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.

 

Astounding Moon Footage! Did NASA Want You To See This?

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I've examined the footage. having taking numerous photography courses I can safely come to the conclusion that it's a dirty lens. perhaps a hair or fabric got into the developing and made it out to look that way. could also be a burn in the film, but it's a micro defect. Cameras and film get beaten up in space and function funny in space. hope this helps.


Close but but no cigar.... its actually swamp gas............. ;/




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turbohale
I am of the firm belief that there has always been an alien prescence living inside the moon, and that the moon is just a gigantic mothership of sorts. Why they are there is anyones guess but the coincidences of the size of the moon, distance etc are all too much for me...


I totally agree with Turbohale. I read a book a few years ago, named "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon". While being too short and not having a whole lot of information, It does make you think and I have always kind of thought that anyway.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
the figure stays above the crater. on the same are around the crater to the right side up. the camera is moving and the spot is always on the same. ok I admit it's very odd, what can I say? it does look like a man with a rocket. Maybe boba fett had launched his rocket from the moon and payed us a visit.




I do not know what you mean...

The spot does NOT stay in the same spot on the frame, but moves downward...
If the image was not croped and adjusted, there is no way for it to be dust on the lens or anyting at the focal plane of the film..



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RancidCat
I might of found the answer here,

smokestack

Apparently it was not originally a motion film but a photo, someone recorded zooming into the original photo, which gives the impression of a movie, the anomly is not present on the original photo, so must be a defect on the camera used to zoom.

Does look good though, had me going for a while.


Ahhh, now THAT sounds like a reasonable explanation...



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RancidCat
I might of found the answer here,

smokestack

Apparently it was not originally a motion film but a photo, someone recorded zooming into the original photo, which gives the impression of a movie, the anomly is not present on the original photo, so must be a defect on the camera used to zoom.

Does look good though, had me going for a while.


I was wondering why the Earth got bigger in the frame...
I just thought that they were zooming the camera, WHILE moving over the surface...

I HATE it when documenteries 'doctor' images to make them look more 'impresive'...



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Ummm pray tell just how did they develop the film from the Lunar Orbiters 'in the dark room" ? I would LOVE to hear your theory on that one...


Weak... What Jedimiller was referring to is a multitide of factors that can produce artifacts during the film exposure/development/scanning. You chose to grasp his dark room reference as it is of special importance. It's not. Weak.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Thanks for the links to the NASA moon footage...

have you all seen these photos I think I some very interesting stuff but I will leave it up to you all to decide what these area's I've highlighted might signify...

links, names of photos and such are listed to aid in following up these pics if these are "anomalies as I believe or if they are nothing...


Sorry for your time if you've seen these before...

Happy hunting!!

Space Archive

Pic AS12-50-7431 no activity on the moon??? look at these sights on just one pic...

Pic AS12-52-7745 check shadows???

Pic AS14-70-9837 ops missed a spot.. artistic attempt at creating a reflextion!!??!!



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jamesraykenney
 


ok for the flag but....
look well at the foot prints...
the surface is "raked" only were they have walked and if you look at the foot of the flag..

the prints on "our side" are heavily depressed yet the prints "behind" and to the left have barely broken the surface???

Hey I think they have been to the moon but... Seems strange to me this "raked" surface almost in paths....???

You tell me!!

Ciao!!



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
Phil has been on coast to coast am numerous times with george. there's nothing poppycocky about him he runs the site, he's an astronomer and a very good educator indeed. have you heard of him before?


Oh yes we have heard of him


He makes SCADS of money on lecture tours and selling books debunking us...

LOL I wonder how he would make a living if it wasn't for us 'crazies' that he feels obligated to debunk?




posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Weak... What Jedimiller was referring to is a multitide of factors that can produce artifacts during the film exposure/development/scanning. You chose to grasp his dark room reference as it is of special importance. It's not. Weak.


Weak? You have got to be kidding right? Did you even read his posts? Or are you just tossing stuff out at random? What happened to "Deny Ignorance"?

What Jedimiller was doing was posting his "expert" opinion on NASA photography.. and just about all of it is hogwash if you simply check out the equipment and processing methids listed on any NASA website...


Originally posted by jedimiller
That's ok. I just said it because it was the hardest class I ever took. opening the film in the dark room was hard, then going into the dark room and trying to expose the film on paper and trying not to overexpose and destroy the image. all the chemicals and hard work. Making the prints, large size prints. it was a hard long class. does that qualify me to absurd claims? perhaps.


