It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


smokestack on the moon?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 06:48 AM
Something is not right...why does it turn dark all over the whole land mass area when the smoke first comes out of the pipe? Why is there a black area cut off on the lower right hand corner at the end of the film?

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 07:37 AM
Is a more clear video available somewhere instead of this animated gif ?

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:07 AM
Thanks for the link to Bad Astronomy 420. From there I went to the page that debunks this particular claim of a smokestack. Apparently the people that made this hoax cut out an area of a real picture, enlarged it, then shrunk the size of the moon which is why it seems a little distorted.

Good point about the lack of atmosphere Spliff...You can also read on the following site that because of no atmosphere (I think it ends only a few inches from the ground?) there would be no way for the smoke to 'blow' like it shows in the picture. The smoke is said to be only a smudge or something of the like:

[edit on 21-1-2005 by zhangmaster]

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by spliff4020
ummm thats a stretch. all i see is a black dot. also, it appears to be shot at low height. a mile is pretty tall. to put it in perpective, a mile is a bout 5 empire state buildings end on end. thats a black dot......

well the picture is taken from very high above, probably in orbit around the moon. so even if it isnt a "smokestack" it is most likely a rock formation a mile high. there are mile high rock formations on earth AKA MOUNTAINS

and about the flag blowing in the wind, it is just the inertia

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:22 PM
I also wanted to bring up the point that there is no movement going on. That's a slide of a still picture that is being zoomed in on. If there's no movement as the link above mentions, then there can be no change in the picture (i.e smoke coming out)

[edit on 21-1-2005 by zhangmaster]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:35 AM
If you watch the excellent documentary footage, provided by The Disclosure Project - featuring a large number of highly qualified ex military officers and personnel's personal eyewitness accounts to various aspects of 'UFO' incidents, one of the people mentions having been shown a mosaic of photographs, by a younger soldier, showing a very extensive and built-up base on the Moon. It wasn't made clear just 'whose' Base it was - the witness did say though that he realised that the younger officer had overstepped his bounds, and should not have shown him the photographs, and that he immediately was in fear of his life (in case anyone came into the room and saw him viewing these photographs.)

(I downloaded *makes Dr.Evil gesture* two parts of what I assume is a larger presentation by Disclosure Project, featuring a lot of highly qualified ex military, pilot and military contractor witness testimony footage. Its probably one of the best collections of data, for anyone interested in getting first-hand non-crazy-accounts from extremely credible sources..

Another very interesting documentary I also found online, was 'A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon' - which was fairly well made, but the kicker for me was the inclusion of a NASA film, its date showing that it was technically taken at a point where Apollo was supposedly close to the Moon - and there's lengthy footage showing the positioning of the onboard camera at the craft porthole, to give the impression of a far distant Earth, when the reality is that the craft is in low Earth orbit, and the circular shape of the porthole itself is being used to give the false impression of a far off distant earth. For this section of genuine footage alone, its worth finding the documentary - as it clearly shows trickery at work. As to what it 'means' - who knows?

As for the absence of atmosphere on the Moon, then explain how sensors picked up a large (miles wide) cloud of water vapour moving across the Moon, at some point. Do a search on Transient Lunar Phenomena, which is the term orthodox astronomers have given the many anomalous things which are continuing to occur on the Moon.

And just one final point of physics, for those who are interested. Look for any footage showing the moving vehicle on the Moon, piloted by the astronauts.
(There's a lot of places you can download the clips from)

Note the dust being kicked up behind the vehicle as the wheels turn. Look closely at that dust. If there is NO atmosphere on the Moon, then that dust should rise up a considerable (at least four or five feet or more) distance, before settling back down to the surface - given the lower gravity on the Moon.
Instead, if you look closely at the dust kicked up by the wheels, you'll note the clear signs of the dirt hitting ATMOSPHERE. Dirt flies up, and hits a 'wall' of atmosphere. Thus making constant vertical 'ribbons' of dirt, which then collapse and fall to the surface.

