Thursday, March 30, 2017

Bret Sheppard, the satellite dish on the Moon, and the meaning of "acquisition"

        Bret Sheppard was invited for a long interview on something called Spaced Out Radio last night. He gave an insight into his motivations, and more important for me, his misunderstandings. He related how, as a young art student, he stayed after class one day to hear a presentation by someone from the Stanford Research Institute. He thinks now it must have been in connection with Ingo Swann's remote viewing experiments, that were ongoing at the time. Something about a photograph taken on the Moon impressed him sufficiently that he became something of an expert in the strange field known as "lunar anomalies," and he spent literally years, off and on, scouring Apollo photography. Then he continued...
26:54 "I almost gave up. I almost said "Know what? I'm done with this lunar garbage." I was in there getting all of the anomalies out of them. You know... basically, the reason why I was doing that was to eliminate them from what I was seeing in the image that I remembered when I was 15 years old. You know, so that's what I was doing. And I was hitting a wall because I needed a control image, and the first image I got was actually from Donna Hare.note 1 And she had, er.. I wanna tell this right... she had gotten it out of the Dempsey Dumpster as part of her portfolio. She was allowed to keep that as part of her portfolio. So she had a few.. you know, mostly Apollo 12 images. You know, from Pete Conrad and Alan Bean. And this... this particular image showed the LEM and a satellite dish on the horizon of the Moon. And.. and there's Surveyor in the foreground, and Alan Bean posing next to Surveyor. I believe Pete Conrad was taking the picture. So...um... basically this ...what this image showed me... it was very clear, much clearer than the NASA image that they put on line. I mean, wiki-clear, you know. It was like "Wow! That is a picture!" So, there was this satellite dish in the background. You know, that they couldn't possibly fit in the LEM."
        Well, he must be referring to either AS12-48-7135 or AS12-48-7136, because they are the only shots showing Al Bean beside Surveyor 3.


        As for the satellite dish--well, could it be the S-band antenna that the astronauts erected as soon as they got off the ladder? Here's the actual Apollo 12 dish:



         "They couldn't possibly fit it in the LEM." Sure they could..


Ken was like a father to me
        A little later, Bret got around to talking about his association with Ken Johnston and the whole issue of the (non-existent) 16mm film of crater Tsiolkovsky shot by Ed Mitchell on Apollo 14. The topic of this blog from 19th March. He said he was living in Texarkana, in a house that was falling down, when he met up with Ken. He said Ken was a role model, "like a father to me." Some kind of deal was struck whereby Ken helped Bret move to Belen, NM in return for his and Karen Patrick's help finishing Ken's autobiography.
33:00 "The thing was, that there were a couple of issues with it... with the story. He didn't know at the time what... ahhm... what mission he saw that 16mm film. And so one of the things that I decided to do was to investigate his story. Thoroughly, you know. So anyway I started getting attacked by James Oberg and everything else, for even attempting this. So what I found was... James Oberg said that they never flew over Tsiolkovsky crater. And semantically he's right--the Command & Service Module never really flew over Tsiolkovsky crater, near it, or whatever. They never really filmed except I found a 70mm shot of Tsiolkovsky crater showing the exact sun angle that Ken was talking about from memory. And then, I found out that there were two 16mm cameras in the Lunar Module, and one in the Command Module. [He's right about that] The one in the Command Module was sort-of pointed down and going really fast, skitching across the lunar surface. And it looks just exactly like that... skitching over the lunar surface and grabbing some film. This is the one that Oberg showed Ken at one of the conferences. And that really got me thinking "What did Edgar Mitchell film in the Lunar Module?"
...
I looked up the Apollo 14 onboard voice transcription, because they say everything in those, even when they go to the bathroom. They say everything. [He means the recordings made by the Data Storage Equipment while the astronauts were out of contact with Houston, on the back side of the Moon.] So I looked that up, and I scoured this ... data, you know. And what I found was...um.. that basically right inside this... this transcript, on... let's see. it's... er...on the third day, around 2:29 p.m. and 26 seconds, that's how detailed this is. [He's misunderstood the notation. 03:14:29:26 is the Mission Elapsed Time, not the time of day.] And the Data Acquisition Camera, the 16mm, er... Edgar Mitchell said "I'm going to see... I'm going to see that.. I'm all set up for this acquisition." That doesn't mean anything else but a camera."

