UFO PROOF! You Missed The Disclosure!

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by BlasteR
2- NASA is not telling the truth about UFO's in orbit even though the UFO reality is supported by countless photos, videos, and first hand accounts all made by NASA personnel.

How do you know that they are not telling the truth? Have you any inside information directly from NASA to support your idea that they are not telling the truth about UFOs?

5- That these UFO's are not space debris, ice, or otherwise anything other than an unknown spacecraft flying under intelligent control.

How can you say that? What real evidence do you have that these are unknown spacecraft flying under intelligent control? They are unknown, just that.

Sorry but a small magnetic force, or anything else man-made for that matter, cannot cause an object to instantaneously accelerate into a 14,000G maneuver in orbit.

To know the acceleration we need to know the speed reached in any amount of time. We know the time, but to know the speed we must know the distance travelled, and to know that we must know the distance from the camera to the objects, and that we do not know because we do not know the size of the objects and we need to know one of those things to know the other, we cannot know the distance if we don't know the size and vice versa.

2-Ice or space debris does not change trajectory or otherwise accelerate to mach 245 at the flip of a switch.

Once more, that "Mach 245" idea is based on nothing.

It also proves that NASA now uses an encrypted radio communications system for all discussion of anything involving UFO's in orbit.

How can we know that they use encrypted communications for anything involving UFOs? Just because someone says so? Or did NASA announced it?

There have been NASA personnel who have come forward and admitted that NASA airbrushes out anomalous objects in photographs. Airbrushing of some kind is apparent in several different photographs NASA, itself, has released. IMO it is a hint to a much larger conspiracy. The problem is that this person, who worked for NASA, did not necessarily come public and give out his name, etc. It was basically an admission of guilt although the identity of this "person" remains to be known.
Also, NASA scientists call these objects space junk or ice without looking at all the evidence in detail or considering them for their true potential (at least publicly). Keep in mind that most of the real convincing UFO evidence out there has been captured by NASA itself. It's pretty contradictory for NASA to claim it knows what is going on when even a stupid nasa scientist knows that objects cannot instantly accelerate into maneuvers that would liquify human occupants unless it is some kind of advanced technology under intelligent control. These craft also have displayed the ability to turn on a dime and disappear and reappear in non-visible wavelengths of light (also captured by NASA video cameras).

NASA may not exactly be lying but all of this points to NASA not exactly telling the truth. We have radio communications of astronauts in orbit referring to these objects as "Unidentified flying objects" and "alien spacecraft", we now have an encrypted radio communications link with ground control for discussion about these unknown craft. you also have a computer hacker, who came public, who supposedly hacked into NASA computers and has seen with his own eyes airbrushing taking place. You have to take this all in with a skeptical mindset but once you see the real hard evidence captured by NASA itself it becomes evident that UFO's are very real. They may not necessarily be aliens, who knows.

I cannot "matter of factly" say that these craft are under intelligent control because noone honestly knows. But everything seems to point to that. The point is that, at least in one case that I know of, the relative speed and acceleration of the object can be determined (the famous STS-48 video)

From this link there is a little bit of background on this:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

careful analysis of the video shows that:
The distance from the Discovery to the Earth’s horizon is 2,757 kilometers

The UFO’s speed before accelerating into space is 87,000 kph (Mach 73)

Three seconds after the light flash, the UFO changes direction sharply and accelerates off into space at 340,000 kph (Mach 285) within 2.2 seconds

Such an acceleration would produce 14,000 g of force (1g is normal Earth gravity)

I already posted the youtube vid from STS-48 in an earlier post but this is the interpretation:



These calculations may not be exactly accurate and, in all likelihood, are probably not. The point is that even including a slight margin of error the point still rings true that, at least in the case of this ufo videotaped during STS-48, the craft displayed some amazing abilities that we do not possess (at least not publicly). The G forces on the craft were enough to liquify any human occupants and probably destroy any craft we would have conceivably built. That alone is a huge clue.