This is something that simply cannot happen in either an enviroment with no atmosphere, or very reduced gravity. That dirt/dust should, according to science and the alleged understanding of no atmosphere/minimal gravity, rise up without any friction to stop it, and then slowly arc back down. There's no thick atmosphere supposedly, to make that dirt/dust skid to a halt.

Instead, watch the dust and dirt behind those wheels, as it repeatedly hits the wall of an atmosphere..

That alone is pretty much proof poz that where ever that vehicle was being driven around, it wasnt in a vacuum or reduced gravity.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 03:04 AM
Or the moon has an atmosphere thicker than they say it to be?
And gravity is somewhat diff but not as much as here.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 03:28 PM
What is an "image artifact" anyway? Let's just lump everything we don't understand into the realm of faulty photography - that's how "established" science has so far dealt with a huge amount of potential evidence.

I've read in several places about spires and structures on the moon. Personally, I would be surprised if there were no current or past outposts or bases on the moon - it is a very logical place to set up habitation and observation.

As for using NASA and famous astronomers as references: if they were reliable, trustworthy, and if there were no glaring lies in their stories, why, this very forum would not need to exist!

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:32 PM
That was absolutely not an image artifact...they are usually SMALL SPECKS not big geometric SQUARES.

Did we EVER set foot on the moon? or was it really hoaxed? and why?

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:01 PM
How much funding did NASA recieve when we stepped foot on the moon?

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 07:04 AM
concerning the human moon projects. Is anyone familiar with the strange radio transmission from one of the apollos. Apparently a radio amateur caught mission control talking to the astronauts, when suddenly the signal was interupted and a high pitched voice said "lama rabi alardi dini endavor esa kunis alim" or something like that? Then the connection was established again and one of the astronauts said: "please repeat we couldnt understand you"

Anyone heard of it?

one more thing i found these:


and a teaser:

Armstrong: What was it? What the hell was it? That's all I want to know!"

Mission Control: What's there?... malfunction (garble) ... Mission Control calling Apollo 11 ...

Apollo 11: These babies were huge, sir!... Enormous!... Oh, God! You wouldn't believe it! ... I'm telling you there are other space-craft out there ... lined up on the far side of the crater edge! ... They're on the Moon watching us!

[edit on 29-1-2005 by nukunuku]

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:02 PM
VERY interesting read, can this stuff be confirmed as actual transcripts from the space missions to nasa?

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:14 PM
well there are more pages confirming it than debunking it, but who knows really.
But quite a few astronauts admit theyve seen stuff up there even in filmed interviews, so it might as well be true.

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:20 AM
definite image artifact. its far too sharp in comparisn to the rest of the resolution on the image.

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:30 PM
Here ya go people. I ran a couple filters through the photo harrisjohns posted. I was shocked.

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:44 PM
zoomed in a bit

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by spliff4020
In order to have a smoke stack, one must have smoke. In order to have smoke, one must have fire. in order to have fire, one must have oxygen. In order to have oxygen, one must have an atmosphere.

Now ask yourself...does the moon have an atmosphere and you'll get the answer to " Are there smokestacks on the moon?"

An even better point can be made if you understand how and why smokestacks work on Earth.

Smokestacks are basically a holdover from old coal fired boilers and furnaces. The hot air would rise in the stack and pull in more air into the base of the stack. This "stack effect" kept the old coal fires burning hot. This was based on the lower mass of the heated air inside the stack versus the colder air outside the stack. Thus a smoke stack would be totally pointless in an airless environment.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:58 PM
This thread brings to mind something my hillbilly Granny from Virginny used to tell me.
"If Gawd had meant for man to smoke, he woulda made a big smokestack comin outa yer head"
I see the so called moon smokestack as well as smokestacks on peoples heads.......NOT.
Thats all I have to add.

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:10 PM
Why would there only be one 'smokestack'? Must have been a small city.

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:53 AM
not sure why no photos are not there now, so here!

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in