        Well, he's totally wrong. It has nothing to do with the camera. They were on the far side, remember, out of contact. "Acquisition" means acquisition of the radio signal from Houston, as they come around the Moon. It was known in NASA-speak as AOS, for Acquisition Of Signal. This becomes totally clear very shortly, although Bret doesn't see it. He continues:

"And then it says minus 39 plus 325..  He said "OK, HIGH GAIN, MANUAL, and WIDE." Those are camera settings."

        Once again, he's wrong. Those are antenna settings, required to get the best possible radio contact. If Bret had continued reading from the transcript, he would have seen this immediately following: "And 6 minutes away from it." Yes, six minutes until AOS. Here it all is, from the actual document:


        And sure enough, a couple of pages further on, we see:

        Another of  Sheppard's misconceptions is that this conversation took place in the LM. Actually, undocking didn't take place until M.E.T. 04:07:47:58, so all three astronauts were still in the CM at that time. Here's the part of the CM control panel concerned with the high gain antenna:


        It's a little hard to see, but the leftmost switch is for antenna tracking. The mid position is for MANUAL. The next switch controls the beam width: up for WIDE, down for NARROW. The two large dials control the pitch and yaw angles of the antenna. Mitchell was reading from the Flight Plan: Yaw -39, Pitch  +325. Those angles are much clearer on the LM control panel.

 

       So that completely explains the above dialog--nothing to do with cameras at all. I don't want to be too hard on Bret Sheppard, but he just keeps revealing his ignorance of Apollo hardware and history. And honestly, if he thinks there is 16mm film of Tsiolkovsky, why doesn't he show it? If he thinks there's an alien base there, why won't he look at the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter image, which is 40 years newer and 0.5 meters/pixel resolution?

Update:
        Using Google Moon, OneBigMonkey has derived this simulated view representing what Ed Mitchell could see as he spoke the words "That's Tsiolkovsky. OK, I've got it." OBM set the altitude at 90km, somewhat below apolune. Very useful.





Tsiolkovsky is on the horizon. No view inside the crater is possible.


===================/ \=======================
[1] Donna Hare is an important figure in the mythology of lunar anomaly hunting. A so-called whistle-blower, Donna was actually employed on image processing for NASA JSC and alleges that one of her duties was to airbrush out alien structures.


67 comments:

Trekker said...

Expat, in that transcript, what were they referring to as looking good through the sextant, that had a red tinge to it?

jim oberg said...

Good work, and it reveals another fundamental delusion Bret has about space flight -- that the Lunar Module, once it left the Command Module, could FLY SIDEWAYS over to Tsiolkovskiy Crater to get the 'gun-camera shots Johnston keeps insisting he remembers seeing. Of course that's physically impossible, the LM was in the same orbital plane as the Command Module the whole time. Its ground track was identical to that of the Command Module. Bret seems to think they could just bank left a few hundred miles, sneak a few shots of the crater, and loop back into the original orbit. He made the same kind of howler when he argued not long ago that even though the shots taken during departure from the moon were from a distance and steep angle, it was still possible the Apollo had secretly looped back around the moon one or more times, to zoom over Tsiolkovskiy [again, for what reason] and then turn back towards Earth, all without anyone noticing. Of course, once the rocket burn was completed they were committed to the trans-Earth trajectory without anywhere near the fuel needed to secretly burn the engines again and sneak back around. Bret needs to find some local Boy Scout with the Space Exploration merit badge to get a reality-based lecture on space trajectories. He beclowns himself every time he opens his mouth.

expat said...

Trekker: It's either Vesalius, at 3.52°S, or Langemak, at 9.8.