Then you also include the fact that something/somewhere/for some reason was firing some kind of high-speed projectiles at this object from the ground and you have an extremely convincing piece of footage (This is with this one case). All of this points to a craft under some kind of intelligent control either internal or external in order to make this craft conduct these insane maneuvers. This is one example of this in action and it is extremely evident in the video.

This link is where I got the image above and it explains in more detail this STS-48 UFO video (there are other amazing videos from that shuttle mission).
williamson-labs.com...

-ChriS

[edit on 26-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by ArMaP
How do you know that they are not telling the truth? Have you any inside information directly from NASA to support your idea that they are not telling the truth about UFOs?

They are good questions ArMaP. I don't have any information directly about UFOs, but I most certainly have good reason to think NASA has a history of not being forthcoming with truth even when lives are at risk. That reason comes from Richard Feynman in his Minority Report to the Space Shuttle Challenger Inquiry. Here are a couple of things he had to say:

"Finally, if we are to preplace standard numerical probabilitiy usage with engineering judgment, why do we find such an enormous disparity between the management estimate and the judgment of the engineers? It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or extenral consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy". (emphasis added)

"Official management ... claims to believe the probability of a failure is a thousand times less [than Feynman's estimate after investigation]. One reason for this may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and success in order to ensure the supply of funds, the other may be that they sincerely believe it be true, demonstrating an almost incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working engineers."

"For a successful technology, reality must take precdedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled"

Feynman, from The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.

From the preface to the report.

"His report, which was perceived by the Commission as embarassing to NASA, was almost suppressed by the Commission, but Feyman fought to have it included; it was relegated to an appendix. When the Commission held a live press conference to answer qeuestions, Feynman did his now-famous tabletop experiment with one of the shuttle's gaskets, or O-rings, and a cup of ice water. It dramatically proved that it was too cool outside to go ahead with the Launch went unheeded by managers eager to impresss their bosses with the punctuality of their mission shedule".


Now, I'm the first to heed Feynman's warning to be careful not to fool oneself in science. I respect his denouncement of "cargo-cult science". I am not suggesting for one moment that Feynman's report has anything to do with UFOs.

However, it does demonstrate, as I said, very clearly that NASA has a history of not being forthcoming with truth even when lives are at risk.

What it implies is that there is no reason to expect NASA will necessarily be forthcoming with information and that it is more than capable of concealing information of great interest to the public.

Again, out of my respect for Feynman, I stress that am not suggesting anything he said related to UFOs. He would encourage us not to fool ourselves.

My disposition is that in order not to fool myself, I need to treat what NASA says publicly with a very healthy dose of skepticism. That has nothing to do with distrust of NASA's scientists and/or technical experts, but everything to do with the PR and management of NASA, as with any organization.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by 987931]

Originally posted by Shades1035
If this was just debri or ice particles as some say, then logic suggest you would see the same kind of stuff in other nasa videos?

Not really, only if the other videos were made with the same camera (I don't know if this was the camera with the light enhancement device or a common camera) and is also focused on an object some 90 miles away.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Well, I would prefer to keep on discussing this in just one thread, I have already posted in three different threads about this and I would not like to have a fourth.

ArMaP you are not required to post in ANY thread on this subject.
It is by your own choice that you do so. If you don't want a fourth...then don't get involved it is really that simple

I have seen the video before but have not noticed the things pointed out in this thread. I think it's worth keeping alive.

flagged

- Lee

Originally posted by BlasteR
There have been NASA personnel who have come forward and admitted that NASA airbrushes out anomalous objects in photographs.

The problem I have with that is that ex-employees are not the most trustworthy type of witness, I have seen some examples of that in the (small) company where I work.

Airbrushing of some kind is apparent in several different photographs NASA, itself, has released.

I only have seen signs of image manipulation on two photos, and in both cases nothing of the Moon (the subject of the photo) had been altered.

I have seen many, many people talking about the "airbrushing" by NASA but I have yet to see something that really shows it.

We have radio communications of astronauts in orbit referring to these objects as "Unidentified flying objects" and "alien spacecraft", we now have an encrypted radio communications link with ground control for discussion about these unknown craft.

