NASA’s 1971 Apollo 15 Video Clip Shows UFO Parked On Lunar Surface Observing Moon Landing, (?)

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE


Hey "X" a HI-RES image with your low res BS over it




Want to explain how they match

Holy crap! I just discovered another UFO in this video in a totally different location so the "hill explanation" cannot be used, with this UFO there is clear space underneath it, and it has the exact shape as the other UFO which is supposed to be a "hill":



So it automatically can't be a hill because its low resolution? We can't believe any video or picture before 1970 because they were all low resolution?

It occurs at 2:11 in the video, and the more clear UFO occurs at 2:57 in the video.



Comparison between the video at 2:11 and 2:57, are not they quite similar?





Original NASA footage:

NASA Moon UFO footage

a reply to: wmd_2008

Who cares about that picture? All I care about is the video, and it is clear in stills that is no hill,

Where is the rest of the hill in this picture? The low resolution made it disappear?



Why is there space between the UFO and the ground? Do you deny it is there? Is the space caused again by low resolution?



Why is there a distinct shadow underneath this object as you would expect from a craft that is hovering and not expect to see in a hill? Due to low resolution again?



And finally how about this new object I found at a totally different location which CLEARLY has space between it and the ground and looks quite similar to the other object? Ice crystal? Space junk?

ATTENTION:

KNOCK OFF THE PERSONAL INSULTS AND BICKERING or Posting Ban's may be next.

Blaine91555
Moderator

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: admirethedistance

Do you think I should listen to you and not think for myself?

Not at all. I don't want anybody to blindly accept anything I say. But when every image clearly shows a hill, and everybody but you and one other person agrees, beyond any doubt, that it's a hill, maybe it's time to re-think your position.

I think that if these images CLEARLY showed a hill this thread would not exist and none of us would be discussing it.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: admirethedistance

Do you think I should listen to you and not think for myself?

Not at all. I don't want anybody to blindly accept anything I say. But when every image clearly shows a hill, and everybody but you and one other person agrees, beyond any doubt, that it's a hill, maybe it's time to re-think your position.

I think that if these images CLEARLY showed a hill this thread would not exist and none of us would be discussing it.

The crappy, low-resolution video doesn't show anything clearly. The high-resolution images that obviously show the same area, however, do show it, rather conclusively, to be a hill.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: admirethedistance

Do you think I should listen to you and not think for myself?

Not at all. I don't want anybody to blindly accept anything I say. But when every image clearly shows a hill, and everybody but you and one other person agrees, beyond any doubt, that it's a hill, maybe it's time to re-think your position.

I think that if these images CLEARLY showed a hill this thread would not exist and none of us would be discussing it.

The crappy, low-resolution video doesn't show anything clearly. The high-resolution images that obviously show the same area, however, do show it, rather conclusively, to be a hill.

Of course high-resolution is better than low resolution, I'm not arguing that.

But the high-resolution images were taken at a different time (which I agree doesn't really matter) and not from the exact position and height as the video was taken which does matter. Also it appears NASA has artificially brightened the one area of the hill which they claim matches with the UFO.

Why would the bright area on a hill match the outline of a UFO? Coincidence? Or by design?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

They didn't "artificially brighten" anything. It's called shadows. Look at the angle the sun is hitting everything else in the image, and the resulting shadows. They're identical.

a reply to: admirethedistance

Plus NASA's hill explanation does not explain the other UFO image I found which has clear space between it and the ground, and though even some will claim it is just space junk or ice crystals has a shape which is surprisingly similar to the other UFO which some claim is a hill.

Is this a hill as well?



2:11 in the video

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Looks like another hill to me...The part that you say is space underneath it, clearly isn't. It's obviously the same object, in shadow.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE I see the thing that should not be there, and it isn't a hill.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE


But the high-resolution images were taken at a different time (which I agree doesn't really matter)

Actually it does, because lighting conditions changed over the course of the mission as the lunar day progressed.

Also it appears NASA has artificially brightened the one area of the hill which they claim matches with the UFO.

NASA hasn't done anything. You can see that same thing in probes from China, India and Japan. It's a surface feature.