Trekker said...

OK, thanks, Expat.

expat said...

Added a section of the LM control panel to illustrate what Ed Mitchell said in the transcript.

expat said...

Now a section of the CM control panel, high gain antenna beam width controls. And I think I'm done.

Trekker said...

Has he ever explained why he hasn't looked at the LRO images of Tsiolkovskiy?

Anonymous said...

{ James Oberg said that they never flew over Tsiolkovsky crater. And semantically he's right--the Command & Service Module never really flew over Tsiolkovsky crater, near it, or whatever. They never really filmed except I found a 70mm shot of Tsiolkovsky crater showing the exact sun angle that Ken was talking about from memory. And then, I found out that there were two 16mm cameras in the Lunar Module, and one in the Command Module. [He's right about that] The one in the Command Module was sort-of pointed down and going really fast, skitching across the lunar surface. And it looks just exactly like that... skitching over the lunar surface and grabbing some film. This is the one that Oberg showed Ken at one of the conferences. And that really got me thinking "What did Edgar Mitchell film in the Lunar Module?" }

Did I miss something? What's this about Jim Oberg showing Ken Johnston something? Was it a still, a movie, a camera, itself, or something else entirely?

OneBigMonkey said...

re: the red tinge comment, they aren't seeing that through the sextant but out of the CM window. As they mention Tsiolkovskiy at the same time it suggests they are looking towards the south - all the other craters they mention seeing leading up to this are also to the south of them. They mention Langemak coming up after these comments so it isn't that. They do, however, refer to the reddish tinged crater as having a 'bench that looks like a quarry'.

This is strongly suggestive of Necho.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Necho_crater_AS14-70-9671.jpg/240px-Necho_crater_AS14-70-9671.jpg

:)

expat said...

« Has he ever explained why he hasn't looked at the LRO images of Tsiolkovskiy? »

In a way, yes. Back in June he wrote "LRO images are CGI and I do not consider them valid." He also complains about "grayed out areas" which makes me think he doesn't know how to use the viewing software.

OBM: Necho is exactly at 5° so yes, it's quite likely. NASA's typist didn't catch the word so there's a blank where it should be.

Anon: Oberg showed KJ part of the A14 DAC footage when they met at a conference.

*sigh* this post still isn't finished, I'll be editing it yet again in a couple of hours.

Trekker said...

Thanks, One Big Monkey for the info.

OneBigMonkey said...

It seems Sheppard may not be referring to Apollo 12's own antenna in his broadcast:

This page of his

http://www.marsmoonspace.com/unaltered-apollo-12-image

discusses an original photo NASA apparently wanted destroyed using the utterly foolproof method of 'throwing it in the bin'.

By carefully examining his photo and squinting his eyes very hard, Sheppard has discovered a really really big antenna.

No, really.

expat said...

Well, hot diggity!! That must be the very print that he retrieved from Donna Hare's dumpster.

Anonymous said...

I don't see it. Should I keep looking? How did anyone inadvertently manage to see anything there? If there is anything there at all, how do we know that it wasn't airbrushed, in? Somebody might have been just goofing around, so trashed it, or NASA could have faked it then trashed it to deny it, even though they really want us to believe it.

expat said...

You have to look at pic #5. There's some sort of bluish halo in the sky, which of course is really the HUGE dish that NASA didn't quite hide from the cunning of Bret Sheppard.

Karen Patrick writes: "That there are structures on the moon is probably the real reason why this photo was never released."

Ms. Patrick does not know what she's writing about.

Chris Lopes said...

I thought the blue halo was from the huuuuuuge glass dome they landed in the middle of. Or am I just mixing up my crackpot bull scat?

Anonymous said...

I thought that the blue halo in image #5 was the highlighting added to frame the alleged antennae. I see darker lines within the boundaries of the halo, but my pattern recognition perception finds those to be incoherent.

Bret Sheppard said...

