This isn't about fluffy philosophical 'what is possible' debates. Making a claim to have seen a 30inch sized feature on the moon from an orbital image, when, to my knowledge, no such data exists is naturally going to arouse suspicion. If you are making that claim, then the onus is on you to bring evidence to the table to back it up.

So - data please. Then we can all have a conversation.

Halcyon Dayz
2009-Jun-17, 04:17 PM
But, just for your information, I knew some of those Astronauts, personally, and, mourn their deaths, still (Grissum, Chaffee, White were the first I mourned).
Your dear friend's name was Grissom.



I don't want to be rude, but who you know or knew, where you've been or done has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Nor does how old you are.
Neither does the size of ones brain-case.

Colour me unimpressed. :hand:

Gordon DeSpain
2009-Jun-17, 04:51 PM
First, this is a Company Computer, and, it won't let me access most of the places I'd need to go, and, most of them have probably moved.

The Crater I was talking about was imaged with a Hand Held Hasselblad, during a low level pass by one of the Command Modules (60 inches was a wild guess, for lack of information in the image description, to illustrate changes in size), and, it is probably still on the Apollo Lunar Missions website, but, I haven't been there in years.

The last time I was there was to do a runthrough of all the Hadley's Rille (you are right about the mis-identification, sorry) images with the Astronauts (names? Mission?) standing in the bottom, looking down a perfectly straight, shallow Canyon/ditch, with a perfectly level Sand floor about 8 feet wide, perfectly sloped walls on a 60 degree angle, that ended in a perfectly radiused 30 degree turn, and, got stranger from there.

Hadley's Peak looks like it may be a Spoil Pile containing whatever came out of the ditch.

Hadley's Rille is certainly not like any collapsed Lava Rille I've ever seen (the top collapses down into a pile of rubble, they never travel in perfectly straight lines, with floors that are perfectly flat, and, that don't correspond to changes in surface contour, they follow the lay of the land).

Incidentally, one of my lesser degrees is "Survey," and, I've done a lot of profiling. Even ditches I laid out, shot grade on, and, dug were never that perfectly flat, nor, that perfectly straight...and, that perfectly-radiused-corner was another thing I keyed on (it just ain't natural)...it led to another long, perfectly straight ditch, exactly like the first section, with a floor that never varies in width or elevation. Meanwhile, the height of the sloped sides is governed by the surface contour outside the ditch, varying by as much as 10 to 20 feet.

But, don't take my word for it, go look at the images on the Apollor Lunar Landing Website. Follow the Astronauts as they walk in the bottom of this anomaly, and, watch for something that is even stranger than the ditch itself.

Swift
2009-Jun-17, 06:53 PM
<snip>
You have a good day, now, and enjoy your great attitude...it's going to take you many places, but, probably not up because you'll waste time looking at things from a negative attitude of "that could never be," rather than what just 'might' be.

The Universe is a big place, and, "impossible" is a word that was designed to be proven wrong.
You keep saying goodbye, but you keep posting more claims with zero proof. So, it is impossible for me to keep ignoring that.

As I said, you need to read the rules of this board. Now you need to start following them. If you post again on these topics, you need to start offering evidence to support them and you need to start answering questions put to you. If you do not, you will be suspended. This is an official warning.

Gillianren
2009-Jun-17, 07:16 PM
Hadley's Peak looks like it may be a Spoil Pile containing whatever came out of the ditch.

And we all know things always are exactly what they look like, of course.

Look, you've made two major and obvious errors--ones even I wouldn't make--without catching them yourself, and you expect us to just accept that you're an expert? No. Stop talking about your degrees, your close personal friendship with someone whose name you spelled wrong, and how intelligent you are. Show us evidence, any evidence, that you know what you're talking about.

djellison
2009-Jun-17, 09:51 PM
Follow the Astronauts as they walk in the bottom of this anomaly, and, watch for something that is even stranger than the ditch itself.

What anomaly. Data please.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-17, 10:48 PM
Hadley's Rille is certainly not like any collapsed Lava Rille I've ever seen...

Just how is what you have not seen relevant to this discussion?


Follow the Astronauts as they walk in the bottom of this anomaly...

That would be rather difficult as Scott and Irwin never "walked in the bottom" of Hadley Rille.