Okay first 'expert statement'


Originally posted by jedimiller
I've examined the footage. having taking numerous photography courses I can safely come to the conclusion that it's a dirty lens. perhaps a hair or fabric got into the developing and made it out to look that way. could also be a burn in the film, but it's a micro defect. Cameras and film get beaten up in space and function funny in space. hope this helps.


The 'conclusion' is a dirty lens.. or perhaps a hair, or a piece of fabric... or a burn...


Originally posted by jedimiller
Sorry friend. Having seen numerous films from the 50's and 60's. you can always see those types of burns in film, technical blemishes or other funny dirty fabric on film. I'm taking a film class right now and every black and white film has a black spot or funny thing in it. it was just the way the films came out back then. George Lucas had to go back and clean all his films for the DVD and it the old movies you could see things like that, so he had to go in there and delete them digitally.



Originally posted by jedimiller
nice to help. but see, the film in the camera moves very fast, and if there's a piece of garbage there, whatever size it may be. it may move with the film inside the rotating reels. this would move the dirt around in the case until it may fall off or be blown off the film. as to move within the film and detacht. there's also lots of "wind and spin" inside the reels and such that the dirt may move all around.




Originally posted by jedimiller
you missed the point. the film is inside a reel, inside a case so it wont get damaged with light. the film is not placed in the reel in space..it's taken up packed in and rolled up in the camera before they take off. It's like a 35 mm camera. do you load your camera on location or before you go shooting?

Also, the film is developed on earth. not in space. and yes, if there is any small object on the film it will appear as it is moving, because the film is moving very, very fast. At numerous speeds. this would cause the fur/hair to move with the shoot.


Well I usually load my film on location Its hard to load more than one film at a time into the camera...

But the film on the satellites is NOT developed on Earth... If that is your 'expert' claim, then explain to us how the film got BACK TO EARTH from satellites that crashed on the Moon like Lunar Orbiter and Lunar Prospector, or 'Lost in Space" like Clementine? (unless you are claiming the Secret Astronaut Corp went out to fetch them :up





Originally posted by jedimiller
Kodak makes good color prints. Problem, NASA wasn't using color prints back then. and they didn't have very good equipment back then. We are talking about the 60's. it all goes down to how careful you are while developing the film in the dark room.


So if NASA wasn't using color back then, that would mean that all those images from Gemini and Apollo on any NASA website in full CLEAN color images are ALL FAKE?
That is fantastic! If you can prove THAT John will really love ya


Last but not least we have this great observation...


Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by mikesingh
The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.


That doesn't tell you exactly what type of film they used. it looks to me like an 8mm film camera, and those are very prone to defects and weather problems. but you are a good debunker, so I give you credit for that. cheers!


Mike is a good DEBUNKER???


So after being SHOWN the make and model of the camera, you can't tell what type of film? Hasselblad takes 70mm or 120 film...

But our 'expert' here 'thinks' it looks like 8mm movie film...

I am surprised that you would support such expertise testimony buddhasystem, and call it 'weak' to point out the obvious 'flaws' in this presentation...



Sorry Jedimiller... don't mean to single you out... but really... take a few more classes or at least use google



[edit on 30-11-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
well this has been bugging me since i saw it, so i finally got around to posting them on my server.












[edit on 1-12-2007 by undo]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I do agree that there are aliens on moon . We just need to go below the surface of the natural satellite.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Zorgon.... good job chewing up Jedi; I'm not against people having beliefs or anything but ...... he shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

Now on to serious stuff:

I have looked at many of the anomalies on the moon & mars. And I see "stuff" that is NOT natural.

I have spent a lot time in the desert, in areas that have hardened volcanic flows. I have spent a lot of time in the mountains looking at them and studying them. I know what nature looks like and I know what structures placed in nature look like. I also spend a lot of time looking at aerial photography (part of my job) so I know what structures in nature look like from the air and space. There are structures on the moon and mars.... they are severly eroded, or otherwise "bombed out", structures but they are there. Who put them there? is my question. And when?

-Euclid



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by euclid
 


Hey euclid! It's amazing why you haven't been tossed around so far by the debunkers/skeptics!! Their riposte to what you have just mentioned would be on the following lines, "How can you compare Earth geology to that of Mars/Moon? What you're deducing from seeing here may not be applicable to geological formations up there. So any comparison is out."

