PDA

View Full Version : Classified Apollo Images



tofu
2006-Apr-26, 03:10 PM
I just ran across this and found it kind of amusing, this website:

http://www.mysterymag.com/theunexplained/?page=article&subID=101&artID=181

makes the following claim:

The following are photograph document numbers that are classified in the archives of NASA, but those who visit NASA's web page on the internet will know that the following photographs, don't exist according to NASA... If you would like to contact NASA and ask them for the following pictures, good luck...

AS 11-37-5438

AS 13-60-8622

AS 13-61-8865

AS 12-50-7346

AS 12-51-7553

AS 14-70-9836

AS 12-49-7319

AS 14-70-9835

AS 14-70-9835

AS 12-49-7319

AS 14-70-9835

AS 14-70-9835


I haven't heard this addressed anywhere. The first thing that I find amusing is that his list includes AS 14-70-9835 at least four times. In my humble opinion, if this guy had spent any time at all searching for the images on his list, then he would have noticed that he had duplicates. The fact that he didn't notice suggests to me that he never bothered to look.

It took me under a minute to find the image index for the apollo 14 photo magazine number 70. Image 9835 is right there where it's supposed to be.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/Ap14_Mag70.jpg

(warning, that's a large image - I link to the thumbs so that you can see the sequence)

Of course, if I were to email the author of this page and point him to this image, he would claim that it has been added recently to perpetuate the cover up. My response is, "since I have evidence that you never bothered to look for the image yourself, how would you know if it was actually missing at some point in the past?"

anyway, just thought I would pass this along.

gwiz
2006-Apr-26, 03:37 PM
I googled on AS 11-37-5438 and found it is well known amongst those who claim that the astronauts photographed UFOs.

tofu
2006-Apr-26, 03:48 PM
So one group claims: here is the pic - it shows a UFO

and another group claims: this pic is classified and nobody has seen it

nice

BertL
2006-Apr-26, 04:29 PM
I managed to find just about all of those pictures, either here (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) or here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/).

Lord Jubjub
2006-Apr-27, 02:03 AM
AS 12-49-7319 is also listed twice, so that makes 8 classified pictures not 12.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Apr-27, 02:33 AM
These are the only two I found [easily] on a NASA website:
AS11-37-5438 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/20130568.jpg)
AS12-49-7319 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7319.jpg)

I found these on another website (The Lunar and Planetary Institute):
AS13-60-8622 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS13-60-8622)
AS13-61-8865 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS13-61-8865)
AS12-50-7346 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-50-7346)
AS12-51-7553 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-51-7553)
AS14-70-9836 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9836)
AS14-70-9835 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9835)

Hardly "classified"... :rolleyes:

Nicolas
2006-Apr-27, 07:14 AM
These all happen to be photo's that were claimed to be UFO photo's by some.

nomuse
2006-Apr-27, 11:15 AM
Obviously they are classified "Topmost Secret"; a classification so classified almost no-one is allowed to know it exists when it is applied to a document.

gwiz
2006-Apr-27, 11:29 AM
These all happen to be photo's that were claimed to be UFO photo's by some.
...and claimed by others to be demonstrations of the fact that glass reflects light.

Nicolas
2006-Apr-27, 04:25 PM
:D

I did not want to discuss the UFO's themselves. It's just strange that somebody makes a list of so called classified images, while all these images are being used by the UFO crowd as well. One CT'er denying the others? :D

NEOWatcher
2006-Apr-27, 05:43 PM
:D

I did not want to discuss the UFO's themselves. It's just strange that somebody makes a list of so called classified images, while all these images are being used by the UFO crowd as well. One CT'er denying the others? :D
I thought that ALL the images are classified. Classified by mission, magazine and image.

Or does classified always mean secret, just like UFO always means alien intelligence?

Nicolas
2006-Apr-27, 08:25 PM
And just like "not disproven" always means "equally valid, equally reasonable, equally probable possibility"...

gwiz
2006-Apr-28, 07:39 AM
Classified has come to mean secret because the spooks classify documents according to how damaging it would be if they were revealed to an outsider. If you work in the defence industry, you will come across plenty of documents marked RESTRICTED, but very rarely see one marked TOP SECRET.

Obviousman
2006-Apr-28, 07:59 AM
Classified has come to mean secret because the spooks classify documents according to how damaging it would be if they were revealed to an outsider. If you work in the defence industry, you will come across plenty of documents marked RESTRICTED, but very rarely see one marked TOP SECRET.

Not quite; the originator of the document classifies it, although the classification might be changed by a higher authority. The classification is, as you say, made with the potential harm to national security if the item was released without proper authorisation.