Gordon DeSpain
2009-Jun-18, 02:33 PM
Just how is what you have not seen relevant to this discussion?



That would be rather difficult as Scott and Irwin never "walked in the bottom" of Hadley Rille.

First, I never said I was a "close personal friend" of Gus Grissom, I met him (I liked him), and, most of the other Astronauts at several after race parties at Richard E Browns house, my sponsor. Richard lived between Roger Chaffee and Scott Carpenter in the neighborhood across the highway from the old Main Gate at NASA. Richard and Pam had tons of friends, and, knew and socialized with all the Astronauts...I just knew them, and, talked to them enough to make 'me' happy. Would any of them remember me? ...I doubt that, I crashed out of racing in 1972 (nothing spectacular), and, was never involved in anything to do with NASA.

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html)

And, you really should go look at those images of the Hadley Mission, Apollo 15 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15.html), there is at least one image looking down into the ditch with footprints everywhere, with an Astronaut standing next to a very large, very strange rock, right in the middle of the ditch. The images (4 to 6 total) follow him into and out of the ditch, and, you can see where he circled around the 'rock' and examined it closely (to my knowledge, no comment appears in the record about the 'rock').

PetersCreek
2009-Jun-18, 03:51 PM
To which images, in particular, do you refer?

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-18, 03:59 PM
First, I never said I was a "close personal friend" of Gus Grissom, I met him (I liked him), and, most of the other Astronauts at several after race parties at Richard E Browns house, my sponsor. Richard lived between Roger Chaffee and Scott Carpenter in the neighborhood across the highway from the old Main Gate at NASA. Richard and Pam had tons of friends, and, knew and socialized with all the Astronauts...I just knew them, and, talked to them enough to make 'me' happy. Would any of them remember me? ...I doubt that, I crashed out of racing in 1972 (nothing spectacular), and, was never involved in anything to do with NASA.

Perhaps you meant to address this to someone else...posting it to me makes no sense.


you really should go look at those images...

No need as I am QUITE familiar with the Apollo 15 mission. You are simply mistaken in what you said.

Torsten
2009-Jun-18, 04:02 PM
The Crater I was talking about was imaged with a Hand Held Hasselblad, during a low level pass by one of the Command Modules (60 inches was a wild guess, for lack of information in the image description, to illustrate changes in size), and, it is probably still on the Apollo Lunar Missions website, but, I haven't been there in years.

The lunar mapping camera (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/fairchild-lunar-mapping-camera.htm) used in later missions is claimed to have a resolution of 80 lines/mm. If I understand this correctly, with a view angle of 74°, an image area of 114x114 mm, and a minimum lunar altitude of 56 km, the resolution of surface features would be, at best, 9.25 m. These cameras benefited from having forward motion compensation. A handheld camera is not capable of forward motion compensation. At a ground track of 1500 m/s or more, and an exposure time of, say, 1/250 second, the blur during exposure is at least 6 m. Nothing as small as 30 or 60 inches was resolved with these cameras.

I'd appreciate if any of the camera experts here could verify my calculation.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-18, 04:12 PM
To which images, in particular, do you refer?

Not sure, but I think he's talking about an image taken during EVA 1...If it's the one I think it is, the vantage point is from Hadley Delta looking toward/into Hadley Rille.

Memory serves, so I can understand why Gordon would think that they were "walking the bottom" of Hadley Rille, but nonetheless, he is mistaken.

tpeterson06
2009-Jun-18, 04:49 PM
I think I remember Gordon D. from the old days when Hoagland used to have a free blogging page on the Enterprise Mission website. Incidently that blog became a pay-only site when so many good skeptics began challenging RCH's claims.

Getting back to the subject of the Dark Mission book:

How will RCH deal with the new data that will come from the LRO mission?

Gillianren
2009-Jun-18, 04:51 PM
How will RCH deal with the new data that will come from the LRO mission?

At a guess, he'll close his eyes, stick his fingers in his ears, and go, "La la la la la la!"

djellison
2009-Jun-18, 04:51 PM
The same way he's dealt with HiRISE data.