Once more, how do we know if they have an encrypted radio link for discussing these things? Did NASA itself announced that? Or was it someone else? Or is this just a rumour?

you also have a computer hacker, who came public, who supposedly hacked into NASA computers and has seen with his own eyes airbrushing taking place.

I confess that I never gave any attention to that case, but once more we have someone that commited a crime and may be using that as a way of getting people on his side.

But I have to get more information about this.

From this link there is a little bit of background on this:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

careful analysis of the video shows that:
The distance from the Discovery to the Earth’s horizon is 2,757 kilometers

The UFO’s speed before accelerating into space is 87,000 kph (Mach 73)

Three seconds after the light flash, the UFO changes direction sharply and accelerates off into space at 340,000 kph (Mach 285) within 2.2 seconds

Such an acceleration would produce 14,000 g of force (1g is normal Earth gravity)

Did you noticed that they do not say what is the distance between the shuttle and the UFO? All the calculations about speed and acceleration (that I think I not correct, but I am a bit confused about the formulas I should use) are connected to the distance to the UFO.

The only thing we know is that the UFO is seen flying along some two thirds of the field of view, but there is no way of knowing at what distance it is. Covering that angular distance (I don't know if I am using the right words, they are just the ones that come to my mind at the momment. ) near the camera is not the same as doing it at 2000km from the shuttle.

These calculations may not be exactly accurate and, in all likelihood, are probably not.

The problem is that the calculations are not real calculations, just by looking at the video nobody can say what was the size and the distance of the UFO. Those "calculations" are just suppositions based on an arbitrary value attibuted to the size or the distance of the object, probably the distance.

Then you also include the fact that something/somewhere/for some reason was firing some kind of high-speed projectiles at this object from the ground and you have an extremely convincing piece of footage (This is with this one case).

Once again, that depends on the distance, if this was really some small object near the shuttle then the flash could be really just the firing of one of the thrusters.

Have you ever thought what should the flash look like from the Earth (from where this "weapon" is supposed to have fired) to look like that at that distance?

PS: the sentence "Such an acceleration would produce 14,000 g of force" is wrong, "g" is a way of comparing acceleration, not force.

reply to post by lee anoma


Apparently you missed the post where I said that I would re-post on this thread what I had posted on the other threads.

You surely agree that having videos, links, theories and facts spread on four or five different threads is not the best way of having data to read and study, it would be better to have it in just one place.

But that is a question of forum organisation and I have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by ArMaP
PS: the sentence "Such an acceleration would produce 14,000 g of force" is wrong, "g" is a way of comparing acceleration, not force.

It's not really wrong, it's arguably a bit of an ill-defined concept that is sometimes used to refer to acceleration, sometimes force (g-force). On the other hand, not even really ill-defined: force and mass are co-defined -- for a given mass, a given force produces a given acceleration. The interchangeable use just reflects this.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by 987931]

reply to post by ArMaP


This video from youtube talks a little about the airbrushing:


This is apparently a different well-established ex-NASA employee talking about airbrushing on a radio show (this is the transcript):
www.fortunecity.com...

This footage, below, is also from STS-48 although it is unknown what the objects are that are whizzing by. STS-48 launched on September 12, 1991 and we know that there were no major meteor showers occuring in the timeframe STS-48 was in orbit.


These could still possibly be meteors since they seem to be emanating from a single point but these objects seem to be showing up in the video much to frequently to have been meteors caused by the other minor meteor showers that were active around that timeframe (notably the Aries-Triangulids, Piscids, and Kappa Aquariads). Source:en.wikipedia.org...

This is the video of the hacker I was talking about earlier who hacked into NASA and DOD computers:


The problem is that there is no proof to verify his claims. I'm not trying to minimize his statements but although they are intriguing they are also unverifiable except for his word.

i did some research into the STS-48 video I posted before and I found a rebuttal to Richard Hoaglands "calculations" from NASA official James Oberg. From..www.lunaranomalies.com...

