Expat wrote:
“Is Plait correct in writing that the "glass" feature superimposed on the photograph of Al Bean is actually a reflection of the Hasselblad iris? It does seem a more probable explanation than the one you offer. Was Bean equipped with some type of glass-cutting tool so he could escape from this structure?”
Uh, no.
This is yet another example of the stupidity and dishonesty of not only Plait, but the abject morons who regularly inhabit his site (I’ll let the readers decide how this applies to expat). Given this, I’ll take it slowly so even the likes of Plait and expat can follow along…
Nowhere in any publication do we argue that the hexagonal “glow” around Bean is part of the glass structures we discuss in the image presented. The caption in the image linked in his article does not even mention this pentagonal shape, and certainly doesn’t, as Plait claims, imply in any way that the shape is anything but a standard Hasselblad lens flare. In fact, the caption specifically states that Bean (and the lens flare around him) is “standing in front of a massive tier of ‘glass-like ruins’ – towering above and behind the lunar module ‘Intrepid.’” So obviously his claim that we are arguing that it is part of the far distant glass like ruins is a complete distortion.
In reality, we are well aware of what Hasselblad lens flares look like. Here is another example from Apollo 11. Here is yet another example from Apollo12. We have known about these lens flares since we first started looking at Apollo photography in the early 1990’s.
It is hard to imagine how a thorough or fair minded individual could innocently distort this into claiming, as Plait does, that our caption is referring to the lens flare as “glass-like ruins.” Clearly, obviously, we are not. This is simply another in a long line of false assertions by Dr. Phil. In fact, the only thing he gets right is the fact that the pentagonal shape is a lens flare. Somebody must have told him so, since judging by this page, he not very good at getting even the simplest things right.
For instance, he goes on to claim that “Hoagland and Bara actually held a press conference for the book.” Gee, that’s funny. When the press conference in Washington DC was held on October 30th, I was in sunny Las Vegas, throwing down at the craps tables and ogling the go-go dancers at the Luxor. Kind of amazing that such a thorough researcher like Plait would miss something as basic as that, right? Wrong.
On the same page in which he makes his false assertions about the Apollo image on darkmission.net, Plait then compounds his own mendacities by linking to an earlier “debunking” of our work on the THEMIS Cydonia IR images (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html). He claims that the ruins shown on the images are “jpeg compression artifacts,” which somehow created the ruins. What he fails to inform his readers of is that the jpeg images he links to are merely browse versions, and uncompressed jpeg browse versions at that, made from earlier full size, uncompressed Tiff images. Oh, and the original source data those Tiff’s were made from? Also uncompressed Tiff’s. And guess what? Those same ruins appear on the uncompressed Tiff’s in all their glory. Kind of hard to get “compression artifacts” from lossless uncompressed Tiff’s, isn’t it Phil?
I also find it interesting that despite the presence of the full size Tiffs on the Enterprise Mission web site, Plait chose to link only to the browse jpeg versions and never tell his readers that the Tiffs even existed. Must have been an honest oversight on his part….
Riiiight….
By no means have I perused all of Plait’s web pages concerning our work. Frankly, doing so makes me nauseous, since every page I have read has been full of distortions, fallacious reasoning and outright lies. Suffice it to say that I have worked with Richard C. Hoagland for more than ten years now, and I have found that his critics consistently fall into one of two categories: liars and idiots. Plait is one of the rare few who has the distinction of being both.
I shall pillory “Dr. Phil” no further.
Posts
45 comments:
Like the sniper lying under brush cover "expat" loves to take pot shots. Not only is his gun empty but his aim is bad but his position has just been 'flared'.
Very Nice Post MB.
DR
OK, I get it now, thanks for the explanation.
So it comes down to those photoshoppy artifacts that appear in the sky and also in the deep shadow as your only evidence for this Great Lie?
That's REALLY funny, Mike.
There's plenty of room for debate, that what this forum is for. But I have yet to encounter a serious critic who didn't fall into one of those two categories.
Plait, Gary P. Posner, Ralph Greenberg, Set Shostak... the list goes on.
What critics are you referring to? Those of the idea of potential "alien artifacts" or those of Hyperdimensional Physics? I don't necessarily have a problem with the artifacts idea, per se. But HD Physics, now that's another matter entirely.