Ignored it.

tpeterson06
2009-Jun-18, 04:55 PM
Hmmn, your probably right. I'm probably just being naive to think that the true believers will be affected by the new pictures and data.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-18, 05:04 PM
Hmmn, your probably right. I'm probably just being naive to think that the true believers will be affected by the new pictures and data.

If it makes money, there's not reason to muck it up with facts now it there?

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-18, 05:24 PM
...I think he's talking about an image taken during EVA 1...If it's the one I think it is, the vantage point is from Hadley Delta looking toward/into Hadley Rille.

This page (http://www.apolloexplorer.co.uk/photo/html/as15/10075732.htm) has the image I was thinking of....although I don't see any boulder, it does give the impression that Scott is "in the bottom" of the Rille...he is not, as the page explains.

Not knowing what picture Gordon is talking about makes any analysis "difficult".

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-19, 01:00 AM
...And, the person that taught me the most about image analysis is the man that NASA hired to reprocess all the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo images, to include the Lunar Landing images (you might want to look that up, he's one of the founding members of the "Anomaly Hunters").

Was that person Keith Laney, aka Bullitt?

From Marsoweb: "Easy Processing For Optimizing Digital MOC Images (http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/mer2003/mocs/processing_notes.html)," by Keith Laney.

Marsoweb's home page: http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/index.html

TRUTHisnotfacts
2009-Jun-19, 02:53 AM
I have never seen anything on the moon but dust and rocks .

I do not think there is anything there. But I can never say no that would not be very scientific until there is more clear pictures of every Inch of the moon . The the moon Images are so old . Yes they was digital now . But still that is taking a old image and redoing it. Its not like taking a New HD image with Digital pixels

However . If anything is on the moon it would of had to have been from the last 40 years . There is no air on the moon .

LaurelHS
2009-Jun-19, 03:40 AM
The SELENE images are HD, aren't they?

01101001
2009-Jun-19, 04:30 AM
The SELENE images are HD, aren't they?

The video images are. I expect they pale in comparison to the digital imaging. Their purpose was public relations, and not hard science.

The Terrain Camera's resolution was 10 meters per pixel. I don't see resolution figures claimed for the HDTV but I estimate about 10 times that.

Specs I found:
CCD(1920×1080: valid pixels)
Telecamera: 51.23°(horizontal) 30.17°(vertical)
About .025 degrees/pixel horizontal. Distance? 100 km minimum, but it was looking ahead (or behind) not straight down. I get at least 46 meters/pixel. But, please check my math. I'm very tired. Very.

KaiYeves
2009-Jun-19, 07:10 PM
This page has the image I was thinking of....although I don't see any boulder, it does give the impression that Scott is "in the bottom" of the Rille...he is not, as the page explains.

Completely personal note- I opened that and just wanted to run out and onto the surface. The Hadley area would be one of the top places on the moon I would want to visit, it's just very beautiful.

Torsten
2009-Jun-19, 08:09 PM
Specs I found:
CCD(1920×1080: valid pixels)
Telecamera: 51.23°(horizontal) 30.17°(vertical)
About .025 degrees/pixel horizontal. Distance? 100 km minimum, but it was looking ahead (or behind) not straight down. I get at least 46 meters/pixel. But, please check my math. I'm very tired. Very.

I get the same result.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-19, 08:21 PM
I get the same result.

Ah ha! A conspiracy. :whistle:

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-19, 10:17 PM
The lunar mapping camera (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/fairchild-lunar-mapping-camera.htm) used in later missions is claimed to have a resolution of 80 lines/mm. If I understand this correctly, with a view angle of 74°, an image area of 114x114 mm, and a minimum lunar altitude of 56 km, the resolution of surface features would be, at best, 9.25 m. These cameras benefited from having forward motion compensation. A handheld camera is not capable of forward motion compensation. At a ground track of 1500 m/s or more, and an exposure time of, say, 1/250 second, the blur during exposure is at least 6 m. Nothing as small as 30 or 60 inches was resolved with these cameras.

I'd appreciate if any of the camera experts here could verify my calculation.