On top of this you have 'caveats' which are applied to the classification. Many in Defence might see RESTRICTED, SECRET, or even TOP SECRET (TS) items. An item might, however, be classifed SECRET TADPOLE. TADPOLE would refer to a special compartmentalisation for a specific programme or activity. It might refer to, as a hypothetical example, intelligence gathering from satellites. Therefore you might have RESTRICTED PLATE, SECRET TADPOLE, or TOP SECRET CRAYON. PLATE, TADPOLE, and CRAYON would all refer to the same programme (intelligence from satellites). This means just because you have a TS clearance, you would not be allowed to see RESTRICTED PLATE material. You would have to be 'briefed' on the programme, told about penalties for unauthorised release, etc. You'd then be cleared for access to that caveat (codeword) material up to your clearance level (secret, TS, etc).

If you were cleared for TS CRAYON, it wouldn't mean you were cleared for RESTRICTED DESKTOP material - DESKTOP would refer to a seperate programme (for example, radio intercepts) which would require a seperate briefing.

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-28, 09:01 AM
Heh. I'm working for an Oil Exploration company currently and 99% of the documents I see are marked Restricted. Basically means that their contents aren't to be discussed with those outside the company. Not because they would nesessarily be damaging legally, but because a compeditor might be able to gain some sort of advantage from it. The materials themselves are really boring, currently I'm just creating an asset register of a local gas well and production site from the site drawings so that it can be imported in their main database program. Still even the documents that just describe how to name the equipment locations themselves are considered restricted materials.

sts60
2006-Apr-28, 06:50 PM
In the U.S., there's a bewildering array of designations. (Reminds me of a National Lampoon superhero-type cartoon, Befuddling Tales of a Legion of Elements. Hydrogen and Oxygen get in a fight and wreck the Oval Office. But I digress.)

The business world has Proprietary (and Competition Sensitive), which means you can't divulge it publicly or to other businesses. The government (in particular the State Dept.) is behind an enormous amount of export restrictions, and the official label Export Controlled gets slapped on lots and lots of things. Then there's Official Use Only, which means you're supposed to keep it in a drawer and not release it without an approved FOIA request.

The word "classified" kicks in after that. The lowest level is Confidential. Then there's Secret and Top Secret and equivalent clearances in the Dept. of Energy. There's Restricted Data (pertaining to certain go-boom stuff) and Formerly Restricted Data, which is actually still restricted - does your head hurt yet? There's NOFORN (no release to foreign entities), RELCAN (releasable to U.S. and Canadian and I think British with appropriate clearances) and SCI (secret compartmentalized information) and oh my goodness, it goes on and on. And all of it is based on need to know - you don't just get to see whatever because you're cleared at that level, as Obviousman pointed out.

Heh, I have a friend who used to work on a project for which he couldn't even tell me (with my-then Secret clearance) the name of the clearance I needed to have for him to tell me the acronym of the name of his project. I probably would have needed a higher clearance just for him to have killed me ;-) And, no, he never told me.

Jim
2006-Apr-28, 07:29 PM
... The first thing that I find amusing is that his list includes AS 14-70-9835 at least four times. In my humble opinion, if this guy had spent any time at all searching for the images on his list, then he would have noticed that he had duplicates. The fact that he didn't notice suggests to me that he never bothered to look. ...

No, no, no. You misunderstood! He did look for the images and was unable to load them. (Conjecture: Large images, 28k dial-up connection, his browser timed out and he thought that meant the images weren't there.)

Anyway, he obviously took this search seriously. He even tried to access that one image four times and listed it each time it failed to load.

Now that's dedication!

JayUtah
2006-Apr-28, 10:21 PM
RELCAN (releasable to U.S. and Canadian and I think British with appropriate clearances)

Yes to the British; I work regularly on DOE materials that can be shared with certain British subjects working in the United States, but not with other foreign nationals.

Reynoldbot
2006-Apr-29, 08:35 AM
Those are the vaguest UFO's I've ever seen. Look! In the sky! It's a fuzzy glob of indistinct light! They look almost like, like, lens flare!

Alberto
2006-Apr-30, 09:08 PM
These images doesn't look like lens flare:
AS14-70-9835 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9835)
AS14-70-9836 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9836)
AS14-70-9837 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9837)

Is it a waste dump?

Also I think this, AS12-50-7346 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-50-7346), is the SIV-B, although I'm not sure...

JimTKirk
2006-Apr-30, 11:23 PM
These images doesn't look like lens flare:
AS14-70-9835 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9835)
AS14-70-9836 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9836)
AS14-70-9837 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-70-9837)

Is it a waste dump?

Also I think this, AS12-50-7346 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-50-7346), is the SIV-B, although I'm not sure...

My uneducated guess for the first three is sunlight reflected onto the lunar surface from the command module.:D

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Apr-30, 11:49 PM
A smudge on the window, lit up by the Sun?