SUBJECT: UFO's and the Shuttle FILE: UFO45 PART
I am posting the following file that I received from James Oberg, a well-known writer on the space program. He is discussing the same videotaped footage from NASA's STS-48 mission that has been endlessly shown as a supposed "UFO." Richard Hoagland, a major promoter of the "Face On Mars," claims that NASA cameras accidentally caught a secret "star wars test". Here is Oberg's rebuttal.

James Oberg, Rt 2 Box 350, Dickinson, TX 77539
Re: Did STS-48 view a "Star Wars" test?

The STS-48 mission was the 43rd shuttle launch, the 13th flight
of OV-103 Discovery, with the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS). The crew was John Creighton, Ken Reightler, Jim Buchli, Mark Brown, and Sam Gemar. It was launched from KSC Pad A at 2311GMT Sep 12, 1991 (twilight),landed at EAFB on Sep 18, 0738GMT ght), duration 5d08h27m. The orbit was inclined 57 degrees to
the equator at an altitude of about 570 km, second only to the 616 km altitude of the Hubble deploy mission a year and a half earlier. Due to radar experiments with the deployed UARS satellite, I was present in the control room for two planning shifts (my job was as "Guidance and Procedures Officer" for actions related to orbital rendezvous, such as the planned checkout of the radar which had shown performance anomalies on several earlier missions).

I have reviewed the videotape by Richard Hoagland alleging that the notorious STS-48 videotape shows a "Star Wars" weapons test against a target drone with astounding propulsion. In my judgment, the facts, analysis, and conclusions presented by Mr. Hoagland are entirely wrong.

Is the object really very far away? Hoagland's argument depends on proving that the object is at or beyond the physical horizon, "1713 miles away". Proving this depends on optical analysis of the image and of its motion. All of Hoagland's analysis is invalid. First, Hoagland alleges that the videotape shows the object suddenly appearing at the edge of the Earth, as if it had popped up from behind the horizon. But a more cautious viewing of the tape shows this is not accurate. The object does NOT rise from "behind the horizon". It appears (arguably, it becomes sunlit) at a point below the physical horizon, just slightly below, to be sure, but measurably below the edge of the Earth (the "limb").

You can find the full rebuttal as a txt file here:
archive.anomalies.net.../&file=STS43REB.TXT

Basically he sais exactly what you said and more. The strange part is that if this really is something completely normal, as NASA claims, then why the projectile/unknown object flying onto the screen and the other object conducting maneuvers to avoid being hit? The nasa explanation doesn't really talk about that aspect of the video. I am not an expert on this video but I haven't really heard any rebuttal that makes sense until I read the NASA rebuttal. The fact is that noone really knows how far the UFO-in-question was to the actual camera at the time.

ALSO.. from www.webpan.com...
This part goes to show that NASA really does withhold information from the public regarding UFO's...

On January 23, 1980, CAUS (citizens against UFO secrecy) filed a freedom of information lawsuit against the NSA (national security agency) for the release of UFO related documents. The lawsuit was dismissed, but the NSA had to admit that it had such documents in its possession - first 79, then 135, then 239. In a top-secret affidavit (for which the judge himself had to obtain a temporary top-secret clearance), NSA representative Eugene F. Yeates told the court that the release of this material would seriously compromise the national security of the United States. Two years later, CAUS asked for, and obtained, copies of the court records. Of the 21 pages of the NSA affidavit, 14 were completely blacked out. It was also learned at that time that the affidavit was classified top secret umbra, which is the highest level of classification for SIGINT (signals intelligence) documents.

Cases like this don't prove that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, but they prove that agencies of the US government know more than they let on, and that they are lying when they claim that they have no interest in UFOs. (to be continued)

-ChriS










[edit on 26-4-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


The STS-48 mission is interesting, since it shows objects moving in a way that they are not supposed to.
Well untill James Oberg debunked that, then they were debris, ice i think it was, but then his statements got debunked, from some people who knows cameras and such.

They leaned more to what Hoagland said, compared with their analysis of the video.
They even measured the burn from the thruster, compared to the objects movements.

Now i am not an expert on this, but on the STS-48 there are no conclusive evidence to say what it is, so that is still an ufo.