Recent digitalizations (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:5h1jUsLvJ5gJ:www.isprs.org/congresses/beijing2008/proceedings/4_pdf/259.pdf+fairchild+lunar+mapping+camera+resolution&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) of the Fairchild Lunar Mapping Camera images have been yielding useful surface resolutions of 8 m/pixel when scanned at 5 µm. The ITEK Panorama Camera images, when scanned at 5 µm, have been yielding surface resolutions from 1 m/pixel at the center of the image to 2 m/pixel at the edge.

Earlier digitalizations (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006epsc.conf..609R) of the these images yielded useful surface resolutions of 15 m/pixel for the Fairchild Lunar Mapping Camera and 2 to 4 m/pixel surface resolution for the ITEK Panorama Camera when scanned at 10 µm.

01101001
2009-Jun-20, 12:49 AM
I get at least 46 meters/pixel.

But I hear they just released (near) the last of the HDTV, as the orbit altitude approached 0, and, of course, the linear resolution would be quite a bit better due to the extremely short target distance (unless the minimum focus got in the way). At the same time, though, the Terrain Camera was also experiencing improved resolution.

I'd love to hear that the public relations HDTV actually surpassed the ability of the science instrument Terrain Camera, if it is backed up by facts. Till then, uh, I don't think so. Or did the "HD" in "HD images" refer to some HD other than HDTV?

Torsten
2009-Jun-20, 01:41 AM
Thanks for that Alan.

So, again for the mapping camera, 5 µm on the film with a 76 mm lens yields 3.8 m/pixel at 56 km altitude and 7.3 m/pixel at 111 km. One reason I asked for someone to check my math was that I am not certain I understand the resolution as specified on that page. When they state resolution at 80 lines/mm, I don't know whether this means 80 discrete black and white lines, or 80 black/white line pairs. I assumed the former.

I notice that for both camera systems, when the scanning resolution was doubled, the useful surface resolution also doubled, which suggests that there is still resolution to be gained with even better scanning (but maybe film distortion starts to become important). So maybe the specification is for line pairs.

I never checked the page for the panoramic camera when I was looking for the specs. That is an amazing result with the new scans.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-20, 04:02 AM
No problem, Torsten.

Since taking up photography in the late 1980s, I've thought of lens resolution in terms of "line pairs per mm" (lp/mm).

Some links:
"MTF and SQF: Introduction (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf1.html)," by Bob Atkins.
"Understanding image sharpness part 1: Introduction to resolution and MTF curves (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html)," by Norman Koren.
"Lens testing, Line pairs per millimeter and real life results (http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/000Nxo)," a photo.net forum discussion. (I think Mark Michaelson is making a funny with his final comment.)

Back in April 2009, Steven Novella took issue with anomaly hunters such as Richard C. Hoagland in "Anomaly Hunting (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=525)."

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-20, 10:23 PM
The Crater I was talking about was imaged with a Hand Held Hasselblad, during a low level pass by one of the Command Modules...

Perhaps you are referring to Apollo 10's 70mm Hasselblad photographs (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?10) taken from the LM during its eight hour flight (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_10a_Summary.htm) that brought it to within 14.4 km of the lunar surface?

The Command/Service Module was in orbit at a little more than 100 km above the lunar surface during the LM's flight.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-21, 10:37 PM
Another possibility is that Gordon's crater was imaged by one of the Lunar Obiter (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunarorb.html) spacecraft. Lunar Orbiters 2 and 3 were able to return scans (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/loinfo.txt) of high resolution 70mm images down to 1 m. Lunar Orbiter 5's best efforts was able to resolve lunar features down to 2 m.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-22, 03:39 PM
Gordon may be pleased to know that there is a small group of "technoarcheologists (http://olddirt.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/a-nasa-archivist-a-junkyard-warrior-and-a-technoarchaeologist-save-lunar-history/)" who have been working (like pirates) with the original Lunar Orbiter analog data tapes. Their ongoing effort is called the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP) (http://www.moonviews.com/). NASA maintains their own LOIPR information page (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/LOIRP/).

As a follow-up, some of the images returned by the at least two of the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft may have yielded resolutions of less than 1 m/pixel, according to what I read at LOIRP's official Web site.

Torsten
2009-Jun-23, 06:14 AM
Those images of the Apollo 12 and 14 sites from Lunar Orbiter III are amazing.

