Well, ha-ha. It took no great powers of pre-cognition to figure that last night's Other Side of Midnight, featuring frisbee expert Robert Morningstar expounding on technical matters he doesn't understand, would be rubbish. I didn't expect, though, to be personally attacked for having attempted to pre-load Hoagland and Morningstar with the true facts.
Here's a verbatim excerpt. The topic is the 1960s-era American spysats known as either Corona or Keyhole.
"26:33 When Kennedy revealed what he knew was [on the Moon], which the [NASA] Nazis view as their heritage alone... this is why the Nazis à-la ??? ...Jim Marrs... the Nazis rose up and killed Kennedynote 1 for the reasons that are so blatantly obvious 'cause... Kennedy, as soon as he got confirmation, through Project Corona, which by the way I went back and looked at the timelines--the first successful flight of Corona which was to send a very very large camera like a... like a semi into orbit, looking down photographing all the Soviet Unions's airfields and rocket bases and all that stuff. As soon as the first one was successful, in August of 1960, it turns out over the next 30 launches only about a dozen were deemed acceptable. So what happened to the other 20-some missions? They all got the film back. Was it because, like I discovered on the secret film I was given briefly, from Project Corona and Gambit, every single damn frame had nothing to do with Soviet missile bases on the ground--they were all taken looking up at [Hoagland-style emphatic speech] The Moon! Project Corona, I mean...Hoagland was right about the date of the first success. A mission flown on 10 August 1960 successfully returned a capsule to Earth, but it contained an American flag, not a film magazine. That one was cloaked by NASA as "Discoverer 13." The next flight, on 18 August, returned film.
RM: One of the sceptics that trolls us...
RCH: I know who you mean..
RM: ..Concannon [or did he say "loose cannon"?], said how is it possible for there to be...and of course...
RCH: Because he doesn't have any idea what he's looking for! Talk about clueless!
RM: You just swi... swivel the camera to point at --uh-- targets. Manoeuvrability--just roll 180° and shoot at the Moon...
RCH: It did! I've had the film in my hands! And I have the scans. So, I mean, in the midst of the incredible cold war which I think was... was a con, it was fake news. The cold war was not real, boys and girls, and nuclear stand-offs... it was a cover. To cover this huge big reality, which is -- the human race figured out, between Roswell and Kennedy, "Oh My God, we're not alone--Oh My God, we have family --Oh My God, our history is nothing like has been portrayed, Oh My God, we're all going to lose our jobs and lose our heads" because the vox populi will be freaked out when they discover everything we've been telling them, for decades, is a lie!
What neither of those two nincompoops addressed was the technical question of the field of view, and how much of the image width would have been filled with Moon if anyone had been daft enough to do what Morningstar suggested and swivel the camera to look Moon-wards. The answer, as I wrote on Friday, is 10%. Here's a second look at the geometry, updated from the Friday version:
Like anyone's going to see alien structures on that....
I've searched without success for a reliable reference to the image that Hoagland said he had in his hands. As I recall, it was something that a supporter slipped him confidentially, that the supporter swore was a detailed image of the Moon taken by a spysat. Can you spell "bamboozled"? Clueless yourself, Hoagland.
I'm obliged to OneBigMonkey for drawing our attention to the fact that Hoagland presented the following image in the gallery for last night:
As OBM writes, this is plausible as a spysat view of the Moon, but it's far inferior to the telescope views of the time. I think it confirms that any such material would be useless to anyone searching for alien cities or ruins thereof.
I also point out that this is from the KH-7 series, codename Gambit, not from the much older and notably less successful Corona (KH-1 through KH-4) series. KH-7 satellites flew 38 missions between July 1963 and June 1967, of which 34 returned film, and of these, 30 returned usable imagery. The date in the mini-window at right is "30-3-66," indicating that this was mission KH7-26, launch date 18 March 1966. Its NSSDC designation was1966-022A, and orbital parameters are listed but nothing else. Of course, by that time Kennedy's address was c/o National Cemetery, Arlington VA, so it wouldn't have been of any great interest to him.
See also Comment #3 from OneBigMonkey
By measurement, the width of that image is 113% of the diameter of the Moon
So width at target = 3474 x 1.13 = 3925 km
FOV = 2 x arc tan 0.0053 = 0.607°
However, we know from the declassified specs that Gambit, at its best, covered a strip 6.3km wide from a 167km orbit.
