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.

 

5,000 high resolution moon mission pictures

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel

Originally posted by Acharya
That is great work, Voxel. The board is abit wider than your final version though, could you give it another try?

-TIA

I don't see why not...I also included an inverted image this time. Several of the photos across to top row seem (to me) to be the inside of the pressure chamber. That one in the middle almost looks like a mummy (most visible in the inverted photo) and those two diagrams next to "the mummy" have me puzzled... they seem more like something carved into stone than a drawing.



Jon

I was just gonna say the same thing about some of the pictures looking like they possibly might be from "inside" the chamber. Good thing I read your post again. Along those same lines, and because it is a pressure chamber, could some of the others possible be x-ray photos of welds on the tank, or something along those lines. It would make sense that they are on a corkboard right in front of the tank.

If they are pics of saucers, aliens, etc. What would be the significance of posting them here? Do they have saucers & aliens in the tank? Kinda seems like a stretch.

Great find though!

[edit on 18-9-2006 by 2PacSade]




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
They may be testing different airframes. As they do with aerodynamics and wind tunnels.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Look at the two on the far right. The top on has two elongated capsule like objects with three words written beneath them, along with a couple of dots or numerals, smudges?

The bottom one has two parts. The top looks like a crude drawing of a tank, again with some writing on it. But the bottom of it looks like someone was trying to draw the two capsule like objects, but now they are encapsulated by the crude drawing of the tank, again with some writing, and a smude or numeral? Hmmmm. . .

Does anybody else see this or should I give up my goal of satelite image interpreter? (LOL)



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
WOW I just finished watching the ATLANTIS Launch on video. This is from the camera mounted on the booster. It begins on the pad then goes into separation and ends back in the water. To watch on full screen was really cool.

BOOSTER CAMERA


Ram

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

I can see on this picture - either it be a white thing casting a shadow - or it just be a elevation with a bright and dark side..


I found a blue thing on the ground... And there are blue patches on many of the pictures.. I think it's a Kodak thing..error on film.
Or it be a reflection - from the blue thing... In the lens..



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade



If they are pics of saucers, aliens, etc. What would be the significance of posting them here? Do they have saucers & aliens in the tank? Kinda seems like a stretch.


A pressurized tank was recently used to see if the lifters (www.americanantigravity.com...) had some kind of anti-gravity effect or if they were just flying by the means of ion winds. To see how a aircraft/spacecraft would work in an environment without oxygen, like outer space, a pressurized tank would be useful. I am 90% sure that the upper left picture is of a zeppelin of some sort, so if some of the pictures are of aircrafts it would not be far fetched to assume that the others are too.


Some more things I found:

UFO:

161.115.184.211...

UFO:

161.115.184.211...

What is this thing? Dont look like a natural rock or any equipment I have seen:

161.115.184.211...
161.115.184.211...
161.115.184.211...

UFO:

161.115.184.211...



[edit on 18-9-2006 by Acharya]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Ram, the light may be so strong that it blinds/affects the camera and causes a blue patch elsewhere in the image. That doesn't mean the light isn't a genuine anomaly.


jra

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdillo
I was just looking around and I found these:


161.115.184.211...
161.115.184.211...

What do you think?

cyberdillo


It's the begining of a lens flare. Look at the next shot after that. 161.115.184.211...


Originally posted by Ram
AS15-87-11856HR.jpg blue thing in the black sky..

AS15-87-11857HR.jpg

Kodak film..stuff. orange and the blue thing again..


Not sure what the blue thing is exactly. I'd say a photographic error most likely. The orange thing is an example of sunstruck film. This usually happened around the begining and at the end of the film magazine. Those two shots are the 5th and 4th last shots in that magazine. The last two shots on the magazine are also just as bad, if not, worse. You can view the whole film magazine here www.lpi.usra.edu...


this one looks like a computergame - but i know it isn't...Not that I think it's a computer game - It just looks like it.. AS14-74-10211HR.jpg


That's a neat one. Never seen that one before.