So for the mapping camera, my interpretation of the resolution was incorrect. When it is stated as lines/mm, it refers to only the black or the white bands, effectively the same as when stated as line pairs/mm. So the resolution on film was twice as fine as the number I used.

Thanks for the follow-up posts Alan.

Van Rijn
2009-Jun-23, 08:28 AM
Gordon may be pleased to know that there is a small group of "technoarcheologists (http://olddirt.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/a-nasa-archivist-a-junkyard-warrior-and-a-technoarchaeologist-save-lunar-history/)" who have been working (like pirates) with the original Lunar Orbiter analog data tapes. Their ongoing effort is called the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP) (http://www.moonviews.com/). NASA maintains their own LOIPR information page (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/LOIRP/).


Wow. I liked the take on the restoration story here:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-111408a.html

Amazing stuff. Has this been mentioned in the Space Exploration section yet? I noticed there is a UT article on it.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-23, 12:36 PM
Amazing stuff. Has this been mentioned in the Space Exploration section yet? I noticed there is a UT article on it.

I don't think there has been any postings concerning LOIRP in the Space Exploration section. Fraser posted links to UT articles in the Universe Today Story Comments section in March (http://www.bautforum.com/universe-today-story-comments/86363-image-century-now-refurbished.html) and June (http://www.bautforum.com/universe-today-story-comments/89570-more-photos-lunar-time-machine.html) of this year. It looks like slang first mentioned LOIRP in February (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/85334-example-pareidolia.html) in the Conspiracy Theories section.

Ironically, if I recall correctly, I first read about LOIRP's efforts at their "McMoon's" facility in an Oregonian newspaper story while dinning at a McDonald's late last year.

One of the Lunar Orbiter (http://cmapsnasacmex.ihmc.us/rid=1238619730371_1656905576_24556/99%20Lunar%20Orbiter.cmap) camera modules designed and built by ITT Space Systems Division (http://www.ssd.itt.com/heritage/orbiter.shtml) and Eastman Kodak for NASA is on display at the George Eastman House International Museum of Photography and Film (http://www.eastmanhouse.org/). A podcast about the Lunar Orbiter camera can be viewed on their podcast page (http://podcast.eastmanhouse.org/) or on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HRF8rQD1Vw).

Piano Paul
2009-Jun-23, 02:20 PM
Torch2K!
You mean there AREN'T pixies, fairies and elves in the world?? My universe just came crashing down! Whatever will I believe in now??
All sarcasm aside, I have heard the proposal before that aliens are modern society's version of mythological beings, and it makes sense to me. I've been watching the skies for fifty years and I've never seen a single light up there that couldn't be identified as natural or manmade. And I WANT to see a UFO! I just can't bring myself to make something up if it isn't true! Oh, well, the universe is a big place. Maybe someday ET will come yank me out of bed and perform perverted experiments on me....

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-24, 02:03 AM
All those things are gone away, now, along with the Computers and Books they were in, in an age long ago, and, far away....

This is a bit of speculation on my part.

Last Sunday, I tried in vain to locate George H. Leonard's 1976 book, "Somebody Else Is on the Moon" (republished in 1978 as "Somebody Else Is on Our Moon") at the humongous Powell's City of Books (http://www.powells.com/info/briefhistory.html) in Portland, Oregon, although used copies of the book are available, of course, at Amazon.com. I was curious to learn if the crater described by Gordon was featured in Leonard's book and if the book could possibly be source material for some of his speculations.

Leonard's book evidently inspired a tall tale (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/49ufo_files/02documents/Nasa_Moon_Photos_1.html) from Vito Saccheri. His story appeared in the June/July 1995 edition of Houston Sky, a MUFON publication. Lunar pipelines and pipe fittings are mentioned. Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums member JimOberg wrote in 2007 that Saccheri's story was fantasy (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t109330.html).

jrkeller
2009-Jun-26, 03:57 AM
First, I never said I was a "close personal friend" of Gus Grissom, I met him (I liked him), and, most of the other Astronauts at several after race parties at Richard E Browns house, my sponsor. Richard lived between Roger Chaffee and Scott Carpenter in the neighborhood across the highway from the old Main Gate at NASA.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Roger Chaffee lived in the city of Nassau Bay. His next door neighbor was Gene Cernan. Scott Carpenter lived in Timber Cove which is a subdivision within the city of Taylor Lake Village. His next door neighbor was John Glenn.