OMG, somebody breathed on the window.
Bad astronaut.
:eh:

JayUtah
2006-May-01, 08:49 PM
Too far away for the CSM reflection to make a spot like that on the surface.

One hypothesis would be that it's the out-of-focus view of one of the many gadgets extended from the SM while in lunar orbit. Those sometimes sneak their way into photographs.

Another hypothesis is that it's the reflection in the window of a brightly-lit object in the CM cabin. This type of reflection happens frequently when photographing through windows.

A third hypothesis would be interreflection in the window elements. The streaks of light elsewhere in the pictures suggest the phase angle of this photograph is nearly 180 degrees. Depending on the photographer's orientation to the window, there can be some adverse reflections between the window panes and from the interior edge of the window frame.

Alberto
2006-May-02, 05:40 PM
That sounds more reasonable. I couldn't figure out how a reflection on the surface could make that. I researched a bit after I posted and found in this site (http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html) that a water dump (http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/a12_corralitos.jpg) should look bigger and different from what I supposed. I was misled by its appearance, because seems to be spreading and fading on the successive photos.

It's interesting how a normal photo becomes an UFO. Take as12-50-7341 (http://ilewg.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-50-7341), crop and resize it a few times, play with the contrast and brightness, and what do you have? An "UFO (http://www.edicolaweb.net/nonsoloufo/f_ufo038.jpg)" that can be nicely placed with the "These babies are huge" dialog!

By the way, Jay, I read somewhere else in the Forum that you preferred to finish dealing with the HB arguments before starting any UFO section in Clavius, but it would be great to gather all the UFO debunking in one place: R.A.F's lunar smokestack, the EVA floodlight UFO and so on. It's very scattered right now.

Pip
2006-May-02, 07:18 PM
The following are photograph document numbers that are classified in the archives of NASA, but those who visit NASA's web page on the internet will know that the following photographs, don't exist according to NASA... If you would like to contact NASA and ask them for the following pictures, good luck...

AS 11-37-5438

AS 13-60-8622

AS 13-61-8865

AS 12-50-7346

AS 12-51-7553

AS 14-70-9836

AS 12-49-7319

AS 14-70-9835

AS 12-49-7319

Looks like they removed some, but not all of the extras. AS 12-49-7319 is still on there twice.

SactoGuy88
2006-Jun-04, 04:46 AM
Speaking of Apollo, our old friend Richard C. Hoagland is up to his old tricks again trying to prove there are "glass towers" on the Moon several miles high.

That idea is totally silly, given that with today's telescopes with 70 cm or larger main mirrors built by well-heeled amateur astronomers people should be able to pick out such a large object fairly easily. Hoagland claims even a 100 cm main mirror telescope couldn't resolve such an object but I don't believe him. :liar:

Superluminal
2006-Jun-04, 06:33 AM
Well, duh. If they are made of glass they would be transparent. You would need the special Hoagland filter to see them.

Maksutov
2006-Jun-04, 07:10 AM
RELCAN (releasable to U.S. and Canadian and I think British with appropriate clearances)

Yes to the British; I work regularly on DOE materials that can be shared with certain British subjects working in the United States, but not with other foreign nationals.Yes, NOFORN is NOFORN, even if you're Stephen Harper or Tony Blair.

Plus RESTRICTED should be CRD (CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED DATA), unless things have changed since I was a classifier.

Then there's something called "weapons" which I can't talk about.

mugaliens
2006-Jun-04, 07:38 AM
...currently I'm just creating an asset register of a local gas well and production site from the site drawings so that it can be imported in their main database program.

You have revealed top secret material. Your job will be dissolved immediately, and you will forfeit all pay.

Sincerely,

The Oil Exploration Company

PhantomWolf
2006-Jun-04, 08:17 AM
Heh.

SactoGuy88
2006-Jun-04, 01:27 PM
Well, duh. If they are made of glass they would be transparent. You would need the special Hoagland filter to see them.

But if they're glass at certain angles these objects would also strongly reflect sunlight, too. That would be a dead giveaway, especially when the Moon is in the half moon phase when seen from Earth. The very fact no Earthbound astronomer has seen the sun reflections from these supposed "towers" is good reason why I don't believe Hoagland. :naughty:

Count Zero
2006-Jun-04, 04:18 PM
If the astronomers don't see anything unusual, that proves that there are invisible towers on the moon!

PhantomWolf
2006-Jun-05, 03:19 AM
Well we all know that the Evil Astonomers of Earth, Amatuer and Professional (EAEAP) are second only to the Illuminati, the Masons, The World Bank, and The Bush Mafia. ;)

Mellow
2006-Jun-05, 11:47 AM
Woo Woo Woo Woooooooowwwwww Howling at the moon indeed.
;-)