Originally posted by Raffles
Im not on about the dish im on about the blue reflection in the command module


Ok fair enough. As for thr blue tint in the reflection. I think it's just the way the light reflects or refracts off the surface of the CM. Another example from Apollo 10 www.hq.nasa.gov... and a close-up taken durring Apollo 17. Lots of colours reflecting/refracting off of it here. www.hq.nasa.gov...


Originally posted by Raffles

Originally posted by Battlefresh
Holy snaps! Did you see the pic labeled "Mystery-Shadow"? In the Temp file.



In the visor theres a reflection of what looks like a man


Which would be the person who took the photo we're looking at.



Originally posted by HooHaa
Thses ar awesome shots thank you! I do hate how they PS space so you see no stars though.


Are you serious? This were taken in the 60's, no photoshop. It has simply to do with exposure. You need a long exposure time to get faint star light to appear on film. Remember, it was day time on the moon. The astronauts themselves were able to see stars at times, but with a camera, you need a good 5 seconds (more would be better) to get stars on film.


Originally posted by SteveR
You tell me what this is.

161.115.184.211...

But don't tell me it is a star, or the earth, or the CM, or a lens flare! As it can't be any of them. This is a still, unshaken shot. Look at the upward shaped glow.


That is strang, at first it doesn't look like a lens flare to me either, but when looking at the shots before it, photos AS14-66-9280 through AS14-66-9285 were a panorama with a huge lensflare, so with AS14-66-9286.jpg coming right after that, I can only guess it has to do with the sun creating some weird effect with the lens and film. You can view the whole film magazine here. www.lpi.usra.edu...

It could also be something to do with the film itself. Perhaps something from developing the shot. I really don't know. I'd have to look into it more.


Originally posted by Acharya
What is this thing? Dont look like a natural rock or any equipment I have seen:

161.115.184.211...
161.115.184.211...
161.115.184.211...


That would be the Lunar Module taken from very far away using a 500mm lens. I've always liked those shots for some reason.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I found this silvery ball object in 4 frames taken in sequence, its too small to be the earth:

161.115.184.211...


161.115.184.211...


161.115.184.211...


161.115.184.211...

The UFO is clearly moving upwards into the sky.





[edit on 18-9-2006 by Acharya]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
With all respect, I dont think the mystery object is the lunar lander. Its pretty clear that they are non-similar when one compare the two:

Mystery object:


Lunar lander:



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acharya
I found this silvery ball object in 4 frames taken in sequence,

The UFO is clearly moving upwards into the sky.


Outstanding!!

Before anyone claims the orbitter, look at the shape of the object and see Mr Lear's altitude comment



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acharya
UFO:

161.115.184.211...


What will the skeptics say now??


Good find


Enhanced:


[edit on 18/9/06 by SteveR]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by Acharya




With all respect, I dont think the mystery object is the lunar lander. Its pretty clear that they are non-similar when one compare the two:

Mystery object:


Lunar lander:



I agree with you. That does not look like the Lunar Lander. But what is interesting is this comment:

"That would be the Lunar Module taken from very far away using a 500mm lens. I've always liked those shots for some reason."

Why has he always liked those shots? Whats the reason? Who had the 500mm lens? Are there other shots using the 500mm lens? Why would they take such a picture?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Why has he always liked those shots? Whats the reason? Who had the 500mm lens? Are there other shots using the 500mm lens? Why would they take such a picture?


There was no 500mm on Apollo 11:
"On later missions a 500mm telephoto lens was also taken, and the cameras were modified with sighting rings to help aim them"
www.clavius.org...

On later missions they were used:
"500mm lens body, used to take photos of geological interest"

www.myspacemuseum.com...

Reel 112 on Apollo 16 was using the 500mm lens, but the mystery object is not the lunar lander in my opinion.