BTW Nassau Bay is about five miles from Timber Cove and one must cross several bodies of water. The only thing you got right was that Roger Chaffee lived in the neighborhood across the highway from the old Main Gate at NASA. Though I wouldn't call NASA Rd1 a highway, since its has stop lights and pedestrian cross walks.

I love HBs. They never think that someone will actually look up the information they give us. I my case, I live in Clear Lake City (the local term for where the Manned Space Center is located) and in Nassau Bay specifically, so I knew he was blowing a lot smoke.

jrkeller
2009-Jun-26, 04:07 AM
And, the person that taught me the most about image analysis is the man that NASA hired to reprocess all the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo images, to include the Lunar Landing images (you might want to look that up, he's one of the founding members of the "Anomaly Hunters").


What's his name? I tried looking him up, but I found nothing but garbage sites.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-26, 04:55 AM
I'm referencing Space Craft that had flown before I got away from Anomaly Hunting: Ranger, Clementine, and, the Apollo Missions, there were few released that were taken by Space Craft from other nations at that time. But, yes, I looked at every one I could find that was released by whatever mission. I grew up hunting in fields that are now occupied by NASA Clear Lake, and, I've been doing this since before most of you got out of Grade School, or, were born. But, I walked away from it in the late '90's, and, never looked back.

Oh, yeah, I've looked at all the "Released" Ranger, Clementine, Voyager, Gallileo, Mariner, and, other Missions to the Inner and Outer Planets (including Venus, and, the early Soviet/Russian missions), and, almost every image taken of every Moon in the Solar System, before I walked away, with new interests and other objectives.

Gordon, to refresh your memory, you started a website in the late 1990s, now defunct, that was listed with the Anomaly Hunters WebRing.

The content of the meta tag description attribute for your website's home page:


The Living Planet Mars is the focus of this website. There are images here you won't find on CNN, nor, upfront in Malin Space Science Systems 'Labeled Releases.' Come take a look at the Real Mars.

The home page visitor hit counter began recording hits on Aug. 15, 1999. The last two major updates for a number of pages were on Feb. 10, 2005 and Nov. 21, 2004.

You were also an active member of the Anomalous Mars Discussion Forum, maintained and moderated by Chronos, as late as 2003.

Torch2k
2009-Jun-26, 05:58 AM
Paul, that is just waaaaayyyyy too much information, my friend!

steinhenge
2009-Jun-26, 09:26 AM
Though I wouldn't call NASA Rd1 a highway, since its has stop lights and pedestrian cross walks.

Technically, I'm pretty sure that NASA Road 1 is a Texas State Highway.

jrkeller
2009-Jun-26, 09:43 AM
Technically, I'm pretty sure that NASA Road 1 is a Texas State Highway.

You are correct. It is a Texas State Highway. Originally, it was a Farm-to-Market road before NASA showed up.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-26, 10:29 AM
I love HBs....

Regarding Gordon, I have seen no evidence that he is a HB.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jun-28, 12:31 AM
Possible contenders for Gordon's lunar crater with pipes:

Hasselblad (http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html) camera:

Crater Maskelyne, Sea of Tranquility:
AS10-29-4296 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/AS10-29-4296HR.jpg) (Taken from LM.)
AS11-37-5437 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5437.jpg) (Taken from LM while docked with CSM.)

Lens: 80mm

Crater King, far side:
AS10-30-4349 through AS10-30-4364 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?30)

Lens: 250mm

Fairchild Lunar Mapping Camera (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/fairchild-lunar-mapping-camera.htm):

Crater King, far side:
AS16-M-1578 through AS16-M-1582
AS16-M-1868 through AS16-M-1873

Lens: 76mm
Format: 114 x 114mm
Altitude: 113 to 114 km

ITEK Panoramic Camera (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.htm):

Crater King, far side:
Forward:
AS16-P-4255
AS16-P-4257
AS16-P-4259
AS16-P-4261
Aft:
AS16-P-4260
AS16-P-4262
AS16-P-4264
AS16-P-4266

Lens: 610mm
Format: 1149 x 114.3mm
Altitude: 124 km