I shall pillory “Dr. Phil” no further.
I say a Pox on both your houses !
EU and Plasma Science are the only branch of Astronomy that is accomplishing anything.
You suck, RCH sucks, Plait sucks, Space.com sucks.
Arthur C. Clarke still hopes to meet ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_en_mo/people_arthur_c__clarke;_ylt=As1MHIbd0xFGUdMD2howmwIwFxkF
NASA spacecraft to study Moon's lumpy interior
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13051-nasa-spacecraft-to-study-moons-lumpy-interior.html
Why are the other countries who are conducting Mars and Moon missions not coming to the same conclusions as TEM?
Asteroid may hit Mars in next month
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_sc/mars_asteroid
Hope it doesn't hit the Face.
Neil Armstrong's 25th anniversary speech at the White House:
Richard Hoagland's take on this is exactly 180° from the truth. He did NOT liken himself to a parrot. Here's what he actually said:
"Wilbur Wright once noted that the only bird that could talk was the parrot, and he didn't fly very well. So I'll be brief."
Translation: "I'm good at flying, not talking". UNLIKE a parrot.
expat said...
"So it comes down to those photoshoppy artifacts that appear in the sky and also in the deep shadow as your only evidence for this Great Lie?
That's REALLY funny, Mike."
As Johnny Carson would have said, "wrong again bison breath."
Those "photoshoppy artifacts" in the shadows have nothing to do with Photoshop. As anyone who knows anything about the lunar regolith (this would exclude you and Dr.Phil) knows, the top soil is littered with millions of glass beads. These beads catch light from the highly refractive and reflective artificial structures overhead and occasionally reflect that light into the camera lens.
If the sky above the astronauts was absolute black, as it MUST be if there are no artificial structures overhead, then the shadows would be absolute black as well. The fact that they are not is yet another proof of our thesis. Your inability to grasp this is yet more proof of your lack of scientific education, grey matter, and just plain common sense.
As to this image being out “only evidence,” give me a break. Read “Dark Mission.”
I find it fascinating that you have no comment on the mendacities of Dr. Phil, which is what started this whole thread in the first place. You just pretend he wasn’t exposed as an ignoramus and\or liar and move on to the next thing you think will “prove” we’re wrong.
The question is, how many more times must you be embarrassed in public before you give up? The only thing I find funny about all this is how you keep setting yourself up to be humiliated.
Okay my grammar sucked on my last post, I will try to do better this time.
This is in response to expat and all. I have been reading and studying this information presented by RCH and MB since the late 90's. I have read DM and purchased/viewed/read a lot of other information. So, this probably qualifies me, in all, to place a quarter in a bubble gum machine and turn the knob. However, I do have my opinion....
I have read this blog and others and I do share MB's opinion of many of the people that post. Expat your posts denote, in my opinion, dire cynicism. In line with that, what I do find most distasteful is people singing their own doxology and expect people to mindlessly join the chorus. My needle really goes into stupidity redline when you read posts where ones have let others do the research for them, allowing them formulate their opinion and being happy with having their thoughts created by others. Therefore, feel what you want, do what you want, just don't expect me to buy incontestably into what anyone says without reading long and hard. Why, should we not expect the same from others? Why do fascinating, outside the box ideas intimidate people? Why do they find the need to disparage, and rage against a new version of their machine? Let me gain more knowledge and, if I have to, wait and see who ultimately believes the Greatest Lie.
Bara: "If the sky above the astronauts was absolute black, as it MUST be if there are no artificial structures overhead, then the shadows would be absolute black as well. The fact that they are not is yet another proof of our thesis."
Remind me again, please, if all of the Apollo lunar landing sites were roofed by 'artificial structures', how did all six Lunar Modules avoid hitting them?
Jim,
Niether Hoagland or I has ever said "all" or "roofed."
>>If the sky above the astronauts was absolute black, as it MUST be if there are no artificial structures overhead, then the shadows would be absolute black as well.<<
'Absolute black' is an impossible ideal in photography. A photograph of something that is black, brightness- and contrast-enhanced, will always show a pattern of some kind. Your evidence is simply not reliable.
