Page 14 of 48

Posted: 08-15-2005 10:51 PM
by johnlear
Bean was not standing in Picard or even near Picard but for those of you interested in this thread please check out the following:

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/lan/picard.htm

Posted: 08-16-2005 12:31 AM
by Laird
Nutz I didn't finish reading pages 12 and 13 but I have the giest
of this thread.

Hey John, would it be faster if I sent you my orginial black and white slides from Apollo 11? I have some rather interesting ones
dated August 69 ... that all have d3 on the right after the sequential number

there awsome slides with stuff that I've never seen published by NASA>

Posted: 08-16-2005 12:47 AM
by tiffany
Quite interesting John. I'm following.

Posted: 08-16-2005 12:52 AM
by Oswald
I'm still surfing though all the material that has been presented, but I am following along at home.

Posted: 08-16-2005 08:13 AM
by snowbird
johnlear wrote: Attachment: alanbeand.jpg


The sun is reflected through that grid again, til it fades into the darkness. The grid is interesting and does not give me the feeling of glass at all, but a screen of some sort. Not unlike, perhaps, a safety glass with the screen sandwiched in the centre of the glass, only the grid of steel, or whatever is thicker and closer together. That grid is a mystery to me. It doesn't compute - why is it there?

snowbird.

Posted: 08-16-2005 09:34 AM
by Dale O Sea
Snowbird, I believe that the grid is just some crosshatch shading done by the artist in his "That's How it Felt to Walk on the Moon" painting to give the impression of the sun reflecting from his convex, dark-mirrored visor.. I do notice a little irregularity in his shading pattern though.
Here is a blow-up of that feature:

Image

But I think what John is wanting us to see, as mudwoman eluded to earlier, is the color of the sun in all those paintings is represented as being yellowish. There would be no yellow sun in a vacuum. The yellow sun we see every day, the one reflecting off of John's visor, is due to its light being refracted (separated/filtered) as it passes thru the atmosphere. Then having a scattering effect happen to it called Rayleigh Scattering which causes the sunlight to appear yellow as its blue component gets filtered out of its white whole spectrum color.

If you have Powerpoint on your PC here is a very good presentation of how the atmosphere effects sunlight. It's where I borrowed the illustration below. The Powerpoint link above is for a 2MB download of a free PP viewer from Microsoft. It worked great for me.

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/html/event ... he_sky.ppt

Posted: 08-16-2005 09:55 AM
by johnlear
Dale OSea wrote: Snowbird, I believe that the grid is just some crosshatch shading done by the artist to give the impression of the sun reflecting from his convex, dark-mirrored visor.. I do notice a little irregularity in his shading pattern though. I'll attach a blow-up of that feature.

But I think what John is wanting us to see, as mudwoman eluded to earlier, is the color of the sun in all those paintings is represented as being yellowish. There would be no yellow sun in a vacuum. The yellow sun we see every day, the one reflecting off of John's visor, is due to its light being refracted (separated/filtered) as it passes thru the atmosphere. Then having a scattering effect happen to it called Rayleigh Scattering which causes the sunlight to appear yellow as its blue component gets filtered out of its white whole spectrum color.

If you have powerpoint on your PC here is a very good presentation of how the atmosphere affects sunlight:

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/html/event ... he_sky.ppt



Thanks Dale for this explanation. The power point presentation is excellent.

Posted: 08-16-2005 10:16 AM
by snowbird
Thanks Dale, that was a fabulous explanation.

snowbird

Posted: 08-16-2005 10:19 AM
by johnlear
Dale OSea wrote: Snowbird, I believe that the grid is just some crosshatch shading done by the artist in his "That's How it Felt to Walk on the Moon" painting to give the impression of the sun reflecting from his convex, dark-mirrored visor.. I do notice a little irregularity in his shading pattern though.
Here is a blow-up of that feature:

Image

That could be one explanation. But also note that the sun has just risen. If there was anything of a latticed nature above Bean then the sun would briefly reflect the underside. The cross hatching does not appear in any other of the 79 or so paintings in "Apollo: An Eyewitness Account".

Posted: 08-16-2005 12:56 PM
by Dale O Sea
johnlear wrote: That could be one explanation. But also note that the sun has just risen. If there was anything of a latticed nature above Bean then the sun would briefly reflect the underside. The cross hatching does not appear in any other of the 79 or so paintings in "Apollo: An Eyewitness Account".