Well, I've seen this argument being put forth by our very educated skeptics a gazillion times already! Be armed with magazines fully loaded. You may be needing it!!


Cheers!



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Wow, Beth, I hadn't noticed the other 'smokestack' on the right! Good find! But I reserve my opinion on the 'smoke' you've highlighted, emanating from it! Got to look at it further by hauling it through the gamut of all those filters! But before doing that, I'm heading for the bar! Your pics have really smoked me out!!


Cheers!



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


I could not find anything in the high-res 25 mb lunar orbiter 4 images from the suggested places. You can have a look for yourself here :

astrogeology.usgs.gov


[edit on 4-12-2007 by Acharya]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by euclid
I have spent a lot time in the desert, in areas that have hardened volcanic flows. I have spent a lot of time in the mountains looking at them and studying them


I did all of the above and I have seen rock formations and what not, which, with a modicum of imagination, looked quite geometric in shape and somewhat similar to a structure that you wanted to imagine it to be. I've seen large rock that were almost cubic in shape. And these were, welll... Just rocks. Let's take a look at a random mountain in the region I used to climb:


Does it look like a pyramid or what? And the forefront of the mountain in the following pic surely contains alien igloos. Sorry I couldn't help it because I actually climbed this one




[edit on 4-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acharya
reply to post by internos
 


I could not find anything in the high-res 25 mb lunar orbiter 4 images from the suggested places. You can have a look for yourself here :

astrogeology.usgs.gov

Thank you for taking the time to take a look at it:

it seems that Zorgon provided an enlightening frame here
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by euclid
 


Hey euclid! It's amazing why you haven't been tossed around so far by the debunkers/skeptics!! Their riposte to what you have just mentioned would be on the following lines, "How can you compare Earth geology to that of Mars/Moon? What you're deducing from seeing here may not be applicable to geological formations up there. So any comparison is out."

Well, I've seen this argument being put forth by our very educated skeptics a gazillion times already! Be armed with magazines fully loaded. You may be needing it!!


Cheers!




Duly noted, I'm not worried..... natural formations are natural formations no matter where they are. Solids will always act like solids and liquids will always act like liquids. Gravitational effects aside I know enough about how things interact to know "artificial structures" as opposed to natural structures.

I don't care if I'm attacked at least I'm not trying to convince people that NASA sends up rickety 8mm film cameras with bits of cloth and hair in them.

-Euclid

[edit on 4-12-2007 by euclid]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by euclid
I have spent a lot time in the desert, in areas that have hardened volcanic flows. I have spent a lot of time in the mountains looking at them and studying them


I did all of the above and I have seen rock formations and what not, which, with a modicum of imagination, looked quite geometric in shape and somewhat similar to a structure that you wanted to imagine it to be. I've seen large rock that were almost cubic in shape. And these were, welll... Just rocks. Let's take a look at a random mountain in the region I used to climb:
< snip >

[edit on 4-12-2007 by buddhasystem]


Those are mountains ....

What's your point? I'm commenting on the "thing" in the NASA photos (and slamming Jedi-boy)..... it's a thing on the Moon. It isn't rocks, it also isn't a burrito or the Pillsbury Doughboy.... it is a "thing" that I can't identify but it has artificial structural composition.

I can tell the difference between rocks.... and hill sides.... cliffs, buttes, bluffs, plateaus, ridges, switchbacks, et cetera.... and I also know what structures within the larger context of natural geographic terrain look like.... it isn't rocket-science.


Apollo Orbital Image AS16/H/AS16-118-18957.
Courtesy: Keith Laney


The above image shows what is most definately an artificial "thing" in the larger context of natural geographic terrain. There is no imagination involved in logically deducing that is a cylindrical structure, casting a shadow on a celestial body that up to this point in time is NOT supposed to have any lifeforms present to create such an artificial structure.

The fact that your post has pictures of mountains in some feeble attempt to imply that my analysis consists of the interjection of imagination suggests that you have not engaged ever in the critical analysis of anything or that your analysis is based upon the imposition of imagination.

Imagination has no place in the analysis of anything. Imagination is for poets, writers of fiction, painters, musicians and inventors..... not anyone doing logical, deductive, critical analysis.

-Euclid

[edit on 5-12-2007 by euclid]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join