Yo fool,
If you knew the structure of the
quantum vacuum, you'd know where
the hexagon comes from.
And if you knew Dave Bergman's work
on basic particles, you would know
where electron-positron pairs come
from.
Torsion physics would make sense,
and you could visualize it easily.
I'll bet you're one of these folks
who still believe that "c" is
"absolute, fixed and immutable."
Well...so much for Chiao, Wang,
Hau, Montgomery, Dolphin, Gold,
Harrington, Kantor, Birge, Miller,
and, last but not least, the very
redoubtable Dr. Gunter Nimtz, to
name but a few.
My point?
A preponderance of evidence is
never enough.
Hence, the nightstick.... :-)
You just can't help yourself from digging the hole deeper, can you expat?
>>You just can't help yourself from digging the hole deeper, can you expat?<<
I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you explain, please?
>>Expat your posts denote, in my opinion, dire cynicism. <<
How can you tell the difference between 'dire cynicism' and scientific disagreement?
"Niether Hoagland or I has ever said "all" or "roofed.""
As far as I can tell, neither of you has provided an annotated map of the moon with all the claimed artificial lunar structures located precisely on it, so other researchers can check out other-source images (including ground-based ALPO archives going back decades).
Can you help us out in understanding where such a map can be found, or why such a map has never been produced?
The reason I said 'all' was based on your claim that fill-in light sources in Apollo surface photography came from these artificial high structures. Such fill-in illumination exists in images from ALL Apollo landing sites.
You assert that without such fill-in illumination reflected from your claimed artificial structures, the astronauts' hand-held images must show absolutely black shadows. The existence of fill-in illumination (and I agree it exists -- and at ALL Apollo landing sites) is thus claimed as another proof of the existence of such structures -- that's how I interpret your recent post.
Now, I think there's another, natural cause of this lighting, but this is a technical issue that can be rationally discussed.
Was this in the book? I'm sorry but I don't recall seeing it there.
Please address the specific comment from expat about your apparently completely-reversed interpretation of Armstrong's 'parrot' comment? Isn't it the mature approach to look into the content of criticisms in order to enhance the accuracy of one's own work? Rather than respond with mockery and insult? It's a standard I think we all -- myself included -- should strive harder to follow.
Take a look at this excellent panorama at Shorty, Apollo 17.
http://moonpans.com/signed/40a17Shortyschmittcernan.htm
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that descent into the crater on a nylon line tethered to the LR would have been permitted, even allowing for one-sixth gravity.
Hello. With all due respect (and please pardon my english, it's not my native tongue): Why with a 100% black sky, shadows must be 100% black? I mean, even in such conditions of vacuum, etc., light still adheres to certain properties, right? Light still gets refracted and/or reflected when hitting matter. Let's just stick to reflection, a diffuse one, as when light hits some dusty clear soil. That diffused reflected light surely does something to reduce the darkness of those places in the shadow cast by a direct source of light (i.e. the sun), after all, regolith does reflect some light, right? I hope I am making myself clear, and please note that my doubt is set --I repeat-- with all due respect. By the way, congratulations for your sarcastic sense of humour. I like that style!
It does appear that light is somehow being diffused/diffracted through some sort of medium...have all other unexpected (but possible) sources been ruled out? (unanticipated atmospheric gases, suspended ionized dust, etc.)
I have some more questions about "data's head", now that this blog has re-emerged.
You wrote: "It is possible that Schmitt and Cernan never saw the object in question, or that they decided it would be too risky to try and retrieve. However, they certainly had enough off-camera time to descend the crater and retrieve it if they wanted to."
* What's your estimate of the time it would have taken for an astronaut to rappel down that steep slope, retrieve the skull-sized rock, and regain the LR?
* What's your estimate of the weight of the skull-sized rock?
* How are you imagining that an astronaut would pick up a skull-sized rock at his feet? Bear in mind that the lunar suit did not allow bending or squatting, and the sampling tool they had was an order of magnitude too small for that size of rock.
The reason I jumped on your claim that shadow fill-in illumination had to come from reflective artificial structures high above the horizon is because it reflects the same kind of erroneous illumination concepts that the Apollo-hoax folks use -- in their case, that the backlighting was from structures off the edge of the 'set', out of the staged field-of-view.
