111 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

Pericynthion, on 30 December 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

Yeah, I've been shaking my head over that one for the past few days.  What an amazing story LunaCognita managed to concoct from what was clearly a dumb mistake by an author who wasn't too familiar with the missions.  The whole report was basically just a simple literature survey using the mission reports and crew debriefings.  I saw your earlier posts on ATS about this.  I assume you never got a response when you tried to email the author?


I've been planning on writing a longer post on this one, but first I'd like to ask TheMacGuffin a couple simple questions:

LunaCognita says that the SEVA was done to give the crew a slightly higher look at the local landscape so they could better figure out where they really were.  As Jim mentioned above, what possible reason could anyone have for wanting to keep that secret???

LunaCognita also claims that the photos supposedly taken during this secret SEVA are still classified TOP SECRET.  Why would they be classified at all (assuming they even exist)?  They'd be essentially identical to the hundreds of published photos taken during the two actual EVAs.

No, what he really says is that many of the pictures taken on these Apollo missions--and many other missions--were never publicly acknowledged or revealed at all.  I think that is still going on today, including with the Mars missions.

That was the real point I was trying to make.  

That's why people should watch the actual videos rather than simply relaying on summaries and "explanations" from people like you and Oberg.  Luna Cognita had proof of this from the Apollo 12 mission, for example, that many pictures were simply "missing".

As I said, people should just watch the videos for themselves rather than taking your word for these things.

[DingoLingo]

TheMacGuffin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

In nay case, I think Luna Cognita's real point was that the fiber optic camera was classified for many years, and at the time NASA just claimed it was built from off-the-shelf components.  This was not true.  

Now correct me if I am wrong.. this was at the height of the cold war?

Dont you think that just might explain the reason why?

[TheMacGuffin]

DingoLingo, on 30 December 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Now correct me if I am wrong.. this was at the height of the cold war?

Dont you think that just might explain the reason why?

There's nothing that anyone on here can tell me about the Cold War since I was in it for many years.

I think the point Luna Cognita was making is that high quality images from the lunar surface--and of UFOs--was not made available to the public at that time or indeed at any time.

He's got proof of this, too, which anyone can watch on these Luna Cognita videos.

[DingoLingo]

TheMacGuffin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

There's nothing that anyone on here can tell me about the Cold War since I was in it for many years.

I think the point Luna Cognita was making is that high quality images from the lunar surface--and of UFOs--was not made available to the public at that time or indeed at any time.

He's got proof of this, too, which anyone can watch on these Luna Cognita videos.

ok.. its a fair call.. if there are high quality pics you would think they would be released today.. but I can understand why they were not at the time.. cold war and all that ..

my uncle had a bit to do during the cold war.. he worked at Woomera was working there during the moon landings..

[Pericynthion]

TheMacGuffin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

I was not aware of this information before I saw his video, and certainly it's not something that you have ever "shared" on here.  No one would even have known about it at all had I not posted it.  

So if you don't know about something, haven't bothered to research it, and haven't been spoon fed the data by someone else, then there must be a secret government conspiracy in place to withold that information from the world.  That about right?  That's what seem to be saying here about the camera.

TheMacGuffin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

In any case, I think Luna Cognita's real point was that the fiber optic camera was classified for many years, and at the time NASA just claimed it was built from off-the-shelf components.  This was not true.  

To put it bluntly, LunaCognita is trying to dupe you.  Don't blindly accept everything he tells you.  He just made up the bit about NASA claiming the camera was "off the shelf."  The camera was specially designed to be small, rugged, low-power, and able to work in low light levels.  Here's a newspaper article from Eugene, Oregon, dated 22 July 1969.  Does this sound like an "off the shelf" standard camera?




And nobody lied about the camera design, either.  The specific technical details of one internal component were classified at a very low level because that part design was being used in military night vision equipment.  And so those specific details just weren't mentioned in public.  The overall camera design, though, was described in great detail.  Here's another newspaper article, this one from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, dated 18 September 1969:

http://news.google.c...5,4605488&hl=en


Take a look at both articles on this page and on page 24.  They go into a huge amount of detail on the workings of the SEC tube camera design, more than you'd EVER see in a newspaper today.  They just don't mention the one particular design detail that was classified at the time.  On page 24, though, the author may actually imply that parts of the Apollo camera design were classified when he writes:

The Apollo moon camera and various types of military cameras and TV systems for defense of the nation are designed and built by the Westinghouse Defense and Space Center, Baltimore, Md.  Details of the construction and performance of this military equipment is classified.

The Company's Specialty Electronics Division, Pittsburgh, Pa., has adapted the ultrasensitive performance of the SEC family of image tubes to a variety of cameras and closed-circuit television systems for non-military uses.

At the very least, the article makes it clear that the Apollo camera was manufactured by the defense division of the company that was also making classified military equipment, not by the commercial division that made non-military products.

And, no, this camera wasn't classified for "many years."  One part of the camera was classified Confidential for maybe 5-6 years during its development.  By 1971, even that part had been declassified and the entire camera design was discussed openly in NASA reports.

TheMacGuffin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

Another point he makes repeatedly is that the image quality shown to the public was often deliberately degraded by NASA, which Jeff Challender also noted in all the space shuttle missions that involved UFO sightings.

This is a topic for an entirely different post.  Suffice it to say that you're not getting a straight story from either LunaCognita or Jeff Challender.  Vivid imaginations and conspiracy theories are no substitute for a good understanding of the technical details of Apollo photography and/or shuttle video.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

No, what he really says is that many of the pictures taken on these Apollo missions--and many other missions--were never publicly acknowledged or revealed at all.  I think that is still going on today, including with the Mars missions.

That was the real point I was trying to make.  

