by OpLan » Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:56 pm
Yes I'm afraid I generalised calling the machine that plays the video tape a projector.Its at Goddard and its due to close very soon.Thats the important point,don't you think?<br><br>The thrust of that article is that the south massif is a collapsed hexagonal structure,and Nansen looked like a way in.<br>They were interested enough to pack a car, and risk a 5km journey over rough terrain to get to it.<br>They ooh and ahh and call it a spectacular site,but all we see is a ditch.Keith postulates that they took photos aimed at the actual trench,but we don't get to see them.They compose a vaguely trench looking panorama, by shooting over the cliff face..seriously..does that picture match the dark slit on the overhead photos?<br>Then they bomb the shit out of it,drop a big hunk of metal on it from orbit and classify the results.<br><br>Hoaglands research is more than blowing jpegs up to the size of a barn.You are just taking cheap shots at the man and his work.He's taught me more that you ever will.Do you have an alternate explaination for that castle object hanging over Sinus medeii?Or the anomalies on the ground there or dozens of other craters.. plato, copernicus, hortensus, tycho..<br><br>..but like I said,Piss on him all you want to.Why should I even care?Its not my money the pentagon are spending to keep you in the dark.I suppose its because they're pushing Pentagon/masonic propaganda and calling it scientific research.<br><br>This is from an article on <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/patent.htm" target="top">color enhancement of the apollo photographs</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>"Even at our most paranoid, we never really thought that the color images themselves would be doctored to remove this crucial evidence," Hoagland recently admitted. "There wasn't any considered reason for doing this, since we all 'knew' -- from the eyewitness 'testimony' of the astronauts, if not the proof of the photographs themselves -- that the Moon is 'stark, dead gray.' Right?"<br><br>The 16mm DAC cameras, and the Hasselblad EL's and DC's of Apollo, carried 70mm SO368 Ektachrome and Ektachrome SO368EF color reversal film to the surface and into lunar orbit. Translation: like Earthbound tourists, the astronauts took Ektachrome movies and 70mm color slides of their visits to the Moon. Of course, civilian computer enhancement technology was nonexistent in those days, when the press would receive later generation color prints (created in the NASA-Houston photographic lab itself) from these original "Apollo slides." Thus, there was no easy way for them (or anyone else -- but a select few within the Agency itself) to critically examine or "enhance" the true color balance of those 2nd generation NASA prints.<br><br>It was during the preparation of this piece, that Hoagland recalled some unique NASA "1st generation" images in his possession -- part of Ken Johnston's original 30-year-old untouched Apollo archive he had loaned to "Enterprise" many years before. Rather than repeat the endless contrast stretches and gamma corrections he'd done previously, this time he did a basic color enhancement of one of his original Apollo 14 frames, and voila --<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3213/patent9fw5.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>He then examined data retrieved direct from Eastman Kodak (below), re the filter (actually, "sensitivity") curves built into the 3-color layers of NASA's Ecktachrome lunar film. Thirty years ago, he realized, in the original NASA-Houston lab, to remove the surface color from the "2nd generation lunar prints" the NASA lab technicians would have had to, in effect, "reverse each color filter to produce a 'neutral gray.'" They would have had to painstakingly prepare several generations of these reverse-filtered "interpositives" and "internegatives," in order to ultimately eliminate the color from the lunar landscape … while leaving it unaltered in the images of the Apollo astronauts themselves, the array of equipment they brought with them, and of course the gold mylar-covered Lunar Module.<br><br>But, in looking at the Kodak filter curves, it was obvious that this "primitive" 1960's technology -- perhaps, best publicly illustrated by the painstakingly-prepared, multi-generations of film layers used to create the dazzling visual effects in the 1960's classic "2001" -- would, necessarily, have been less than 100% perfect. Because … the process would have been limited to using only analog darkroom photographic techniques (look, Ma, no computers!)<br><br>Today, through widely democratized digital technology, we are easily able to scan, amplify and display what we were not even able to see in 1970. We are now able to "reach down" into the original print layers and extract the original colors still lurking in these altered NASA films … to amplify them back to their original values -- which, incredibly, are strikingly similar to the colors Bean now uses in his current lunar scenes! And, when we look at the magenta color in Bean's Apollo 17 Cernan painting (below -- right), and compare the same color values seen in the distance behind Mitchell on Apollo 14 (below -- left), we see the full potential of this digital revolution<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/7016/patent11hv6.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br>----------------------------------------------------------<br>Orson Welles drove America into a blind panic with his 'War of the Worlds' broadcast.I doubt Nixon needed more revolt in 1969.Kubrick worked the Brookings Institute report into 2001.They cover up the discovery of the monolith.What do you find unacceptable about the martian comic story?The Grey Alien is a widely recognised icon now.Get the kids early.Ease them into accepting the alien presence-wether real or fabricated.Buy them a cuddly E.T. toy to sleep with.<br>Hoagland does have some crazy ideas.Without crazy ideas, America would still be british territory,Jeebus wouldn't have been nailed to a tree,we would all be behind this phoney war baying for arabic blood.He poses questions that NASA regularly have a hard time answering.He forces Nasa to clarify things they would rather have shrouded in ambiguity,just like thier masters at the pentagon.<br><br>Apologies for any spelling mistakes..hopefully it doesn't render my rantings unreadable.I don't think it hinders my ability to read.Or my ability to form an opinion.<br> <p></p><i></i>
