I only saw the first video, and what I saw made me think that this is just another case of being led by wishful thinking.

While there is really a green areas in that photo of the rock, that looks more like something on the photo than something on the rock.

Also, thinking that a photo was wrongly catalogued on purpose does not make it true, I know many, many case of cataloguing, and only one of those was on purpose, because the person who did the cataloguing was near the end of his work at that archive and made many "mistakes" on purpose.

Saying that there is a pyramid in that "blank" photo is also too much assuming. Even if that photo is really a photo of a pyramidal object it does not mean that it was a pyramid on the Moon, a triangle (the only thing we can see on the enhancement) can be seen in many man-made object that were on the Moon at that time.

Also, the fact the photo before and the photo after this one show just some equipment makes me think that this was just an overexposed photo of some piece of equipment.

I would be more worried with the fact that photo 20681 does not exist in any place, blank or otherwise.

But the thing that made me think that this does not have any real unbiased investigation behind it was the images from the first version of the Clementine photo browser. It is amazing the number of people that use that "bug" in the software as a "proof" that what they want to be true is really true.

If anyone wants to analyse the Clementine photos then they should use the photos, not a software program that creates the images on-the-fly according to the coordinates selected.

In the case of the "Stonehenge" patches, I don't understand what could be the problem with having a Stonehenge like object on Earth with the Moon above, but it was a NASA mission, so they could reject anything.

After re-reading my post I think that I was a little too hard.

Any investigation is good, as long as it is not blinded by the idea of proving just one opinion while disregarding all the other possibilities, and I think that this is the case with the video I saw.

PS: just two things more:

1 - Welcome to ATS, LunaCognita, I think you will feel at home here!

2 - I think it would be better to split this thread in separate thread for the different videos, as it is it could become very confusing.

3 - It was a good find, ziggystar60, I will flag it.

My belief according to my being a highly trained professional is that the invis astronaut is in fact simply looking away from the camera. It's not hard to notice the human like qualities of the face such as skin color and outline of the right cheek and eye. This is a case of grasping for straws by yet another person out to make a name for themselves on the moon hoax theory. Thus far I've seen nothing new in their videos except for the invis astronaut claim which just turned out to be grasping for straws, much to my disappointment, I might add. I was buying it until I took the time to take a closer look.

When you get right down to it, people will sit at their computers and make bold claims of a moon hoax, a hoax that NASA has kept covered up for near 40 years, yet, amazingly enough, they manage to screw up an altered picture to hide whatever truth that is behind this digital astronaut image, and not just any screw up, but one on a massive scale - they forgot to add the head of an astronaut during a space walk... in the year 2002 when it is all too common for man to be up there working their magic when stuff needs to be worked on in space. Yet, they can keep a faked moon landing covered up for near 40 years. Righto... makes sense.

I'm simply trying to make people understand what grasping for straws means here. There may very well be a moon hoax being covered up, but this invis astronaut biz is grasping for straws and puts the author's credibility at jeopardy. Come on people, we need solid evidence and frankly we ain't going to find it in anything Nasa releases to the public, if they really are sooo good at covering stuff up as moon hoax CTs claim. At best we have found censored pictures of the moon and whatnot, but even that isn't real evidence of the truth. It's just evidence that they are trying to hide something, which does us no good whatsoever.

I still look forward to more of Luna's videos. I hope there really is something good that convinces me and that I turn out to be wrong about Luna, because I am that much of a fan of learning of shocking truths, but as it stands after 8 years no one has yet convinced me we did not go to the moon. They do however convince me there's more to NASA than meets the eye.

I laugh at all of these moon conspiracies. No offense, really, but any Average Joe could buy a telescope to see the moon in GREAT DETAIL from his back porch. Seriously, there's no way that they could hide anything on the moon from us.

And don't tell me that whoever is out there hides from us, because if I were them, I'd be quite concerned with the spaceship orbiting above me...

Well I see a face clearly in the Astro-Not picture , the 3rd one especially. The first 2, I believe he's turned to far left to see any of his face.

My PS skills suck as you'll see, but I think it''ll get my point across:

heres the photo in question:





and here is where I believe you can easily make out a blurry eye area, bose, and the lips are very clear. I use black for the eye(area, and blue for the nose, red for the lips.




it's looks a bit odd, that's because his head is still turned to his left severely, but you can make out his nose and lips very clearly.