_____________________________________________________________
To everyone else.

The tether incident, i do believe that is debris, not ice however, debris from the tether itself, far away.

The shuttle while it is in orbit, makes alot of adjustements, to stay on the right course, not to be pulled down by earths gravity, or to avoid other objects in it's path.

The objects here are claimed to be debris, ice mostly ejected by the shuttle (sanitary reasons), that was done a couple of days before this footage of the tether was taken.
Ice out of focus....
Those ejections are usually made such that the ice/debris will be caught by earths gravity so they will not disturb the shuttle and the ongoing experiements there.

This makes it highly unlikely that we are seeing that ice on this footage, unless, these ice particles have their own thrusters to stay away from earths gravity as the shuttle does.....
First we have the force of the ejection, pushing these particles/debris away from the shuttle, probably to be caught by earths gravity.
Then we have the speed of the shuttle, which means that, either way, the ice particles will not stay around the shuttle for very long.

So my conclusion is, debris from the tether, staticaly charged from the tether, vissible on the camera and the capability of the camera to pick up spectrums out of our vision.

Too tired to make any sense i think....

Originally posted by BlasteR
This video from youtube talks a little about the airbrushing:

Yes, but if you notice the person speaking is not the one who did the airbrushing, she said someone else said that other people would airbrush what she thought was a UFO.

This is apparently a different well-established ex-NASA employee talking about airbrushing on a radio show (this is the transcript):
www.fortunecity.com...

That link does not work, at least for me.

This footage, below, is also from STS-48 although it is unknown what the objects are that are whizzing by. STS-48 launched on September 12, 1991 and we know that there were no major meteor showers occuring in the timeframe STS-48 was in orbit.

This is part of the video I think shows two different things, both different from the ones on the tether incident and the one that was supposedly the target of a gun shooting from Earth.

The two things are meteors and something that I do not know what they are but that look like they are attracted by thunderstorms, but cannot enter the atmosphere.

This is the video of the hacker I was talking about earlier who hacked into NASA and DOD computers:

That guy has a strange look and he has an expressionless face. It may be the result of some medical condition, but I think that it may be more related to psychology than to neurology...

And the system he said he used is one of the most stupid ways of getting access to a computer, it almost looks like he wanted to be caught. If he had administrator access (just to the computers, not administrator at network or administrative level) he could see all the files he wanted without having to use a remote access program.

Unless I understood it wrong and he had to use that remote access program to give access to the files, but all that looks very suspicious and this is not the best place to discuss it.

ALSO.. from www.webpan.com...
This part goes to show that NASA really does withhold information from the public regarding UFO's...

I don't know if you were talking about this particular text you posted as an external source, but if you were then what it says is NSA, not NASA.

As I said before, I have seen (at least) two images that were altered by NASA (I will try to find it, they were talked about here on ATS) and I have seen higher resolution images disappear after being the subject of a post here on ATS, but neither of those things prove that NASA knows about UFOs and/or aliens.

PS: thanks for the videos and links.

Just wondering - Even if Aliens are capable of doing extreme changes in velocity/altitude/direction - Why would they do it? The movements we see on these videos seem quite random to me..

reply to post by ArMaP


That's really what I was getting at in my post. Since noone really has come forward and officially admitted to airbrushing or otherwise editing NASA photographs we are left where we began. We will probably never know the truth until someone officially does come forward (if that ever happens at all)

Some of the moon photos in the video do seem to point to editing taking place (at least to some degree involving those moon photos). I'm not saying this is conclusive proof of NASA disinformation but it does at least somewhat substantiate the claims of those who have come forward to attest to NASA airbrushing/editing photos and not being honest with the american public.

This raises big red flags for those of us who were already really suspicious of NASA for it's public explanations for these UFO's of things like Ice and space junk in orbit while any average person can tell you that's not what these are (at least not all of them). The actual evidence caught by NASA itself is contradictory to the overall NASA public message of UFO's being mere mundane objects in space. It doesn't make sense.

