It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SyFy Channel July 20, "ALIENS ON THE MOON: THE TRUTH EXPOSED"

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: FireMoon
I'll be interested to watch it to see if, a couple of photos that were "doing the rounds" back in the late 1970s and early 1980s are used. The copies I saw were Black and White and they did indeed purportedly show clear evidence of some kind of activity of an mechanical/industrial nature on the dark side of the moon. Strangely enough neither of the photos I saw have ever shown up in books or online. I say strange because, they were that good, that clear, you'd expect someone to have printed or published them anyway.

My personal thoughts are , if they do show up and the "moon crawler machine" referred to in the article does sound like content of one of them, is that. They are unauthorised and unreleased publicity shots from a TV series that was never made, well actually, it was made however, not as it was originally intended. The ITV series UFO was cancelled out of the blue and in the mid 70s a new series called Space 1999 was made and aired. However, the original plot was to be a continuation of the series UFO only, solely focused on Moonbase with very little action taking place on Earth. The plot is meant to have contained an "Alien Base" built on the Moon's dark side and I strongly suspect the photos are stills of the sets built for that unmade series. Anyway, will be interesting to see what they come up with.


Shows such as the coming one are not aimed at researchers as the info will be presented without sources where one has the ability to check the veracity of the presentation. I hate to be pre-negative but I don't think that NASA photo numbers will be included, or lunar locations or coordinates. Even if they show the photos from George Leonard's and Fred Steckling's books ("Somebody Else Is On the Moon" & "We Discovered Alien Bases On The Moon") some of which show alleged NASA numbers I found the numbers to be wrong and in the wrong format to boot.

We'll just have to wait and see what is presented and if what is presented can be found with proper research.




posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Could the producers have become aware of this thread and similar ones here and in other forums and borrowed from them?
NASA Moon Anomalies III - Other Peoples Work
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 12-7-2014 by Uggielicious because: Add copy



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I don't know in what direction the show will head but the following photo might be up their sleeve if they become aware of it as presented by Aulis. It does pose some questions which I'll ask.

The photo blurb alleges that a tripod-type mount was utilized instead of the 2 photos being taken by a chest-mounted camera. Each of the two photos was taken individually yet to those who don't know this they'll think it is a stereo pair with a stereo camera and those who enjoy free vision (a viewer is not needed as the eyeballs can be manipulated to join both images resulting in a third image that is in 3-D) as I do can see the 3-D effect. The two photos do not have to be identical but as close as possible. I have taken 2 single photos on purpose to form a stereo pair. I do not need a tripod. However, when you handhold a camera and shoot for 3-D you are not going to get identical photos as you first have to move the camera slightly sideways to imitate the same distance as the eyes. And in moving the camera the movements result in two almost identical photos with slight differences.

The NASA photo below, AS16-113-18340, is quizzical because if it was taken from a chest-mounted camera it would have resulted in two similar but not identical photos as shown. After the first photo was taken Duke must have asked Young to jump again or it might have been Young's idea. There would have some time between the shots, etc.

Yet, look at the photos - they're identical! Except for Young who, amazingly, duplicates the leap to the exact height as the first photo! Another problem: since the photos are identical yet in stereo, that means that after the first photo whatever the camera was resting on, and not on Duke's chest, it was moved to the side enough so that the second photo allows the 3-D effect! Not on chest, mounted and still moved! What happened?

www.aulis.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The Aulis site tells lies.

The jump salute photography sequence was broadcast on TV, and you can see the chest mounted camera. Part of the flagpole is obscured by poor video resolution, but it is all there.



And just to prove they tell lies I've superimposed those two photographs. I've rotated the two (yes, I had to rotate them, that's how identical they are) to centre them on the flag.



On this one I aligned it on the visoe. If you look carefully at the visor you'll see two flags and a different horizon, indicating that his head is at a different angle to the first shot.


Still think they're identical jumps?
edit on 13-7-2014 by onebigmonkey because: new photo



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The Aulis site tells lies.

The jump salute photography sequence was broadcast on TV, and you can see the chest mounted camera. Part of the flagpole is obscured by poor video resolution, but it is all there.

snip

And just to prove they tell lies I've superimposed those two photographs. I've rotated the two (yes, I had to rotate them, that's how identical they are) to centre them on the flag.

snip

On this one I aligned it on the visoe. If you look carefully at the visor you'll see two flags and a different horizon, indicating that his head is at a different angle to the first shot.