[edit on 18-9-2006 by Acharya]


jra

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acharya
With all respect, I dont think the mystery object is the lunar lander. Its pretty clear that they are non-similar when one compare the two:

Mystery object:


Lunar lander:



Well the shot you're comparing it too is blurry from camera shake (doesn't take much when using a telephoto lens) What about this one? You can see the landing legs in it. 161.115.184.211...

The photos were taken at station 4 durring EVA 2. Lets look at the traverse map of Apollo 16.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Note that station 4 is the furthest southern point on the map and its on stone mountain. The X in the middle of the map is the LM, which sits between the two mountains. You can see smokey mountain in the distance in the photo. And station 4 is roughly 4km away from the LM.

Also from the transcript from the audio durring the mission at station 4 which can be found here: www.hq.nasa.gov...


144:09:46 Duke: (Scanning LMP-9) Okay, (I) got the (Rover) display. Okay, I'm around to get the 500 (from under the CDR seat). Tony, you just can't believe this! You just can't believe this view! You can see the lunar module (see AS16-112- 18272); you can see North Ray with boulders on the southwest side; and where Station 12 is, there's one huge boulder (House Rock) that's going to be just great.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
While I don't dismiss your anomaly, the picture was taken by the Apollo 16 crew. See the filename..



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Well the shot you're comparing it too is blurry from camera shake (doesn't take much when using a telephoto lens) What about this one? You can see the landing legs in it. 161.115.184.211...


Yes, I see it now. Its the lunar lander alright



[edit on 18-9-2006 by Acharya]


jra

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I agree with you. That does not look like the Lunar Lander. But what is interesting is this comment:

"That would be the Lunar Module taken from very far away using a 500mm lens. I've always liked those shots for some reason."

Why has he always liked those shots? Whats the reason? Who had the 500mm lens? Are there other shots using the 500mm lens? Why would they take such a picture?


Because it shows the distance that they travelled and the scale of things around them. Duke had the 500mm lens. Why take such a picture? Why not take such a picture I ask you.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
the only thing i can see that they would be taking pictures of here, is all those odd circular things follwing them.

Black sky, with many round objects as well as stars?
taken from the ride over it seems...

and here:
more of same?

wierd... it kinda looks like they were bored, and took a picture of the "empty" sky around the capsule...

or maybe they are pictures of the dark side of the moon?

and if so... what are all those lights?

and here is that blue light again... comes right after the dark side photos above...

blue lights are glitches
because in this pic, they are strewn much like the smudges that are in other pics...
i suspect that it is due to particles of radiation going thru the film as the aperature is opened for the photo...

and what is this big blue light?
big blue light in space
and why is it the exact same size as this pic of the earth from the previous picture?
is the earth pic fake?
(there are other colored pictures of the same circle also)

I saw on another thread that they were saying that this picture is actually a cutout of the earth, to make it look much smaller... and it is really taken from orbit.

and with all these 4 color composites, it would be easy to photo the halo, and then do the cutout of the earth, then overlay the halo onto the cropped earth image
(the result would be to make one small cut out circle of earth look like the "whole earth at 4 times the distance)
for faking the moon launches... (IMHO i think we did go to the moon)


jra

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
LazarusTheLong, the pictures you're showing were all taken durring the translunar coast. Some of it was debris and also just sunlight shinning on the glass. The 2nd shot looks like it could have been an attempt to do a long exposure to get the stars to appear, thus the blurriness of it. The hexigon shapes that you can see more clearly in the first pic is just a lens flare. The hexigon shape is created because that is the shape of the cameras iris.

as for this pic: 161.115.184.211... It's the Earth taken with a blue filter and over exposed for sure.

161.115.184.211... is taken at f/4 with the polarizer filter set to be horizontal.

You can go to this page www.hq.nasa.gov... and scroll down till you're almost at the bottom (Magazine 162/SS (Color) TransLunar Coast, Rev 15, Frames 24035-24106) and there is a description for all the pics.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by jra]




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join