The Unified S-band (USB) system was a tracking and communication system developed for the Apollo program by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). It operated in the S band portion of the microwave spectrum, unifying voice communications, television, telemetry, command, tracking and ranging into a single system to save size and weight and simplify operations. The USB ground network was managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Since the possibility exists, then I would say this is not debunked, and I would further argue that while flying over one of the moons most amazing craters, that film would have likely been taken of these amazing features that they were clearly gawking at. Since these S-band settings were adjusted at the time they flew over Tsiolkovsky, I would say the chances are more than likely that film, and or TV signals were sent back to Earth, and probably both. It seems that whoever wrote this blog would rather we believe that this possibility didn't exist at all, in order to justify his extraordinary claims, that film of Tsiolkovsky was impossible aboard the Lunar Module while in orbit. I would rather give our Astronauts credit for thinking of it even if it wasn't technically in their mission report. James Oberg and Ex-Pat are the same person, and it seems odd that he is playing games with people if he isn't getting paid to do so. It seems a bit obsessive. He is no more an expert on the Apollo program, than anyone who had the same interest. Thank you for telling me that they used the S-band that makes it more likely than I initially thought. I do not claim to be an expert, but I am learning more about the scientific possibilities of Apollo 14, with the technology they had at the time. There is still the possibility that Acquisition is a reference to the DAC. It isn't something James Oberg would know since again, he wasn't there and has no experience like the Astronauts had. Say what you want, but I have the right to my opinion.

Bret Sheppard said...

FM cannot be used for Doppler tracking, so the LM always transmitted PM during flight, reserving FM for when video was required

expat said...

Bret, thanks for your comments. I have a couple of rejoinders...

« and I would further argue that while flying over one of the moons most amazing craters, that film would have likely been taken of these amazing features... »

But Apollo 14 DID NOT fly over Tsiolkovsky. The crater is at 20.4°S, and the orbital inclination of Apollo 14 was 14°. If film was shot at an oblique angle, why is it not in the online release? Why is Tsiolkovsky not noted as a filming target in the index map?
https://archive.org/details/Apollo1416mmOnboardFilm
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/apollo14/as14indexmap01/

« Since these S-band settings were adjusted at the time they flew over Tsiolkovsky... »

Again, THEY DID NOT fly over Tsiolkovsky. The high gain antenna settings were for AOS and nothing to do with filming. I've shown you the control panel switches that correspond to the transcript you published, there can be no possible doubt about this.

« There is still the possibility that Acquisition is a reference to the DAC. »

No there is not, see above.

« Say what you want, but I have the right to my opinion. »

Very true Bret, but you do not have a right to your own facts.

Trekker said...

Bret, the moon has been extensively imaged at a resolution of up to 0.5m per pixel. If there was anything anomalous there, it would be visible at that resolution, as well as at many of the other resolutions visible as you zoom out - 1m, 2m, 4m, 8m, etc. per pixel. Why don't we see evidence of anything unusual?

Bret Sheppard said...

I do have the right to my own facts, and experience with this nonsense, but didn't need my own. Those are NASA's facts that I posted.

jourget said...

Looks like Bret thinks that unless something is specifically denied in official documents, the "possibility" exists, and that's more than enough to keep him happy.

Since there's nothing about it in any document I've seen, I'd like to argue that Shepard smuggled Arnold Palmer himself aboard Apollo 14 so he could golf on the lunar surface. Sure, there's all kinds of evidence to the contrary, but the "possibility" is there, right?

This is a way of thinking that I've never been able to comprehend. Not just concocting a ridiculous theory in a vacuum, but actually being confronted with information that explains your arguments away, and then upping the ante. "Yeah, that seems to make sense, but it also doesn't say that I'm wrong, so my fairy tale is still a possibility".

And then that "my opinion" line! Yeah, if it's your opinion, go for it, man. But follow me closely here: You. Are. Saying. It. Is. True. To. Other. People. It's going to do your credibility a hell of a lot of favors if you do your "learning more about the scientific possibilities" before you start spouting off.