EDIT** After looking at the photo longer, Frame 1 you can very clearly see the Astronaurts face, it just seems as if the photo is polarized, like your looking at a negative. I tried my best to clean it up in PS (again my skills suck, but I think his face is pretty clear, judge for yourselves.)He's actually looking down and to his left, (i should have rotated the photo counter clockwise an 1/8 of a turn, but think of someone lieing on the left side with thier head on a pillow. Also the nostril of the nose is VERY clear.



There's no reason for NASA to even do something like this anyway. setting up an empty suit would be harder, that just haveing the Astronaut go out there. But oh you can leave it there indefinitely, and log more hours of space walk time ect..... Well that can be easily done by takeing hundreds of photos of one space walk, then just changeing the time and date stamps on the photos. There is just no reason for NASA to do this, that's why I looked at it closer, and even if I'm wrong, I'm sure theres a guy in there, and his face is just obscured buy full glare instead ogf half-glare like the other guy, OR he has his head turn so far to his left your seeing the back of his head like others stated.


**HOWEVER **

As for the Videos, I thouroghly enjoyed all of them immensly, except for a couple of things I didn't agree with, which is very little considering how much content was included, and you can't please eveyone.

One was the Nephratiti statue on the moon, alot of imagination to see that one, I don't buy it, and flipped upside down no less, and the above(the so called Astro-Not.

But as for the rest, GREAT WORK, Starred and Flagged, and Welcome to ATS!!

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Nola213]

Originally posted by Odessy

Originally posted by QBSneak000
Ok in the case of the missing astronaut, I found a flaw.

Heres one of the original pictures magnified for the claim of the "no astronaut in suit"



[img]

[/img]

Now here's the same photo magnified. I have drawn the yellow line representing the line/edge of the "snoopy cap" and if you look closely at the area I have circled in red you can make out his nose and part of his cheek.

I believe he just looks missing because he is turning his head away from the camera to look to his left so what you are seeing is the black side of the snoopy cap making it appear as if there is no one in the suit.



[img]

[/img]

I see what your referring to here, however, the stamp on the white part of the cap suggests that the astronaut should be in fact looking towards the camera and not away from it.

Actually, your quite wrong here. There is evidence in this very same video showing that the lettering runs from the front to the back of his head, not left to right.

[edit on 5/30/08 by AcesInTheHole]

Starred and flagged this thread as it's the first in a while here I must say that has really genuinely sparked my interest.

I hate to think of the energy and resources being wasted on that seemingly ridiculous alien video.


While I am in no position to discuss the merits of the photographic
methods and computer software used to decipher these NASA images for me the most interesting and awe inspiring thing was hearing the Apollo astronauts
talk about the music they heard when orbiting the 'dark side of the moon'.
Truly fascinating stuff, it does indeed seem shady given the apparent rough
edit of the tape and the dialogue between the crew and the capcom / ground control.

I am really looking forward to anything further the OP might have to offer in terms of photo / video evidence.

Apon further inspection, I have to admit.

I think I see the face in all 3 pictures.

He is turned sharply left, looking at wolfs area.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by JbT]

[edit on 30-5-2008 by JbT]

Great thread and good stuff so far, interesting investigations.

At first I too thought there was no one in that suit, but after looking at the hi-res images I would have to agree that the astronauts head is turned to the left.

The serial number (writing) on the snoop cap gives evidence of this, also the pattern from black to white also gives this off........ not to mention you can slightly see part of his face in the second photo.

Good work guys who also saw this! Keen Eye.





[edit on 30-5-2008 by Nizzmo]

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Nizzmo]

What a great thread I have been waiting for another good luna one.
For what it is worth Billy Meier stated that the first landing was faked because they were not ready but the rest were real.
I firmly believe that they found more than they are telling and the continuing research and questioning will eventually bring atleast some hidden truths to the publics attention.
thankyou everyone for all your posts.

Phenomonal thread, one of the best I've seen in a while, S+F. Kudos to the production and the find.

I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on two things:

1. Does anyone have anything to say about the first two patches that were thrown out? It does seem like he did those on purpose knowing the result in advance.

2. Is there any speculation on the "music" that was heard? Regardless if he said Frank or thing (and I sit on the fence on that one), there is no doubt that the transmission was obviously spliced off.

I ask these two questions as I believe they are greatly related.

Again great thread and Luna, check your U2U in the member center.

UL