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.

 

backlit technical silhoutte on official Apollo 15 photo

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
More interesting photos...
Lens flare?
Another...
www.hq.nasa.gov...




Looks like the bluish anomaly is some type of lens flare. Discussed at ATS in the past. Worth checking out. Lots of more pics
Blue Lights in Apollo 14 Mission
edit on 10-12-2016 by gmoneystunt because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: constant_thought
a reply to: MeanMinistry

Might be of interest... William Tompkins supposedly worked on aspects of the secret space program since WWII. He claims to have watched footage at Teledyne/General Dynamics of the Apollo mission as they acted as a relay to nasa (? from memory, he has some good interviews out there for anyone wanting more accuracy. They are very up and down. One moment I think he's mad, then he goes and produces somewhat believable evidence, then he's mad again, and the loop continues
).



I can certainly see similarities between the two.


I have read about that many time's but never seen a sketch so thank you, if that is what they actually looked like then it poses the question that if they have stub wing's and what look's like a tail plane are they atmospheric as well as space vehicle's, there range must not be too great so if they are not from the earth then they must be from somewhere else in the solar system but my money would be on earth being there origin and there shape look's vaguely hydro dynamic as well.

I actually believe that incident DID happen though it is denied, the story I heard was about the Radio Ham's in the pacific whom heard the conversation between the astronaut and mission control but I have not until now heard of the live feed with image's.

That in itself is worthy of a thread in it's own right and if the sketch is any way nears accurate there are some who may gain a slightly more educated analysis of these craft.

Those stub wing's and tail plane though have me very intrigued, even suggesting an earth origin or dual lunar and earth capability as if they were designed or based on an older design for a vehicle meant to travel in the earth's atmosphere, could a breakaway civilization of being's that once WERE human long ago perhaps having fled the earth after a war be living on or in the moon but now be a unique and seperate species who have become sufficiently different to us to not want anything further to do with us, of course they would be concerned about contact with us as well since we are probably carriers of many pathogen's lethal to them especially if they live in relatively sterile artifical biosphere's and that work's both way's as they could carry pathogen's lethal to us and that is if they are biological entity's whom have a shared origin with us.

Ok so I fly off on a tangent but your reply has my mind ticking over now.

The closest I can think of that shape is a short winged space shuttle with an elevated tail plane configuration.
If they were levatating like that over the crater though then there propulsion must be something else, ancient technology to control gravity?.
edit on 10-12-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
The closest I can think of that shape is a short winged space shuttle with an elevated tail plane configuration.


Or it's a complete fabrication by a liar and a fraudster.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I don't know so much as the story of the radio communication is as old as the apollo mission's themselves, it could have been made up but then again, this live feed story though is new to me and you could be bang on with that though I know that you don't tend to believe in this conspiracy branch of the subject.
A whole thread about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.educatinghumanity.com...


edit on 10-12-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: MeanMinistry

Or the hands of a wall clock on a back wall at either 10 minutes to 3...or 10 minutes after 9.

But no...


A wall clock up there on the moon? On the outside of the ship? Or inside? Even that is making me laugh


And the perspective is way wrong for it to be a reflection in some printing room back on earth.


I am assuming MeanMinistry meant if the photo is staged in a warehouse


Ahh my bad, that entire concept just escaped me, probably because when I posted that I was in the middle of watching "In the shadow of the moon" about the entire Apollo 11 mission which shows all the footage of the trip plus all the astronauts talking about it, and capcom segments, etc.. An amazing documentary. Coming away now at the end of this documentary leaves no question that they/we went there for real, although I never doubted it. .


edit: Seeing the astronauts speak about that moon trip and seeing their emotions and excitement in their memories and experiences going there and how it affected their lives is enough all by itself as proof positive that they landed on the moon. I have always been good at reading people and that's my position on it.

edit on 10-12-2016 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Ahh my bad, that entire concept just escaped me, probably because when I posted that I was in the middle of watching "In the shadow of the moon" about the entire Apollo 11 mission which shows all the footage of the trip plus all the astronauts talking about it, and capcom segments, etc.. An amazing documentary. Coming away now at the end of this documentary leaves no question that they/we went there for real, although I never doubted it. .


edit: Seeing the astronauts speak about that moon trip and seeing their emotions and excitement in their memories and experiences going there and how it affected their lives is enough all by itself as proof positive that they landed on the moon. I have always been good at reading people and that's my position on it.