NASA aren't claiming anything about it, they just publish the photographs and broadcast the TV.

Why would the bright area on a hill match the outline of a UFO? Coincidence? Or by design?

It doesn't. It's in your imagination.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

Plus NASA's hill explanation does not explain the other UFO image I found which has clear space between it and the ground,

No, it doesn't have clear space and it is not a UFO.

and though even some will claim it is just space junk or ice crystals

Don't put words in people's mouths - no-one has said that.

has a shape which is surprisingly similar to the other UFO which some claim is a hill.

Is this a hill as well?

Yes.

The dark portion of the image is the base of Mons Hadley, and the bit you think is a UFO is actually part of the Rimae Fresnel. It can also be seen in photos, for example AS15-85-11427

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Looks like another hill to me...The part that you say is space underneath it, clearly isn't. It's obviously the same object, in shadow.

I just want to clarify, if you don't mind.

This 2nd UFO, no where near the "claimed" hill which many say is another UFO, you say is another hill? Even though its shape is like the other UFO and there is clearly a definite space between it and the ground?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Why was a UFO shape added into that picture? It is fairly obvious that part has been photo-shopped in, not a good job at all....

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

It is fairly obvious that you are desperately clutching at straws here.

A "UFO shape" has not been added to the picture. You seem to have a very narrow definition of what shape UFOs are supposed to have, and it seems to correspond very well to early cold war science fiction films. I thought you were claiming it was actually a UFO? If it's been added later, then it isn't UFO now is it?

The hill (and that is what it is) has absolutely not been added to the photo, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it has been photoshopped.

Try looking at the 16mm footage from EVA2, you can see your supposed UFO emerge from behind Mons Hadley (fast forward to around 3:45 onwards):



(The sound has been added later, the original footage had no audio).

That little mound in the distance appears in several other Apollo 15 images, and I have original copies of the photos in my 100% original copy of the Preliminary Science Report, produced waaaaay before Photoshop had ever been invented.

You can also look at the views of the area taken by Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes that show that hill in exactly the right place.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Looks like another hill to me...The part that you say is space underneath it, clearly isn't. It's obviously the same object, in shadow.

I just want to clarify, if you don't mind.

This 2nd UFO, no where near the "claimed" hill which many say is another UFO, you say is another hill? Even though its shape is like the other UFO and there is clearly a definite space between it and the ground?

Yes, it's another hill, and there is no space between it and the ground. smh

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

They didn't "artificially brighten" anything. It's called shadows. Look at the angle the sun is hitting everything else in the image, and the resulting shadows. They're identical.

There is an obvious problem with a belief in the Moon Hoax & ufo's on the Moon and undestanding shadows here is a classic from a Moon Hoax believer post a while back.



Arrows everywhere supposedly explaining the shadows on the ground could not be caused by just one light source I am afraid X seems to have problem understanding shadows as well.

Yeah, sorry, this is not a hill,



just as this is not a hill,



If you guys won't believe your own eyes and would prefer sad photo-shopped pics from an agency that would be disbanded in a day if the truth of the alien interaction with earth came out - that is your choice.

NASA is living on borrowed time. With the proliferation of smart phones and Youtube it is only a matter of time before additional definitive evidence goes viral and gets ahead of NASA's/NSA's photo-shop lackeys.

When the public finds out NASA has been lying to them for over 50 years their days will be numbered.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

You seem to keep forgetting that the image you are basing your opinion on is rotated - the apparently level horizon you are showing is not level - it is a slope. The example you are pointing at saying 'this is a hill' is level ground below the crater you see on the left. Here is the correct orientation:



So I'll ask again, how is your UFO floating at that angle for so long?

Your distrust of the source doesn't make sense and is pointless. Firstly, the TV image you claim shows a UFO is from NASA, you know, the agency you think should be disbanded because they can't be trusted. Secondly, It wouldn't matter if satan himself supplied the images, they are either correct or they aren't, and I'm more than happy to put any amount of money you like on them being hills.

The photographs have not been photoshopped, I have original versions of them that pre-date photoshop by a long way, and if you think the photos have had hills added you should have no problem going to the images taken by various probes from many other countries and show that they aren't there. I look forward to you doing that.