It's a complicated subject. No one will judge you for getting stuff wrong, if you do some research first. If you pull this crap about purporting to find aliens and then say you're not an expert and still learning, then you deserve to be laughed at.

Bret Sheppard said...

I don't care about credibility. I care about inspiration, and this page is full of uninspiring dead facts, that do not promote independent thought. Oberg's bogus page can only result in insults, to those who can think at all. Yes, for all I know they exchanged Elephants to entertain their new alien friends. NASA and our government lied so much, that it is really hard to say what the truth is after all of these years. I am just one of those kids who grew up admiring their accomplishments, and all I have seen Oberg do is diminish them with this sham. Many people have experienced some kind of communication with extraterrestrials, and yes sadly they are laughed at, until it happens to them. Jim Oberg's credibility is in danger here, not my lack of credibility. I wasn't there working with the Apollo program, but Oberg had some part in it, yet for some reason he refuses to answer simple questions about his job, or why he attacks anyone who discusses the Apollo program, UFO's or bases on the moon. This seems to lack faculties to me, and is a bit obsessive, especially if he is not even paid to do it. So say hello to all your different fake accounts Jim, everyone knows about them. Hey Jim I might have spelled something wrong, or may have gotten a small fact wrong, like flew by Tsiolkovsky instead of over it. You might want to get your judgment stick out, and play with it. You are not perfect and neither is Robert Shaefer or any of you predators.

expat said...

« I don't care about credibility. I care about inspiration, and this page is full of uninspiring dead facts, that do not promote independent thought. »

Well, there you have it, folks. Bret's book is not supposed to be factual, but to afford inspiration to those who think facts are dead. I've made a note of it.

jourget said...

Okay, you say they lied so much that the truth can be hard to figure out. So how can you say that you have the right of it with any of your alien stuff? If, as you admit, you're no expert, why on Earth should anyone believe you instead?

I mean, it's not like you're poking holes in what NASA (or Jim Oberg, or Expat, or anyone) has said. You're just demonstrating that you haven't done enough research. The S-Band surface antenna carried aboard the LM is fairly basic stuff. The manual S-band steering on the CSM maybe less so, but still easily accessible to anyone who looks into it. You didn't even know this information existed, let alone prove that NASA was lying about it.

That's what I'm talking about when I talk about credibility. You need to prove that you've got better evidence to explain what's going on, not just make up a story that fits into whatever you haven't learned about yet.

Here's a better question: What would convince you that you're wrong? Sky is no limit. What information do you need that could convince you that NASA isn't lying about aliens? Because hey, like you said, you're no expert. As we've seen, it's very possible that the information that could convince you is out there and you just haven't found it yet. So what do you need? Let us help.

OneBigMonkey said...

@Bret, Apollo 14 did not go anywhere near Tsiolkovskiy crater. I have personally plotted every photograph and the location of the 16mm footage taken from lunar orbit and they went nowhere near it. See for yourself

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/kmz/apollokmz.html

Tsiolkovskiy was a distant feature on the horizon - read the transcripts, they don't say that it's "down there" or "below us", they say "over there". As in 'in the distance'.

Other missions overflew it, they recording nothing unusual and the same is true of every unmanned mission that has photographed it. It is spectacular, sure, but it doesn't need fairy dust sprinkling over it to make it special.

Furthermore, they were not in the LM when the passage under discussion here was filmed, they were in the CSM.

Oh, and if you're going to c&p wikipedia, don't think people won't spot it.

Anonymous said...

When did Oberg lose his British accent? Hey, debunking can be fun! It's easier than peer review, science, and when it selectively attacks facts out of context, it can bury, valid, supporting evidence. Nevertheless, it puts the ball back in the court of the one making the original assertions. The conundrum however, is that the proponent isn't entitled to rebuttal on the debunking tolls' page. It would seem that this instance is the rare, exception.

expat said...

