Greetings.
In the last month you have posted two images of the Moon that you say were taken by Corona (KH-1 – KH-6) spy satellites looking upward. On 17th February, this one:
…and on 11th March, this one.
The first is dated, presumably in European notation, 30-3-66. Accordingly it could not have been taken by a Corona but more likely by a Gambit (KH-7) satellite, perhaps mission KH7-26, launch date 18 March 1966, NSSDC designation 1966-022A.
The second is dated 08-01-66, a date on which no Corona or Gambit missions were operative.
Both images show identical damage. Both images show horizontal banding typical of an image transmitted by radio rather than one from a captured film magazine.
In addition, from the known geometry of the Earth-Moon system, the field of view (FOV) may easily be calculated as 0.607°. This is inconsistent with the known FOV of Gambit, 2.18°.
I am led to suspect that your data is fraudulent and I invite you to explain the exact provenance of these images.
Regards,
[expat]
Thanks to OneBigMonkey for inspiring this
7 comments:
As a useful point of comparison, here are some copies of Soviet Lunar images taken by various probes over the years starting with the Lunar 3 & Zond 3 Farside images, these two probes both used radio transmissions of scanned film images to get their pictures back to Earth, the later Zond 4 - 8 returned the undeveloped film to Earth for processing on the ground.
http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm
This page covers the Luna 3 images in more detail.
http://mentallandscape.com/L_Luna3.htm
All I will say on the images Hoagland's posted is this, they are not based on the Soviet images. I don't know enough about the American film return missions (Discoverer/Corona) and the image formats used to comment further, but it does not look like the Luna Orbiter images either.
Thanks for your comment. All the Keyhole sats delivered long strips of film, whch were then cut up to focus on features of interest. Here's a page of Corona pix. You don't see any of that banding because the physical film floated back to Earth for dev & p in a conventional wet lab.
I think this image gives a clue to the origin of the image, though I know that the camera data recorded with each image is not the same format as that shown on Hoagland's ones.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/324271main_tiros_full.jpg
the transmission banding is quite evident.
Now we're taking the fight to the dog! I like it, expat.
Interesting "artifacts" on both images.
The "3-clawed alien cat scratch", the "big, dried booger" (below it) and the "big finger smear" appear on both images, suggesting they are probably all on the scanner glass. I'm guessing the one that Hoagie keeps in the cupboard by the sink in his trailer, that he used to scan these images out of some book he filched from a local library somewhere. Whatever, the images appear to have been scanned by some ham-fisted amateur operator with no idea of cleanliness or care.
There seems to be a lot of dust (not Lunar dust!) visible the Quarter Moon image, but not sure if they are also on the Full Moon shot due to, well, plain lack of effort... Haven't spotted any beard hairs though.
Haven't overlaid the images, but them 'artie-facts' do look near identical.
So, did Hoagie reply anywhere?
Actually, I would like to know where those images came from, too.
I fully agree with your diagnosis. Notwithstanding this statement from August 2015:
"The idea that I would put negatives or prints on a scanner, and a) not clean the screen, and b) not make sure there was no dust on the negatives etc. etc.— is ludicrous. That is a straw man that people are putting out there—it's not true."
That was RCH interrupting Stuart Robbins, who successfully called in to the radio show.
« So, did Hoagie reply anywhere? »
Nah.
Meanwhile, Ken Johnston is marking down the price of his video lecture on the moon base.
http://ufo-congress-store5.mybigcommerce.com/ken-johnston-exclusive-nasa-photos-of-alien-bases-on-the-moon/
Has Ken never seen the LRO images, one has to wonder?
Post a Comment