Still think they're identical jumps?


I didn't state that Young's leap was "identical" because it is evident that they are two separate leaps and there have to be differences. But the differences are minimal. What I was trying to get across is no chest-mounted camera is going to produce two IDENTICAL images, slightly moved to end up as a stereo pair. Let's use the left edge as an example. The distances in the two photos are perfectly matched to the lunar lander and the flagpole. One photo's left edge should have been more or less different than the other photo's left edge. There is no difference.

You did a nice job. Thanks for going that length.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Uggielicious

Thanks, and no problem, and point taken about your intent


However, the photographs are not identical - there's no apparent difference in their version because that's the way Aulis cropped it. The video footage demonstrates that it was taken with a chest mounted camera.

If you look at the originals you'll see how different the edges actually are.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Two ALSJ users have attempted to make stereo pairs of the two images:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here's what they say about the process:



"A bit of artistry was necessary to create credible stereo. In the left-right pair, Charlie captured John's first jump in 18339, which is on the right. In the original of 18340, we see that John isn't as far off the ground and is tilted to his left. In addition, there are footprints beneath him that he made when he landed after the first jump, a clear indication that John is closer to Charlie than he was in 18339. Creation of a credible anaglyph required removal of the image of John from 18340 and careful replacement with the image of John from 18339."


and



"John did two jumping salutes for Charlie, who took a picture each time John was near the top of his jump. Consequently, we are seeing not only from two slightly different view points but, also, when he was at slightly different places. The TV recordings of these jumps show that John was on the LM side of the flag. Combination of images from the two different jumps creates the impression that John is on Charlie's side of the flag. John also looks like he's jumped more than the half meter he actually achieved. In comparison, because the flag wasn't touched or moved between the two jumps, our stereoview of it is completely legitimate.


As for their specific claims, they make up some lie about him dangling on a wire (there isn't one visible in either photograph and the picture taking session repeated the process with Charli Duke, with the two of them walking past each other without getting tangled up.

There are, if you look at the high resolution photographs, quite clear footprints in the first image.

The position and behaviour of his legs is entirely consistent with him wearing a bulky suit.

The reflections are not identical in the visor.

The also seem puzzled that a man can jump roughly the same height (but not exactly the same height) on two occasions.

It's all hints and accusations and relying on the fact the people won't actually put the effort in.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Don't be surprised if the program doesn't air, I suspect. I've been checking Time Warner's program guide, alphabetically, and so far the title doesn't appear. Of course, SYFY isn't going to back off a show that seems to promise a record audience, particularly after you brought it to our attention, even after humorous articles such as this one: "Stasi: Never mind the border crisis — documentary tries to prove 'Aliens on the Moon' are real"
www.nydailynews.com...

Blurb under a photo of Kim Kardashian in the above article:
A SyFy documentary about aliens on the moon is reminiscent of 'Missile to the Moon,' a movie in which a dwindling race of women who looked like Kim Kardashian were defeated by Earthlings.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Ugg, here's the link you tried to share, THANK YOU for spotting this gem.

www.nydailynews.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Uggielicious

Thanks, and no problem, and point taken about your intent


However, the photographs are not identical - there's no apparent difference in their version because that's the way Aulis cropped it. The video footage demonstrates that it was taken with a chest mounted camera.

If you look at the originals you'll see how different the edges actually are.

snip

It's all hints and accusations and relying on the fact the people won't actually put the effort in.


I stand corrected and in the nicest, friendliest effort by an ATS member. I really appreciate the time you put into this and I feel sort of foolish considering that I'm always harping to the members about providing irrefutable evidence when making claims. I guess I'll go stand in the corner for a while.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Ugg, here's the link you tried to share, THANK YOU for spotting this gem.

www.nydailynews.com...


Thanks for the link, I don't know what went wrong with mine. How would you like to meet an alien that resembled Kim, especially from behind?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Finally!




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
SyFy's "Alien Bases on the Moon" is going to be a doozie for the tin foil hat crowd, I hear. Donna Hare is back with amazing new stuff she has "just remembered". Old retreads like Vito Saccheri and his underground corridors beneath Clear Lake, Texas, shows his face. Mike Bara, Richard Hoagland's glowering attack gerbil, pontificates. Even John Walston unveils his secret-design telescope that allows HIM to see all those secret space bases invisible to mere mortals. More fun than the proverbial barrel full.