When I first got to Houston in 1975, I visited the Lunar and Planetary Science Institute in the old 'Silver Dollar' West mansion on NASA Rd 1, just east of the main Johnson Space Center campus.

There I found every single Apollo photograph in 8x10 print form in row after row of binders. It filled a small room. where image curator Fran Waranius worked to make any image available to any researcher.

Did anybody blathering about 'secret archives' visit that facility, or even know about its existence?

No.

They just spouted imaginary nonsense about which they knew nothing, and so were very popular with the rest of the know-nothing crowd.

The institute has new offices on Bay Area Blvd, and the archives have grown with subsequent missions, but the images are still there, all of them, all available to visiting investigators and researchers and -- yes! -- reporters. Even UFO newsletter and website producers.

Accusing others of lying is one of the vilest sins of the true liars. And an insult to the generations of archivists who have collected, catalogued, and freely distributed such imagery. Like Fran, and her successors.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

Another point he [Luna Cognita] makes repeatedly is that the image quality shown to the public was often deliberately degraded by NASA, which Jeff Challender also noted in all the space shuttle missions that involved UFO sightings.  

So now Jeff Challender is another 'space expert' you rely on? Jeff's enthusiasm for spotting UFOs was the force that kept him going against terrible hardships, but his knowledge of spaceflight -- and his illusions about what he thought MUST be true -- were many. It's no wonder your own conclusions are so daffy if you choose your sources so imprudently. You can do better. Read more widely and see how so much of what you think you know about spaceflight is myth and misperception. Then you can earn the right to offer opinions worth paying attention to.

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 30 December 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

So now Jeff Challender is another 'space expert' you rely on? Jeff's enthusiasm for spotting UFOs was the force that kept him going against terrible hardships, but his knowledge of spaceflight -- and his illusions about what he thought MUST be true -- were many. It's no wonder your own conclusions are so daffy if you choose your sources so imprudently.

I take it as a given that you will say the same things about everyone who disagrees with you on UFOs, and have never doubted for a minute that was your job.

It just doesn't wash with me, though.

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 30 December 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

When I first got to Houston in 1975, I visited the Lunar and Planetary Science Institute in the old 'Silver Dollar' West mansion on NASA Rd 1, just east of the main Johnson Space Center campus.

There I found every single Apollo photograph in 8x10 print form in row after row of binders. It filled a small room. where image curator Fran Waranius worked to make any image available to any researcher.

Did anybody blathering about 'secret archives' visit that facility, or even know about its existence?

Just let people watch the videos rather than listening to your spin and deception on this subject, since Luna Cognita found quite definite proof that numerous NASA pictures were not even listed at all and certainly were not released to the public--which was hardly even aware of their existence.

[DingoLingo]

TheMacGuffin, on 31 December 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

Just let people watch the videos rather than listening to your spin and deception on this subject, since Luna Cognita found quite definite proof that numerous NASA pictures were not even listed at all and certainly were not released to the public--which was hardly even aware of their existence.

Hmmm and Luna Cognita was correct about the camera ?

it seems that Pericynthion has kind of shot that down in flames.. and in one simple post..

[TheMacGuffin]

Pericynthion, on 30 December 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

So if you don't know about something, haven't bothered to research it, and haven't been spoon fed the data by someone else, then there must be a secret government conspiracy in place to withold that information from the world.  That about right?  That's what seem to be saying here about the camera.

To put it bluntly, LunaCognita is trying to dupe you.  Don't blindly accept everything he tells you.  He just made up the bit about NASA claiming the camera was "off the shelf."  The camera was specially designed to be small, rugged, low-power, and able to work in low light levels.  Here's a newspaper article from Eugene, Oregon, dated 22 July 1969.  Does this sound like an "off the shelf" standard camera?

I think people should just watch the video and judge for themselves what Luna Cognita was saying, since he does indeed mention that the camera was manufactured by Westinghouse and that Lockheed was also involved in its installation.  

Of course I hadn't heard about it before, but I found it interesting that NASA prepared a faked-up schematic for this particular piece of equipment.

Certainly you and Oberg would never have been forced to admit things like this if I hadn't posted the video, and I tend to agree with Luna Cognita that when it comes to these NASA pictures "you have no idea what you're missing".  

How long were you employed by NASA?

[TheMacGuffin]

DingoLingo, on 31 December 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Hmmm and Luna Cognita was correct about the camera ?

it seems that Pericynthion has kind of shot that down in flames.. and in one simple post..

He didn't shoot down anything, but merely repeated the same information that Luna Cognita had in his own video.  You wouldn't have heard a word about it if I hadn't posted that particular video, or the one that showed them using stop-action methods to get rid of some annoying UFO pictures, or the one that showed whole rolls of film from the Apollo missions are "missing".  

Peri only shows up here when the skeptics start getting shaky and jumpy about the things I post, so he has to take charge and pull their chestnuts out of the fire.  Most people don't believe Oberg any more because he's been caught offering phony "explanations" for UFOs a few too many times.


Peri is also very reluctant to answer questions about how long he was employed by NASA.

[TheMacGuffin]

By the way, Peri is very careful and selective about the things he responded to in the videos, and tended to ignore or dance around the questions he'd really rather not discuss.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 31 December 2012 - 12:50 AM.

[DingoLingo]

TheMacGuffin, on 31 December 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

By the way, Peri is very careful and selective about the things he responded to in the videos, and tended to ignore or dance around the questions he's really rather not discuss.

Yeah.. a few people on here do that as well

you could call it.. selective arguments I suppose

[TheMacGuffin]

Even in the officially released NASA pictures, they are plenty of UFOs and other anomalies, although they tended to get cropped, airbrushed or otherwise concealed.