I don't think I seen "In the shadow of the moon", I will check it out


Here's one of my favorites



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Yeah I love that video too, and have watched it quite a number of times.. I always pick up on more things every time I watch it



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   
The question isnt whether or not this is a UFO, the question is whether it's an Imperial I or Imperial II class.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It doesn't suggest a glitch, it suggests the opposite in fact.

A single frame, taken at a time interval apart from the previous frame, suggests that the object, whatever it si, is actually being photographed.

The slight differences between the frames showing the anomaly, indicates movement of the anomaly.

A glitch would be more likely, if the anomaly appeared in only one frame, or was exactly the same size, shape, position in more frames...like a speck of dust attached to the lens would show itself as being identical on all frames shot with the speck of dust on the lens...obviously, once the lens was cleaned of the dust particle, the anomaly would disappear.

Since there were no viewfinders, LCD screens or any other means for the Astronauts to actually see what those cameras were recording from shot to shot, the Astronaut taking these frames would not be aware there was a speck of dust on the lens, so all the frames taken would show the same speck of dust, in the same position and orientation on each image taken...it doesn't.

The anomaly, shows slight movement of position in the frame itself, and in it's own orientation.

Don't know what it is, what is causing this anomaly..don't know if it's a physical object actually there being shot with the camera, or a fault (multiple faults since it repeats) during developing...but simply because one explanation is 'easier to explain' over another means absolutely nothing...except Human laziness of mind perhaps.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Buzzkill.






posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

You're assuming that the blemish is a product of something outside the camera, when it could just have easily be caused by problems within the magzine itself, which was capable of being changed on the lunar surface. In any case changes in lighting as the camera moved (it was taking a panorama at the time) could also cause changes in how anything stuck to the lens appeared

Here's something from the last frame in the magazine - another blue anomaly, this time on the ground:



And here are the two blemishes on the images we have posted superimposed. The edge of the photograph in the one you posted is very closely matched by the area not damaged in the one I posted.



The images under consideration were taken during the set up of the ALSEP, which was broadcast on live TV (lots of that available on youtube), and also photographed using the B&W magazine 92:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Nothing untoward can be seen in any of those images.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
No, i do not mean this at all!

I think you mean MysteriousStrangers wise statement.



originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: MeanMinistry

Or the hands of a wall clock on a back wall at either 10 minutes to 3...or 10 minutes after 9.

But no...


A wall clock up there on the moon? On the outside of the ship? Or inside? Even that is making me laugh


And the perspective is way wrong for it to be a reflection in some printing room back on earth.


I am assuming MeanMinistry meant if the photo is staged in a warehouse

edit on 10-12-2016 by MeanMinistry because: reason given

edit on 10-12-2016 by MeanMinistry because: reason given



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
My mistake - the image above that I said was the last one isn't - it's the penultimate one.

This is the last one:

www.flickr.com...

Here's a crop of the area close to the shadow of the astronaut's elbow.



Here's that blob comapred with the other two:



Case closed.
edit on 10/12/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: typo



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
My mistake - the image above that I said was the last one isn't - it's the penultimate one.

This is the last one:

www.flickr.com...

Here's a crop of the area close to the shadow of the astronaut's elbow.



Here's that blob comapred with the other two:



Case closed.


Thanks.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I was posting an observation based on the pic. I am not a believer in the "We never went to the moon" nonsense. Or the "world is really flat" either.

Just a first impression of that O.P. photo. You should have realized the difference between my beliefs and the O.P.'s.

Both yours and mine could be completely way off. Respectfully...Ever been to an art gallery?

Best, MS



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I never thought anything about what you posted or that it meant you believed a certain way.

I was trying to picture that image as being a clock and how the perspective appeared. It does actually look like it could be, except the 'minute hand' perspective is skewed way out like it might look in a 3d sort of way.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Id say lens flare its usually blue and glows just like that what your seeing is a flaw in the lens that when light hits at the right angle becomes visible. We aren't used to seeing them in photos anymore because of digital photography. However they still show up in movies since they still use film. For example look up star trek lens flare that movie was criticized for all the lens flare in the movie.




top topics



 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join