Sorry for the confusing link I posted
For some reason the forums chopped the link in half because of the symbology. Here'w how to get it..
1-click on this link: archive.anomalies.net...
2-click "government involvement"
3-click and download the txt file entitled "sts43reb.txt"

The file is actually misnamed it should be called sts48reb. Anyway, it is the full NASA rebuttal to Hoagland's theory of that particular STS-48 video.

The interesting part is that it seems to occur in the other STS-48 video I posted as well (You have UFO's and you have objects flying all over the place around them). There were no major meteor showers taking place at that timeframe as I stated before. The problem with the meteor theory is that even during the heaviest of meteor showers they are not this frequent or close together (or at least it would be highly unlikely IMO). That video in particular just leaves you scratching your head and it raises more questions than answers. But there is a similarity to the other STS-48 vid previously discussed which is, in and of itself, pretty interesting.

I'm not so sure about the hacker guy it seems like his statements are interesting but there is absolutely no hard evidence to back them up. Again, we are left exactly where we started other than having an interesting story that includes completely unsubstantiated claims..

I thought I would point out this website because I was doing some searching earlier and I had never seen it before:
ufo-media.com...

Also, while I was looking for material regarding STS-48 earlier today I ran across 2 apollo moon photos that were extremely interesting. I had never see these before. I don't really subscribe to the whole idea of a fake moon landing for various reasons. But if these 2 photos don't get your gears cranking then nothing will....
FROM: www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...





These frames of moon video were supposedly captured during 2 completely different apollo missions which landed hundreds of miles apart from one another yet the mountains are EXACTLY the same. How is that possible? The guy goes on to explain that in some cases the camera pans over to the same area the lander was previously yet the lander isn't even there anymore? Not really sure about that because I haven't seen any of this before but it does make you scratch your head lol.

Here are the 2 different video links that include these frames in the video
www.tntleague.com...
www.tntleague.com...

-ChriS

[edit on 26-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by BlasteR
Basically he sais exactly what you said and more. The strange part is that if this really is something completely normal, as NASA claims, then why the projectile/unknown object flying onto the screen and the other object conducting maneuvers to avoid being hit? The nasa explanation doesn't really talk about that aspect of the video. I am not an expert on this video but I haven't really heard any rebuttal that makes sense until I read the NASA rebuttal. The fact is that noone really knows how far the UFO-in-question was to the actual camera at the time.

The explanation is simply that the objects are being swept away a RCA plume.

Oberg says here www.debunker.com...

''The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the shuttle pointed in a desired direction, under autopilot control (usually once every few minutes). These jets may flash when they ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right. Propellant also tends to seep out the feed lines into the nozzle, where it accumulates, freezes through evaporative cooling, and flakes off during the next firing. The ejected burn byproducts travel at about 1000 ft/sec. One pulse usually emits about a quarter pound of propellant in a fan-shaped plume.

When small, drifting debris particles are hit by this RCS plume they are violently accelerated away from the jet. This is what is seen in the infamous "Case 2" sequence, where a flash (the jet firing) is immediately followed by all nearby particles being pushed away from the jet, followed shortly later by a fast moving object (evidently RCS fuel ice) departing from the direction of the jet (the streak is caused by the slow camera speed). If one plotted all the departure lines of the pushed debris and the expelled ice, they would converge at the jet's location."

This is plausible enough to me.

Oberg also says the following:

"There are more than 50 sources of ice on the shuttle, plus a steady source of debris such as insulation flakes from inside the payload bay. This includes 38 primary RCS jets and 6 vernier jets (which burn the hypergolic [self-igniting] propellants of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine), an air dump line, a waste water dump line, a supply water dump line, two fuel cell purge lines (the hydrogen one is always leaking water), two flash evaporators, a water spray boiler, and so forth. No surprise, then, that floating debris near the shuttle is a common sight. The particles usually (not always) spin, and depending on the axis of spin they may or may not flash, and depending on the speed of spin their flicker may or may not be picked up by the camera CCD scanner."

