Thursday, August 13, 2009

Richard Hoagland's color "adjustment"

I'm obliged to a commenter on this blog, "moon real-estate", for leading me to a hilarious example of Richard Hoagland's utter incompetence when it comes to manipulation of Apollo lunar surface photography -- a game he has played very often, with usually fraudulent results.

"Moon real-estate" asked me to comment on a sequence from the Project Camelot interview Part 2, starting at 1:00:04. In this sequence, Hoagland projects a Hasselblad frame from Apollo 17 showing Jack Schmitt and the gnomon. A gnomon is a tripod-mounted device which shows local vertical and also provides a crude color chart. Hoagland claims that the picture has been deliberately de-saturated, and that when the color is restored by him to its true level, evidence of the glass domes he says are at the Apollo 17 site appears in the sky.

Here's a direct quote from the Camelot video:

RCH: "Here's probably my favorite... Here's a color chart -- here's our calibrator, red, green and blue, this is a gray-scale, called a gnomon...."

There's a rather substantial problem for him, however. The color calibrator on the gnomon is not red, green, and blue, as he thinks. Here's the technical description of the gnomon, from the official Apollo 17 Press Kit (emphasis added):

Gnomon and Color Patch

The gnomon is used as a photographic reference to establish local vertical Sun angle, scale, and lunar color. This tool consists of a weighted staff mounted on a tripod. It is constructed in such a way that the staff will right itself in a vertical position when the legs of the tripod are on the lunar surface. The part of the staff that extends above the tripod gimbal is painted with a gray scale from 5 to 35 percent reflectivity and a color scale of blue, orange, and green. The color patch, similarly painted in gray scale and color scale, mounted on one of the tripod legs provides a larger target for accurately determining colors in color photography.

So if Richard Hoagland adjusted the color of this frame under the mistaken impression that the gnomon color was red when in fact it was orange, HOW TRUSTWORTHY DO WE THINK HIS RESULTING IMAGE IS?

Anybody wanting to play around with this image for themselves can find a 752KB version here.


Biological_Unit said...


moon real-estate said...

Oh you forgot to mention, Ahm.. Ahm..

That without manipulating anything in that photo

If you zoom in on the dark sky above the hill on the far left - you will see In clear view the Prism R. Hoagland talks about - which is scientific optical proof that there is an object made of glass breaking the light into its full spectrum of colors

Which you have forgotten by mistake to mention in your article.

expat said...

>>Oh you forgot to mention...etc..<<
The so-called prism is not the topic of this thread -- Richard Hoagland's incompetence at interpreting lunar photography is.

However, it is true that a small spectral flare is visible in AS17-134-20426HR.jpg. This is emphatically NOT proof that a glass object is in the sky, however. The claim is just another illustration of Richard Hoagland's incompetence. If you, "moon real-estate," think that is a "full spectrum of colors," maybe you should phone an optician.

moon real-estate said...


If you admit that that is a spectral flare
You are also admitting that there is atmosphere on the moon

Now look how a spectral flare looks like

Furthermore the straight clear definable line on the photo of the moon is singular with a very definable begining to it.

Swallow the frog and face it - that is a prism

For unknown reasons - the only one exibiting
incompetence, i am sorry to say is you sir.

Biological_Unit said...

I suggest smashing a Probe on the Dome !

How long has the Glass Domes been there, and why haven't Meteorites destroyed them ?

Biological_Unit said...

Why are the alleged Domes covering standard, boring Moon-scapes ?
What a ridiculous premise !

moon real-state said...


All I can do is repeat to a degree what Hoagland has said in the Camelot interview.

You are thinking of the material Glass here on earth - which is very brittle and delicate - on the moon there is no moisture and air - therefore glass is 20 stronger than steel.
And "Glass ore" is abundant on the moon.

These domes are probably millions of years old
and in Hoaglands photos you can see meteor holes - and that the domes are better be described as dome ruins - but still they exist.

The reason why we cannot see them clearly is the only erosion process on the moon - cosmic dust which has been bombarding it for millions of years.

if a probe were to hit them they would disintegrate no doubt.

Watch the interview to get the full info and then make then judgment.

Biological_Unit said...

Glass Ore is abundant, but Glass Ore REFINERIES and related infrastructure DO NOT EXIST !!


Just go back with 1969 tech ...

Biological_Unit said...

Project Camelot is a gathering place for New-Agey liars and know-nothings !

Biological_Unit said...

Watch the interview to get the full info and then make then judgment.


I won't.

I know the types who frequent the TEM paid forum. I hate them because they are LIARS !!

word: stori

Biological_Unit said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Biological_Unit said...

All I can do is repeat to a degree what Hoagland has said in the Camelot interview.

All I can do is repeat what you heard - so why do you believe it ? If Mars Revealer had said it, you would ignore it - but since RCH and Bara have SRI think-tanks behind them, you suspend your disbelief ...

Biological_Unit said...

The reason why we cannot see them

The Reason ? Much like the Real Situation, which is that these Scintillations never occurred ?

expat said...

Returning now to the actual topic of this thread...

Since Hoagland plainly says, regarding the AS17-134-20426HR.jpg image, "This is probably my favorite..." we can legitimately infer that he regards this as one of the best, or maybe THE best, examples of his general thesis -- that there are huge glass domes on the moon (covering featureless terrain, as biological unit reminds us).

Now that I've shown that his manipulation of the image was based on his own failure to understand the gnomon, we may also infer that this is a grave, possibly fatal, setback to the entire thesis.

(As of it wasn't absurd enough to collapse under its own shortcomings anyway).

moon real-estate said...


You are accusing RCH of something that you yourself are doing now -

You are jumping to conclusions
(Assuming you are right off course)
Why not ask him?

Just as an example -

He made an innocent mistake in the interview

and said red in stead of orange

what difference does this simple error make ? he says that all the colors are unsaturated not just one

expat said...

>>what difference does this simple error make ?<<

I'm sorry -- I thought that would be totally obvious. In adjusting the color balance such that the orange patch appears red, the image would be corrupted instead of corrected. The result cannot be trusted to show truth at all.

Biological_Unit said...

Where Math and Science go to die, the Dark Mission blog.
An N-Junear who is afraid of Math ? Does that make sense to youze ?