(Part 4 of Hoagland article)
(*Picture: This picture, which is a part of a larger one, shows Alan Bean standing, according to Hoagland, under a bluish glass-dome-sky.)
Hoagland points at the develope-process as a possibility for NASA to "temper" with the photos from the Apollo-missions. Hoagland finds it strange that there isn't any negative rolls of film from the Hasselblad cameras which Bean and Mitchell had on the bellys, only transparent film is kept. From those transparents NASA made the negatives that later became the paper-copys a.s.o. And Hoagland is right about the strange lost of the negatives, but as far as I know he's the only one that has claimed that NASA has lost them. But it's hard to get a clear picture as NASA has been unwilling to discuss Hoagland or his claims at all...
Hoagland and Johnston says that the Moons reflection of the sun makes the sky total black on the originals, which is right, as I think every owner of a camera can agree on. But it was when Hoagland studied Johnstons color "originals" (remember, they are third generation in the process) that he realized that the sky wasn't at all black, but had a deep, deep bluish color. As the pictures are from Johnstons private stock, it's hard to dismiss it as a case of "rough handle" by NASA as he haven't (according to his own statement) touched the "originals" for 20 years. But does this color-difference mean anything? It could be an optical missfunction that Hoagland takes into his computer and runs through a number of logorhytmics that just enhance the optical miss from the beginning and we get this bluish glass-debris (in Hoaglands words) floating above Bean and Mitchell. Is it possible to get a hold on the camera that was used? It should be left at some museum so it can be tested for any optical mailfunction. Also, it would be interesting to see the pictures that Bean and Mitchell took from the shuttle before landing, if they have the same bluish color as the ones they took on the Lunar surface ?!?
Alan Bean totaly denies that he's has seen anything strange in the sky above the Moon. What is it that makes Hoagland to belive he's lying?
Ken Johnston describes how the film called: Apollo 12: Pinpoint For Science came about. Apearantly, the film that we have been shown in school where the Apollo 12 sweeps over the Lunar surface with a 16mm-camera is only a still-photo Bean took from the shuttle above the Moon that they placed on a table in Houston and sweept over it with the camera. NASA was in a hurry to use their new popularity (see: gaining bigger budget) and produced this film for the public use, but forgot to explain that it was a fake.
Hoagland took this wheathered film and had a Hollywood-firm to copy it to a video with a sofisticated system. From that video he took still-copys to rund through his photo-program and filters.
What does all this tells us then?
Well, for one thing, Hoagland took a wheathered old film that wasn't even in such shape to copy from the original machine, took hightech to copy it to a videotape and then had it digitalized and ran it through his filters where he found a number of anomalies. And I think I can say that there is a HIGH POSSIBILITY HERE that the film had scratches and dust that Hoagland enhanced and belive is "anomalies". It might not be anomalies, but the chance to that in opposite of the chance of misinterpreting, is almost down to zero if you ask me. And one thing that strikes me is: Has Hoagland ever mentioned if/how he cleaned the originals before running them through his various photo-filters?
(*Picture: This picture is one of the photos who is difficult to explain as a trick of computer-filters. Despite that the shadow of the sun is falling the wrong way - if you compare to the astronauts - the item reflected in Beans helmet aren't supposed to exist)
If Alan Bean is telling the truth (and Mitchell too) that he didn't see any artificial structures on the Moon - could it have been caused by the visors? The astronauts helmet visor was made of multiple-layer Lexan and on that they had a second visor made of Lexan with a cover of gold to reject the ultraviolet rays of the sun. Could this goldplate have made Bean to miss this enormous structures on the sky above them? No. On several photos the astronauts are taking photos with their gold-visor pulled up, so the chance that they could've missed the structures is not highly possible.
Another picture (see picture above) Hoagland use to support his claims is the one where Apollo 12's Pete Conrad and Alan Bean is taking photos of eachother with the still-camera on their chest and something is reflected in Beans visor. This photo is in favor of Hoaglands claims as the object reflected in the visor has its shadow shown on the ground behind Conrad. This is a case where two separate items fall into line and that makes it difficult to reject. But there is a big "BUT": the shadow comes down wrong if you compare it to the shadow of Bean and Conrad. But it could be trick mmade by the convex form of Beans helmet and visor that makes the object having its shadow fall from a different angle than we belive to see - but this is a big BUT!
Another interesting episode Ken Johnston describes is a private viewing of the film Apollo 14 took while in orbit above the Lunar surface.
During the viewing where Dr Thornton Page with his crew of scientists studied the film on the screen, the camera closes in on a big crater on the backside of the Moon. Inside the crater they can see 5-6 lights that covers half the size of the crater and theres gas coming out of the crater. Then Dr Page asks Johnston to stop, freeze and back up, and go back and forth several times... And then Dr Page turns to his associates and says: "Well, isn't that interesting!"
As Johnston shows the sequence of the film to his associates the next day - the lights are gone! When he confronts Dr Page with this, Page answers:
- There were no lights. There is nothing there".
If this true then NASA has another question to answer. Hoagland thinks it's time for president Clinton to open the NASA-files so the matter can be solved once and for all. As a step in that direction CNNs space-correspondent John Holleman has shown interest in making a big interview with Hoagland about his thesis and photos, according to Hoagland. Nothing has come out of this up to date, but if it does, I'm sure the topic will find it's way into the halls of power as it is election year and all in the US...