Bret Sheppard wrote:

« Since these S-band settings were adjusted at the time they flew over Tsiolkovsky, I would say the chances are more than likely that film, and or TV signals were sent back to Earth, and probably both. »

They never flew over Tsiolkovsky. They were out of contact with Earth. Other than that, your comment is compelling, Bret.

Trekker said...

These Apollo 14 index maps show the directions in which photos were taken. In the case of Tsiolkovskiy, it's clear that the spacecraft didn't fly OVER it, but imaged it way off in the distance.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/apollo14/

Bret Sheppard said...

Thank you for the insight to how lowly debunking is. People shouldn't assume your human. They did fly near Tsiolkovsky per transcript on the way to Langemak crater they were gauking at Tsiolkovsky and were so close they noticed the reddish colors and colors in general, unless you believe that the flight plan always goes according to plan. They had two 16mm cameras aboard so no matter whether they sent video back via s-band or took 16mm DAC shots, the transcripts point to the only time that could have happened, and I have demonstrated that it is possible. Flight plans are just flight plans not mission reports. Your right it is unusual for debunkers to troll people as themselves they usually use a name like Ex-Pat or S- Harris.

Bret Sheppard said...

It is your definitive belief that Apollo 14 didn't fly near Tsiolkovsky, Thank you for turning science into what it really is, a belief system. All you can really say is that it didn't but I'm only open to the possibility, aside from my belief that they did film it, and pointing out when they did if they did.

OneBigMonkey said...

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of recorded fact. I suggest you look at a lunar atlas and see where Langemak and Necho actually are. The reddish colour they mention is not Tsiolkovskiy crater, it is Necho (as determined by their description of it). The orbital path of Apollo 14 is proven by the location of the photographs they actually took, not by the photographs you wish they had taken.

You can not pluck up an accusation that something exists out of thin air, then use the absence of that thing as proof that it existed in the first place. The orbit and timeline of Apollo shows that they did not fly over Tsiolkovskiy, all they did was see it on the horizon in the distance. If you want pictures of from orbit of that crater taken by Apollo I suggest you look at the ones taken by Apollo 15 & 17.

expat said...

Bret...

« ...they were gauking at Tsiolkovsky and were so close they noticed the reddish colors ... »

No, Bret, the reddish color was in Necho.

« They had two 16mm cameras aboard so no matter whether they sent video back via s-band or took 16mm DAC shots... »

No, Bret, only one 16mm camera. You can't seem to get it into your head that a) they were in the Command Module and b) they were out of contact with Houston so could not have sent video. If you say they shot 16mm film, where is it? Why is Tsiolkovsky not noted as a target on the index map?

« It is your definitive belief that Apollo 14 didn't fly near Tsiolkovsky, »

No, Bret, it is not. The CSM/LM combo came within 6° of Tsiolkovsky.

Who is S- Harris?

expat said...

Good point monkey. Apollo 15 absolutely DID overfly Tsiolkovsky, more than once. The crew didn't point the DAC at it--they didn't need to because on that mission they had the mapping cam in the Service Module. The index map is a guide to the mapping cam targets.

Anonymous said...

NASA controls the data. For all we really know, the US Naval Black Spacecraft Fleet is currently at war with the aliens on the far side of the Moon.

expat said...

... except that there's no such thing as the US Naval Black Spacecraft Fleet, and there are no aliens.

Anonymous said...

Contradictions, notwithstanding.

Bret Sheppard said...

Yet did it say in the transcripts that Ed Mitchell took the DAC handheld camera from the Lunar Module home with him when entered the CSM ? If it didn't say he took it anywhere in the transcript, then we certainly didn't know everything, including what they filmed or didn't film. In fact we don't know what they actually saw, if there was evidence of any deception. Just because it doesn't say in the official documents doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist about everything I said. http://www.space.com/13446-apollo-astronaut-moon-camera-lawsuit-settlement.html

expat said...

« Just because it doesn't say in the official documents doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist about everything I said. »

Well, no Bret.
There is no possibility that the S-band antenna visible in AS12-48-7135 was something "that they couldn't possibly fit in the LEM."