FOV = 2 x arc tan 3.15/167 = 2.18°
EITHER: The image has been zoomed then re-merged with its time and position data.
OR: It's a complete fake, the lunar image inserted over the original content. The horizontal banding is suspicious—it's more typical of an image transmitted from space rather than one derived from a captured film magazine. I've looked through the Lunar Orbiter image library and can't find an exact match. but there are several very, very similar frames.
Thanks to Stuart "astroguy" Robbins for the audio file.
 In his 2009 book, Hoagland wrote that Kennedy's assassination was most likely contrived by "a military-intelligence cabal." Dark Mission, 2nd edn p.172
HAHA.....Getting hot in the kitchen, James???
Clearly spy satellites in orbit would have inferior imaging capabilities of the moon, compared with a myriad of ground based telescope.
Although in the mind of Hoagland and his ilk, all users of these would of course be in on the conspiracy, so that would be an irrelevance.
I'm not entirely convinced that the image they've presented is fake - there are no indications looking at Error Level Analysis on fotoforensics.
If you plug the date on the image into Stellarium (for example) you can see that the photo is definitely consistent with what you would see from Earth on that date. The lines on the image are an issue, but they don't look like the typical regular banding of lunar orbiter images - it wouldn't be the first time that Hoagland has used crappy images to try and make a spurious case.
The date and time recording on the image is very similar to the way that Apollo's Panoramic Camera recorded it, and as we know that camera was based on the Keyhole/Gambit series.
What is less supportive of the image's genuine status is that they use a segment of an image marked with a 1966 date stamp and label it '1962' in their gallery, and if you search the https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ gallery of declassified images there are none returned for the 30/03/66 date. It's also odd that the date is not given in the standard US format.
My opinion? They've got a genuine satellite image from somewhere and are using it to crowbar in a bit of JFK mythology to buy in a new demographic - despite the photo being dated several years after his death.
What they should do, as honest researchers (yeah, I know) is post their sources so we can verify that it is a genuine photo, taken when it is claimed to have been taken, and by the device they claim took it. They also need to answer the question as to why they didn't use the data from lunar probes to show there were aliens on the moon instead of poor quality earthbound ones.
TVM for the analysis, Monkey. Another puzzle: Surely all KH-7 and KH-8 product was long, long strips of film, not portrait-style singles?
This great article:
says that GAMBIT film was 23 cm (9 in) wide, much bigger than CORONA. The increased volume meant that a GAMBIT return vehicle could carry only approx. 914 m (3,000 feet) of film vs. CORONA's 4,877 m (16,000 ft).
Thanks for the link. The second article in the series states that Gambit was used to photograph Skylab, so targets in higher orbits were possible. Chalk one up for Morningstar.
Interesting. For me the bottom line is:
1. The image cannnot be precisely what RCH claims it is. At best it's a cropped version of a much bigger image. James's FOV calculations prove that.
2. It could not possibly have demonstrated conclusively that there are alien cities on the Moon. The resolution is a couple of orders of magnitude off.
Another point: Five months later, Lunar Orbiter 1 flew. So there was no urgency about imaging the Moon at the time.
Interestingly there has been another broadcast. I don't have access to (and my doctor advises against obtaining) the content, but there is listed in the gallery of 'supporting photos' another one of those claimed satellite images:
What's interesting is that exactly the same patterns of blemishes (and I mean exactly) appears on this image as the previous one. The date is given as 08/01/66, again with a European date format, and the phase of the moon matches exactly what would be visible at 02:22 GMT - the time shown on on of the dials on that date. The other information on the film seems to show a film counter, information about the film used and date, and probably altitude.
No Corona mission is recorded for that date, but other satellites (including those from other nations apart from the USA) were around. The declassified Corona film strips on earthexplorer have the 'metadata' removed, but looking at Corona film strips that exist online it does not seem that they have the same pattern of information on them.
While the strips showed the Earth's horizon at the end so that they could be oriented correctly and located properly, the moon would not appear as it does in the images he uses.
The photographs are heavily damaged, and the pattern of damage could not possibly be replicated identically in two different Corona flights, so it would be very interesting to know where he obtained them.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Post a Comment