[dup post in aldrin thread]



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Definitely will be tuning in



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
SyFy's "Alien Bases on the Moon" is going to be a doozie for the tin foil hat crowd, I hear. Donna Hare is back with amazing new stuff she has "just remembered". Old retreads like Vito Saccheri and his underground corridors beneath Clear Lake, Texas, shows his face. Mike Bara, Richard Hoagland's glowering attack gerbil, pontificates. Even John Walston unveils his secret-design telescope that allows HIM to see all those secret space bases invisible to mere mortals. More fun than the proverbial barrel full.

[dup post in aldrin thread]


I don't think I'll watch it live, I'll videotape it so that I can have the pleasure of fast-forwarding Hoagland's "glowering attack gerbil" 'cause I don't want to hear him pontificate on anything since as a human he is equal to those ticks that overpower moose and eventually kill them by sucking them dry of blood.

Walston (sic = Walson) is another lunar anomaly believing fool. A few years ago he claimed that a natural feature that can be see in a ton of lunar photos was an alien construction. He needs to videotape sharper lunar videos so that he can try to prove that his claims are worth bothering with. Out of focus, out of mind!



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The work by Allan Sturm, who 4 years ago bowed out of what he correctly perceives as one crazy scene of believers, seems to be central to this show. Yesterday he posted a very revealing note at the paracast forum in a thread discussing his departure four years ago:

www.theparacast.com...

So, there's at least one geek involved in the production. (Geek is a person whose motive is merely to find out the real deal on something.)

Also, the pictures that appear to be the focus of this show appear to be based on the resource gathering work by him:

lunomaly.com...

edit on 17-7-2014 by Atiasrama because: further identify material source for syfy show



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Nice info post @jimOberg

Seems to me that they have used youtube user 1967sander and his work a bit in this one. Clementine mission and project Gold Dragon. The x drones, and all the pictures that he proves NASA edited by his use of superb reconstruction/analysis software.

Here is one of his videos: m.youtube.com...

Br0ker



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Accidental double post. Making use of it by saying:

Could this documentary be why NASA came out with their alien life news today? Trying to play offence instead of defence?

edit on 17-7-2014 by br0ker because: Make use



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: br0ker

Looking at the press release of content, there just might be enough bad or not credible stuff they pass on that will diminish the impact of any good info they present. We'll just have to wait and see how they handle the stuff we
know is not credible (but which may have been added for entertainment value and to keep the excitable prone people watching for the full two hours). Maybe this less than credible material is airing as an example of how bs flows in this subject area? (A Pollyanna take probably.)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atiasrama
The work by Allan Sturm, who 4 years ago bowed out of what he correctly perceives as one crazy scene of believers, seems to be central to this show. Yesterday he posted a very revealing note at the paracast forum in a thread discussing his departure four years ago:

www.theparacast.com...

So, there's at least one geek involved in the production. (Geek is a person whose motive is merely to find out the real deal on something.)

Also, the pictures that appear to be the focus of this show appear to be based on the resource gathering work by him:

lunomaly.com...


I had that book - ULOs – Unidentified Lunar Objects Revealed in NASA Photography - and it was one of the worst attempts at fooling the public I've ever seen (good companion to '80s books: George Leonards' SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THE MOON and Fred Steckling's WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON).

What "ULOs..." proves is that there are no visible lunar anomalies in NASA photos/films. By enhancing the photos the alleged anomalies are given the life that doesn't exist. Imagine if that book was published without the color enhancing, just b&w photos, it wouldn't go anywhere 'cause the photos are not sharp enough on their own for anyone to appreciate lunar photography.

Oh, man, it's going to be such a sucky show it's going to take great mental strength to actually see it without being fitted for a straight jacket so that I can't access the VCR's remote control to interrupt the tape and just break down and cry!

edit on 17-7-2014 by Uggielicious because: To correct myself.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uggielicious



Oh, man, it's going to be such a sucky show it's going to take great mental strength to actually see it without being fitted for a straight jacket so that I can't access the VCR's remote control to interrupt the tape and just break down and cry!


Be sure to set up the safety screen like in 'Blues Brothers' C&W bar gig scene, in front of the TV so you don't damage it throwing things in its direction.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join