"...anything of a latticed nature.." Like girders?
______________

I put up an accompanying album for the images used in this thread. It can be found in the PiratePix Gallery here:
http://www.fantasticforum.com/d29d/gallery/album194

Posted: 08-16-2005 01:04 PM
by johnlear
For those of you following this thread and concerning the lattice-like or cross-hatching in the faceplate of Bean's self portrait I would like to bring your attention to some photos obtained through the courtesy of Enterprisemission.com. The following material is from enterprisemission.com and can be found at:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/mphotos.html

Apollo 12 Lunar Module in front of lunar ruins.

Three versions of 16mm frames, “grabbed” from official NASA 1969 post-mission Apollo 12 film:”Pinpoint for Science” courtesy of EnterpriseMission.com.

For some reason I can't get Frames 1,2 and 3 to come up in this post. They can be seen in the gallery.

Frame #1 (B&W—left) is from original 16mm film, created on an animation stand in a NASA studio on Earth; a color paper print—made from an original 70mm color transparency photographed by an Apollo 12 astronaut on the lunar surface—was rephotographed on 16mm color film. Frame #2 and #3 (below) are computer-enhancements of two more frames, as recorded on the 27-year-old NASA distributed film.

Note “inclined, multi-leveled buttresses” behind the LM “Intrepid”. These and other Apollo 12 lunar surface photographs, now leave little doubt as to Apollo 12’s real objectives at this Oceanus Procellarum landing site—to investigate a set of ancient ruins on the moon.

For enlargements of these photos please go to enterprisemission.com or see Dale's photo album in the gallery.

Posted: 08-16-2005 01:22 PM
by johnlear
johnlear wrote: For those of you following this thread and concerning the lattice-like or cross-hatching in the faceplate of Bean's self portrait I would like to bring your attention to some photos obtained through the courtesy of Enterprisemission.com. The following material is from enterprisemission.com and can be found at:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/mphotos.html

Apollo 12 Lunar Module in front of lunar ruins.

Three versions of 16mm frames, “grabbed” from official NASA 1969 post-mission Apollo 12 film:”Pinpoint for Science” courtesy of EnterpriseMission.com.

For some reason I can't get Frames 1,2 and 3 to come up in this post. They can be seen in the gallery.

Frame #1 (B&W—left) is from original 16mm film, created on an animation stand in a NASA studio on Earth; a color paper print—made from an original 70mm color transparency photographed by an Apollo 12 astronaut on the lunar surface—was rephotographed on 16mm color film. Frame #2 and #3 (below) are computer-enhancements of two more frames, as recorded on the 27-year-old NASA distributed film.

Note “inclined, multi-leveled buttresses” behind the LM “Intrepid”. These and other Apollo 12 lunar surface photographs, now leave little doubt as to Apollo 12’s real objectives at this Oceanus Procellarum landing site—to investigate a set of ancient ruins on the moon.

For enlargements of these photos please go to enterprisemission.com or see Dale's photo album in the gallery.


For some reason I can't get frames 1, 2 and 3 to come up in this post. They can be seen in the gallery.

Posted: 08-16-2005 01:42 PM
by Dale O Sea
John asked me to post these frames from one of Hoagland's images:

Image

Image

Image

Don't blame me for the quality. It looks like they've been xeroxed or scanned a few dozen times to me, heh. I could make them bigger but it wouldn't help much..

Posted: 08-16-2005 02:00 PM
by johnlear
More from enterprisemission.com is the following:

Remarkable Similarity of Ruins at Apollo 12 and 14 Landing Sites

Image
Apollo 12 Lunar Module (above) imaged on a single black and white frame “grabbed” from widely distributed NASA film “Pinpoint For Science” 1969. On this computer-enhanced image the LM was photographed by astronauts against a striking, layered, highly geometric inclined “buttress” made of glass!
Image
On the color computer-enhancement (above) of a hand held 70mm Hasselblad image from Apollo 14 this same type of “highly geometric inclined grid” is also visible complete with layering. The differences in sizes of similar geometric features in the two images (see enlargement below), is an indication of the distance to each buttress from each respective LM-at the two respective landing sites located only 122 miles apart.
Image

Edit - John, I just edited the pix into your post. -Dale

Posted: 08-16-2005 02:07 PM
by snowbird
Is there any possibility at all that the "ruins" we're looking at could be some crashed Russian equipment? I don't remember if the Russians ever succeeded in sending anything to the moon.

I remember seeing a documentary which featured the Clementine movies of the surface of the "dark" side of the moon. As the camera skimmed the surface, you could see quite a few tall spires, casting long shadows. The commentator made *not one* comment about these. In fact, I don't remember ever hearing any official comment about these spires. They must truly think we're stupid.

As deafening as the silence is from TPTB, it's quite obvious the everything is not as it seems. It seems that the easiest thing for them to do is to cross their fingers, say nothing and hope that things die down.... maybe we'll go away.

s.