Soviet Moon Images

reply to post by Atticus_Black

---

Regarding the cylindrical object in this pic -- the picture was taken by the Soviet Luna-13 craft, the one that had a pretty hard landing -- you can see that the antennas in the picture are all bent out of shape, and this was not supposed to happen. Basically, a few external parts broke off.

en.wikipedia.org...

Looks like the moon all right.

And not a city, crane or spaceport in sight. Not even a hint of breathable atmosphere.

Nice pix, thanks for posting.

reply to post by MajorMalfunction

---

It is kind of tough to say that about a black and white photo...Not to mention the bases could all be underground MMF .

If there are bases on the moon and other celestial bodies (which I believe is quite possible) they are most likely cloaked in some way (active camo or otherwise).

Active camouflage is being developed for moving infantry soldiers, why could it not exist on a large scale and developed for a black budget military?

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Maybe Lunar Rover tracks?



Other than that what are we looking at in these pictures? Is there something unusual about these moon pics that we have not seen before?

This was quite predictable... The last straw/trump card of believers... Lunar bases? Now you see'em, now you don't. Cloaking, baby! Impossible for the shuttle to redevouz with a "Secret Military Station"? Geez, havent' you heard of the anti-gravity drive? They might have it at your local P.C.Richard.

Don't worry, I will put a start for you.

I have seen this site before, while I was looking for Soviet images for a thread where someone posted one of the photos from one of the probes that landed (Mooned?) on the Moon, maybe Internos remembers about it, but I completely forgot about it.

I must get better organized.

PS: there is a way of putting more than one star on a post, but that is a secret.

cool collection, would be great if the world could see all of them .. including the secret alien spaceship on the backside *duck* ^^

Great post! I agree that it seems the former Soviet Union has a vast wealth of information just waiting to be uncovered. It would seem that there is a lot of potential here... the mind boggles at what is still hiding behind the proverbial curtain. (no pun intended, well- maybe a little).
I just started reading the Hoagland book about what a bunch of dirty snakes NASA is, so this has special relevance for me. You're getting a star for this post!
As far as moon bases: I've read everything from the Nazis have been there since 1939, to "cloaking devices" on current bases. Oh wait, that was just now. I'm still a bit skeptical on this whole mess, but I do have a special place in my heart for moon colonies, a la "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", aka the best book ever written!
As for the poster who says that color should be spelled "colour"... Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't my country stop taking orders on anything from your country in 1813? (see Battle of Lake Erie, Battle of New Orleans, etc). Just saying... I still love the Union Jack.

Ok, here's one, I call it the Moonstick, comes from the Zond 8 mission, here is the original photo, it's on the left edge about halfway down.




So just what the heck is that?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by gottago]

reply to post by gottago

---

Forgive me but I think you have the wrong source image as they do not match.

Might be a good idea to have another look just to avoid confusion.

reply to post by cbianchi513

---

[off-topic]

OMG! That was an awesome and engaging novel!

Certainly among Heinlein's best works, IMHO.

It took the Hugo, you know.

I shed a tear when "Mike" "died."

I heard there was a movie script being floated about...

[/off-topic]

reply to post by buddhasystem

---

Are you sure, BS, that the giant lunar ant wasn't tearing those pieces of debris off the lander as the pics were taken?

Seriously, thanks for the info on the hard landing...maybe it had such a rough time because the moon has a higher gravity than what's been reported as "official," eh?

---

So has anyone yet found anymore anomalies?

Mike?





[edit on 7-1-2008 by goosdawg]

reply to post by sherpa

---

Just checked my post, that's the correct original image I linked to and took the detail from. It's right on the edge, a bit less than halfway down the left-hand side of the image. Just below the large crater with the flattened lower edge

[edit on 7-1-2008 by gottago]

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Mike, ignoring the rock in the foreground on that pic, what about the grey trying to find his contact lens in the farground just left of centre a little way up , on all fours he is ...

bianchi ... its only the Union Jack when flown from a mast , otherwise its the Union Flag ....

Regards

Git


[edit on 7-1-2008 by completenuttergit]

reply to post by gottago

---

It looks like the link and the little preview are of two different areas.

Are you sure you've got the right area for the big link?

'Cause I don't see anything that looks like a "Moonstick."


Edit to add: Nevermind, I think I see it now, sorry...



[edit on 7-1-2008 by goosdawg]

reply to post by goosdawg

---

It's sticking out to the right, like a long toppled pole of some sorts, and is casting a shadow. I can't make out what's immediately below it and to the left, but that's not a crater either.

Rover on Venus. Thats news to me. I knew the soviets sent probes to Venus but never heard that they actually sent a rover over there. Any links for that??

[edit on 7/1/08 by styxxz]

reply to post by styxxz

---

styzzx,

See how rumours get started?? NO, no rovers on Venus.

After looking at all of these Moon pics, am I the only one who just sees...the Moon?

Another thread shows a Spirit Rover (yes, there IS a rover...on Mars!)
picture from last year (Earth year 2007).

My gosh! People saw a man in a hat, they saw water, and grass!!!

I mean, people can see the Pope in a Pizza if the look hard enough!!

Take a look at Zond-7. No stars in the background, which was one of the arguements for the moon landing being fake.

I'm forced to say that either (a) these pictures are fake as well or (b) that the "no stars" is an invalid arguement.

reply to post by Anti_

---

The absence of stars in lunar pics has been explained about 10,000 times as the effect of film exposure -- the object being photographed is quite bright, and the stars are very dim compared to it.

styxxz,

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...



en.wikipedia.org...

www.mentallandscape.com...



Buddhasystem,

If you reread my post you will notice I said nothing about definitive cloaking technology. In fact, it would be more likely every picture with a possible base had been etch-a-sketched out of any photograph released to the public.

[edit on 1/7/2008 by biggie smalls]