But the literature that debunks these Apollo-hoax sillinesses (to which you have made valuable contributions yourself) has established that the shadow fill-in illumination is from backscatter off the lunar surface itself.
The pictures also show why that fill-in came from that surface, NOT (as you suggested) from ABOVE it. Look at the image of a standing astronaut, the sun behind him, his black shadow lying out across the ground in front of him.
His upper body is dimly back-lit, as you'd expect from something a few feet above the bright surface.
But that flat shadow on the ground IS pitch black, with no apparent fill-in lighting at all. This is exactly what you'd expect if the backscatter came from the surface, since there would be minimal straight-line ray paths for light from sunlit areas elsewhere on the surface, to impact the shadowed area ON the surface.
But if the backscatter, as you suggest, came from ABOVE the surface, then the amount of light filling in the shadows on the astronaut's body (standing vertically) and on the shadow on the ground in front of him (lying flat) should be much more even, more similar in magnitude.
But the pictures don't show that. They indicate that the backscatter comes from near-horizontal ground points, NOT anything higher in the sky.
I think that demolishes your argument that the backscatter is evidence for such structures.
drron,
expat plays a game psychologists call "now I've got you, you SOB." It's sign of a significant character disorder.
"Wilbur Wright once noted that the only bird that could talk was the parrot, and he didn't fly very well. So I'll be brief."
How is this NOT comparing himself to a Parrot? He uses a parrot in a direct comparison\contrast to himself.
What I find facinating is that neither you or Oberg seem interested in an interpretation of his comments about removing "truth's protective layers," which is the real core of the issue.
Exactly what do you two clowns think THAT was supposed to mean?
expat said:
"There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that descent into the crater on a nylon line tethered to the LR would have been permitted, even allowing for one-sixth gravity."
Probably not. But we never said specifically that they did. Only that "Data's head," or something like it, could certainly have been brought back by Schmitt and Cernan, as we state clearly in the book.
Jim,
No, I don't agree that it "demolishes" anything, except expats assertion that they are just "photshoppy artifacts."
As to;
"* What's your estimate of the time it would have taken for an astronaut to rappel down that steep slope, retrieve the skull-sized rock, and regain the LR?"
A) It's not a rock, and B) who says they had to "rappel" down that steep slope? The slope at the bottom of the pan may have been much flatter. In any event, 10 minutes or less. But why would it matter?
"* What's your estimate of the weight of the skull-sized rock?"
A) It's not a rock, and B) it could have been very light, depending on the materials used to manufacture it. But frankly, I have no idea how much it weighed in the 1\6th lunar gravity. Probably less than a human head, but who knows?
* How are you imagining that an astronaut would pick up a skull-sized rock at his feet? Bear in mind that the lunar suit did not allow bending or squatting, and the sampling tool they had was an order of magnitude too small for that size of rock.
A) It's not a rock, and B) there is lots of footage of the astronauts bending and squatting, although it was difficult.
And, since we never stated categorically that specifically brought this artifact back with them, what difference does it make?
Answer: None.
>>How is this NOT comparing himself to a Parrot? <<
You're being remarkably dense, or pretending to be. Hoagland specifically stated that Armstrong was saying he could only repeat what was said to him, like a parrot. That is the opposite of the truth.
"Truth's protective layers" refers to science as a search for truth, which indeed it is. What do you think it means?
>>"Data's head," or something like it, could certainly have been brought back by Schmitt and Cernan<<
Only by rapelling down that slope and doing the impossible by picking up a skull-sized rock. You're mistaken in claiming that there's footage of moon-walkers picking things up from the surface. Bending _slightly_, yes. Definitely NOT squatting.
>>10 minutes or less. But why would it matter?<<
It would matter because there is no period of 10 minutes unaccounted for in the timeline at Shorty (and by the way, that's a LUDICROUSLY short estimate).
Please review this:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.sta4.html
To anticipate your next fabrication, there is no way the timeline could have been faked. This was on live TV all across this planet.
"Wilbur Wright once noted that the only bird that could talk was the parrot, and he didn't fly very well. So I'll be brief."