I find this highly disingenuous. There are more than 50 sources of ice shuttle, 44 of which are jets/thrusters -- the vast majority of debris created by these ain't hanging around (and Oberg makes precisely that point). So he then goes on to conclude "no surprise, then, that floating debris near the shuttle is a common sight". What, because of the 50 sources, 44 of which are almost completely irrelevant?

Fair enough, there are a few sources, but it undermines credibility to put the argument this way. There are a handful of sources of *floating* ice.

Also, there have to be very modest forces in the right direction for it to continue to be seen for any time, if it is tiny debris.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by 987931]

Originally posted by BlasteR
FROM: www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

These frames of moon video were supposedly captured during 2 completely different apollo missions which landed hundreds of miles apart from one another yet the mountains are EXACTLY the same. How is that possible? The guy goes on to explain that in some cases the camera pans over to the same area the lander was previously yet the lander isn't even there anymore? Not really sure about that because I haven't seen any of this before but it does make you scratch your head lol.

If they really are supposed to be hundreds of miles apart arouse extreme suspicion (or signal incredible incompetence). Is there verification of a claim they are from two different missions far apart?

Originally posted by 987931

Originally posted by BlasteR
FROM: www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

These frames of moon video were supposedly captured during 2 completely different apollo missions which landed hundreds of miles apart from one another yet the mountains are EXACTLY the same. How is that possible? The guy goes on to explain that in some cases the camera pans over to the same area the lander was previously yet the lander isn't even there anymore? Not really sure about that because I haven't seen any of this before but it does make you scratch your head lol.

If they really are supposed to be hundreds of miles apart arouse extreme suspicion (or signal incredible incompetence). Is there verification of a claim they are from two different missions far apart?

I'm not sure other than to say watch the realtime movies I posted. On the website if you click on each picture it opens up a realtime movie which I'm guessing are the actual video clips from the different apollo missions which included these frames. This is still new to me because I just ran across this today so I'm not really sure yet what is from what mission.

In my post I included direct links to each movie.

-ChriS

[edit on 27-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 27-4-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


The photos of the Moon that they show are from the Clementine mission, not from Lunar Orbiter (the mission from which were the photos that he saw) and even those are not the real photos but the result of the software that creates the images in real time when we ask for them on the site.

As for those two videos, I cannot see them, it gives me an error.
Can we still see them?

Edit: I forgot to say that the second image is from Apollo 17, but I could not find the other image in any video, and I do not want to look more than 500 videos (although small) just to find it.

[edit on 27/4/2008 by ArMaP]

Unfortunately, I don't have realplayer to view the files (and it is required since these are RM files). So I'm not sure if the link is broken, if the files had been deleted, or what is really going on. When you click on each video frame at that website it sends you directly to the realtime movie which the applicable frame is from and I haven't seen the video yet but the website itself doesn't go into great detail not does it include what is from which mission.

In other words it will take some looking into to figure it out but it's good to hear that we have a starting point for at least one of them.

EDIT:
I installed realplayer and tried the links to the video clips but no luck. Either the links are broken or the file simply isn't there. One of the notable differences between the two images is the coloration/color saturation so that might make it easier.

I'm currently looking for some of the original apollo footage online but having little luck so far.

-ChriS



[edit on 28-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 28-4-2008 by BlasteR]

I haven't found those videos, but I have found one video and one photo, both from the Apollo 17 mission.

The video, similar to the second image, is available here as a Real Media file or here as 37Mb MPEG file.

The photo, similar to the first image, is this one, but you may have to reduce it to see that this is the same view.

There are many videos on the Apollo lunar surface journal, the problem is that they are many, only from Apollo 17 I have downloaded more than 340!

340? Holy cow. Hopefully they are long enough that you don't have to select a new one every 5 seconds. There is video software that you can use to link those video files together into one larger video file of your choice. It might save you alot of time and heartache but you would also have a huge file that would be unmanagable over the internet.

Didn't mean to change the subject of the thread btw. We just got carried away with these apollo moon images I posted.

-ChriS

Look at this video at 4:28 . This is the first time I have seen this particular piece of footage. This is very interesting indeed!


See footage here.

-Alien