There is no possibility that Edgar Mitchell's words "I'm all set up for this acquisition" refer to the camera.

There is no possibility that Ed Mitchell's words "OK, HIGH GAIN, MANUAL, and WIDE" refer to camera settings.

There is no possibility that these words were spoken in the LM.

There is no possibility that anything was transmitted from Apollo 14 to Houston at MET 03:14:29:26.

expat said...

Oh, and by the way...

There is no possibility that a balloon was used to ensure a soft touchdown for any LM. In fact, there is no possibility that a balloon would develop any lift at all, in the absence of atmosphere.

OneBigMonkey said...

Here's a view of what they would have seen of Tsiolkovskiy. I have position the view above the orbital path of Apollo 14 at a height of 90km, slightly below the aposelene of 118Km they could have been, and on the orbital path of the mission as determined by the line of photographs they took from orbit.

http://i.imgur.com/5ZOdNG2.jpg

This is AS14-71-9841

http://i.imgur.com/6zg2pxS.jpg

The original is very underexposed so I have used Photoshop to brighten it up. No other changes have been made. The large crater on the right near the horizon is Langemak. The one on the left is Danjon and its smaller companion D'Arsonval. Tsiolkovskiy would be just about visible off to the left hand side of this image on the horizon. You can recreate this view yourself in Google Moon very easily.

This should tell you why they would have no idea what was in Tsiolkovskiy.

OneBigMonkey said...

In the interests of fairness here is AS14-71-9842 - I have again adjusted the brightness, particularly in the top left hand corner, which is where Tsiolkovskiy is. The two main craters you can make out just off centre are Dobrovol'skiy and Shirakatsi.

http://i.imgur.com/4O4s7DY.jpg

Looking at the photo index shows that both 9841 and 9842 were taken in TEC when they were on the way home. At that point in the mission Tsiolkovskiy was on the lunar terminator, which is why these two images are so dark.

Trekker said...

One Big Monkey,

According to this map:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/apollo14/as14indexmap03/150dpi.jpg,

they would have had two other oblique views of Tsiolkovskiy. See Magazine T, images AS14/71/9885 and AS14/71/9888, here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?71

OneBigMonkey said...

Indeed Trekker. Those are also taken in TEC, like the two I linked to. It hasn't been denied that Tsiolkovskiy can be seen in photos taken during TEC, what I and others deny is that it was overflown by Apollo 14 during its mission and filmed or photographed in detail. For some reason this has been latched on to by Bret and his mentors using the classic conspiracy theory alien hunter circular logic I alluded to above, namely:

I believe (for reasons best known to myself) that x exists. I can't find evidence of x, therefore someone is hiding it. Because someone is hiding it, it exists.

Anonymous said...

Who's Bret Sheppard, again?

Trekker said...

Oh, I understand what you're saying, One Big Monkey, and am not disagreeing with you at all!

It would seems obvious to anyone looking at the index maps which show the direction and surface cover of every single photo taken, that they didn't fly over Tsiolkovskiy, but just imaged it obliquely from a distance.

I don't know why some people can't see that.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me this guy's job is to trivialize the work of Richard C. Hoagland, through exaggeration. Why don't you review the recent discoveries, of Gary Leggiere? He has discovered numerous anomalous artifacts, and presented them without trying to cash in.

expat said...

It's news to me that Gary has made discoveries recently. All I've seen from him lately is a protest that Youtube nixed something he posted on grounds of copyvio.

I'll have another look-round.

Anonymous said...

If you go to Gary's facebutt page, and as Hoagland would say, "scroll down," there's some previously, unnoticed images, to be found.

expat said...

I had a look but the nauseating religious propaganda drove me away. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Gary Leggiere
December 15, 2016 ·

In the area of Mars I call NEW CYDONIA,... Als,.. I FIND ANOTHER FACE OF MARS!! Interesting detailing & also feine-like. NOTICE The
Martian PYRAMID sitting under it!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154872097945229&set=pb.773430228.-2207520000.1491426599.&type=3&theater

expat said...