Mike: "How is this NOT comparing himself to a Parrot? He uses a parrot in a direct comparison\contrast to himself."
It strikes me that he is saying he is the OPPOSITE of a parrot.
The parrot cannot fly well, but HE can.
The parrot can speak, but since he's not good at it, he'll get it over as soon as possible.
All of these astronaut comments are fun to play with and second-guess, whether it be Armstrong or Mitchell or Glenn or Cooper, but my advice is that the closer the interpretation can be to the test pilot culture that the men were immersed in for decades, the better the chance of understanding what they were trying to communicate.
One of the most treacherous aspects of flight, and test flight especially, is a problem being masked by another problem that distracts attention from what really needs to be done first. We trained for that in Mission Control. The flight crews trained, and practised, to always keep a portion of their minds looking behind what the problem appeared to be.
They weren't being devious, but they were aware that Mother Nature could be.
That's 'Mother Nature', not the mythical Nazis and masons in secret control at the top.
Good to see you back, and thanks for responding to the point. That is encouraging all around.
Now, about me being "a colleague of Johnston's at the Manned Spacecraft Center".... grin?
Expat asks: How can you tell the difference between 'dire cynicism' and scientific disagreement?
One of my great mentors used to say: “The two easiest things in the world to be are: a critic and an ass.”
I think of people such as you who would abrogate the search for truth and a more enlightened viewpoint to promote You. Not that you ever say anything substantive in your arguments only that it seems you do so to elevate yourself and your closed mind. (Can you elevate a closed mind?)
As I intimated in a previous post, I wish to keep learning, keep looking at evidence, and keep listening to discussion that is pertinent. In contrast you seem to continuously wander in the realm of the inane.
Therefore, make the choice: A. continue being one or both of the easy things as outlined above or B. Contribute to real discussion. I steal Hawking’s words here: “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” And in my words: “That’s scientific”.
Drron
>>"since we never stated categorically that [they] specifically brought this artifact back with them, what difference does it make?"<<
The difference is between writing, or strongly implying, that Cernan & Schmitt could have retrieved and brought back this object, and acknowledging that it would have been impossible.
* Mission Control would not have permitted a risky and unplanned descent down such a steep slope. The timeline shows that MC were already extremely concerned about the walk-back constraint.
* They had no means of picking up such a large object. The tongs could pick up objects up to "fist size". The scoop was 11 x 5 cm.
* There is no unaccounted-for time interval in the timeline long enough for this risky procedure to have taken place, making the preposterous assumption that the astronauts didn't even consult MC before undertaking it.
* It's extremely unlikely -- admittedly not completely impossible -- that they could have even seen this object, in lunar conditions.
* The timeline could not have been faked, since it was on live TV all over the world.
You've written three times "It's not a rock". What's your evidence for that statement?
Three words: READ THE BOOK
::after reading the book::
Yes, I see. After "processing and color enhancement", including photo-enlargement x5 approx., you inspect this object and say "By golly, this looks like a robot head!". Ergo, by your logic, it IS a robot head.
That's really funny, Mike.
The video clip at 145:27:34 clearly shows one of the astronauts (Schmitt) dropping down to his knees to pick up the rock tool in a manner that shows he could have easily retrieved “Data’s Head.”
Further, images linked in the page you post (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1452602.jpg) also show that the descent into Shorty from the “pan side” was considerably shallower than the other parts of the rim, making it a piece of cake to descend and retrieve the object without a need to rappel. They could have simply walked down into the crater, picked it up in the manner I described, and put in the sample bag. I'd bet it would have taken less than a minute.
But all of this is irrelevant, since again, we never claimed they retrieved this specific object.
As to why we think it's a "robots head?" Other than the fact it is shaped like a head, has a "nose" a brow ridge, two extacly proportioned "eye sockets" symmetrically placed about the centerline, and an obviously painted, anodized mettallic red stripe across the base -- no reason.
But that's all in the book.
>>"But all of this is irrelevant, since again, we never claimed they retrieved this specific object."<<
You wrote:
"In looking at the context panoramas from which it was taken, Hoagland was able to confirm that the head was approximately the same size as human head, Which meant, among other things, that they could have brought it back."
I'd say that makes a discussion of the plausibility of collecting this object relevant in the extreme.
>>The video clip at 145:27:34 clearly shows .. (Schmitt) dropping down to his knees to pick up the rock tool in a manner that shows he could have easily retrieved “Data’s Head.”<<
No it doesn't. It shows him deliberately falling forward to retrieve the dropped core tube with one hand, then pushing off with the other hand to regain an upright position. Very clever -- not a manoeuvre that could have been done for an object that needed two hands. The sample bags weren't big enough for a skull-sized object, either.
>>"two extacly[sic] proportioned "eye sockets" symmetrically placed about the centerline"<<
This is after "processing and color enhancement". This is with no trace of communication along the lines of "Houston, we've seen an incredibly interesting artifact down in the crater. Stand by while we run around and fetch it". Your story has no credibility whatsoever.
Expat, your brain has no credibility whatsoever. You remind me of the "argument clinic" sketch on Monty Python. Simply contradicting is not an argument.
You claimed the astronauts could not have dropped down and picked up the artifact. Schmitt's manuver proves your're wrong. Your silly photoshop artifacts argument is wrong, etc, etc, etc. You are irrational. Step away from the computer before you injure yourself.
You are not contributing to the discussion, you are simply obscuring it with your idiotic "gotcha" games. The only reason I even post your comments is so I can shred your arguments and laugh at you. But I think that game, while personally amusing to me, has outlived its usefullness.
Bara to expat: "The only reason I even post your comments is so I can shred your arguments and laugh at you. "
Oh, so that explains why you DON'T post a lot of MY comments -- because you CAN'T shread them, but still want to LOOK smart and tough in front of your public?
Grin!
One reason you gave me for one rejection was that your "standards" rejected the use of 'unnamed sources'. Then, when I read through Dark Mission, I kept a check mark tally of unnamed sources used in the book, and quit after 20,... long, long from the end of the book.
Jim,
The reason some of your posts don't make it is because you just can't seem to resist the need to open up a new issue with every post. If you could just stick to the topic at hand, things would go just fine.
I have better things to do with my time than respond to 4-10 new postings by you every day, and 2-3 fresh contradictions from expat. I'm sure you'd love for me to get bogged down in this stuff, but it just ain't gonna happen.
This blog is for the people who are interested in the book to come and exchange ideas about it, not for you and expat to fillibuster with your stupid arguments and your gross distortions.
If it's any comfort, I like you better than expat. At least your arguments are an occasional challenge.
As to sources and references, there are only what, 103 footnotes in DM?
Jimo,
You and your “grin, grin, wink, wink, nudge, nudge”.
You gleefully point out the difference between you and one of the authors. Your words show your disdain of us “denizens of this sand pile”. Real space program? What is that? You make it sound as if you are above everyone else by your mere involvement. You were a part of the public aspect of a program that relentlessly plods along to, as in the last decades, what appears to be no real direction or grand goal as at the beginning. You yourself criticize the climate; rave about safety concerns and then become a consultant. Those that no longer practice, no longer do, and they consult. You tout your book “Star Crossed Orbits”. Perhaps you have knowledge of the established science compounded by an “I’ve got my blinders on” view, but is that enough?
Let me posit another contrast, perhaps a better one: You having been dyed in the wool, I am real science, NASA, shall forever be lost to the confines of your view of what is accepted. Also, in perpetual defense of that closed paradigm, you are in fact imperfectly smug. Perhaps that is why I would much rather read something that stimulates my thinking; that there are other possibilities than that which is accepted. In so many ways and on so many different fronts, these boys outclass you. Theoretical physics, different views on celestial mechanics and much more fun stuff in which to revel and let the mind explore the possibilities. Is reality boring then? What is reality? What is truth? Those that wander around and look and think, usually find a lot more of both, with a dash of excitement added. You? “I was in the real space program.” To me that does not say much.
Mike: "But all of this is irrelevant, since again, we never claimed they retrieved this specific object."
Didn't I just hear (on Dennis Miller's show) Richard tease a national audience with the notion that we might have brought it back and spent the last few decades decoding it?
Post a Comment