Thanks. Here's my review:

"That's rubbish. Not even worth a second look. When will Gary learn to cite the NASA/JPL ref numbers of images so reviewers can go back to the originals?"

Bill Belcher said...

interesting commentary banter back and forth. Like hitting ones head against a wall. Going completely off topic, here's another blog which may interest you!
http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/
I didn't realise there were so many.
Bill

Bret Sheppard said...

Thank you all for letting me have an opinion. All of your explanations seem reasonable to me based on what little evidence there is, but there are factors we really may never know based on that lack of evidence, and measuring anything extraterrestrial like our moon with earth related science doesn't seem logical at all. It seems like we would need more theories just to begin to understand how diverse the universe is. Science has failed in many of its theories here on earth perhaps we really aren't ready.

OneBigMonkey said...

Bret has posted his original comment on this blog on his facebook page. I would respond there but I suspect it would not last long. He doesn't acknowledge the wiki sources he lifts verbatim but he does at least link to here, so maybe people will see the responses he has been given.

In a reply to his own comment he quotes a source saying that S-Band was transmitted through White Sands in New Mexico. He illustrates this with a photo buyt gives no indication as to what the significance of this might be. Not only was Earth out of sight when he thinks they were flying over Tsiolkovskiy so that no TV (and particularly no film!) could be transmitted there by any means, but so was New Mexico. At the time in question the signals will have been sent via Australia as this was in view and the USA wasn't.

He also refers to an "S-Band video camera set up", posting an image of the MESA, to which a TV camera could be attached and which as a label saying "S-Band antenna cable". Technically, there was no 'S-Band camera', it was just a means of transmitting the TV signal. The MESA TV camera was used immediately after landing - it was outside the LM and hidden away until it was released on the surface. The command module had a separate camera.

All Bret seems to be doing is randomly vomiting facts on to a plate and hoping someone mistakes it for a meal.

expat said...

Update: Promoted OneBigMonkey's simulated view to the body of the post.

expat said...

Three off-topic comments by Gary Leggiere disallowed.z

Trekker said...

Expat, has Bret ever commented on how he believes alien satellite dishes on the moon worked?

You've taken Mike Bara to task on this issue in the past, pointing out that he's overlooked the very obvious questions: Which satellites were those dishes communicating with? And how did geo-stationery (seleno-stationery?) satellites stay in lunar orbit in the first place when calculations of the distance those satellites would have to orbit show that they would have been absorbed into Earth's Hill sphere, becoming satellites of earth, not the moon?

Has he ever shown that he's even considered these issues?

expat said...

Bret is an artist. He thinks facts are "dead," and inspiration is what counts. I'm perfectly sure he's never contemplated the Hill sphere problem.

Trekker said...

No, doesn't seem so. Maybe he thinks facts are 'fake news', to use an expression popular in today's political climate! :D

expat said...

But Bret, if you happen to be reading this, Trekker is perfectly right. A selenostationary orbit is impossible because it would take a satellite to the Earth side of the L1 libration point.

Now, for extra credit, can you demonstrate mathematically that this must be true for any tidally-locked moon?

Anonymous said...

You know Bret, you could probably get booked as a guest on, The Other Side of Midnight to be interviewed by the illustrious Richard C Hoagland, if you've got the dough for the broadcast gear to engineer the show.

George Benkel said...

Gary Leggiere Schiz

expat said...

It's only just occurred to me to wonder why Ed Mitchell, as LMP, was operating the Command Module controls. That should have been Stu Roosa's job. It's possible that the transcription typist got them confused.

expat said...

Several off-topic comments from "anonymous" disallowed. In general if I disallow anonymous comments I don't feel obliged to note the fact or explain why. I almost always explain why signed comments are nixed.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your blog in Firefox, it looks fine but
when opening in Internet Explorer,it has some overlapping.

I just wanted to giive yyou a quick hads up!
Other then that, exccellent blog!