The fact (as athers have mentioned) that the "buildings on the horizon" also show up in the shadow of the lander should be enough to prove that the
"structures" in the image in the OP are just image artifacts -- something to do with the original film picture and/or the subsequent jpg-scanning of
the original picture.
[edit on 8/7/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]
Moon Landing Photo, page 7
privacy
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 08:28 AM by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by hande
Here is one photo from Apollo 12. Lunar surface (AS12-49-7294). Maybe reflection, but reflection only above horizon. Maybe Klingon mothership?
Source:
www.apolloarchive.com...
That's definitely lens flare caused by the sun, which is out of frame to the upper left...
here are the two pictures take immediately after that one was taken:
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
[edit on 8/7/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 09:57 AM by Boom Slice
reply to post by skibtz
Believe me, there is nothing more that I would like than to help everyone in need on this planet. But it is wishful thinking that is simply not possible given today's social/political structures. I mean sure, given enough resources and plenty of time, I am sure that we could eventually eliminate hunger/poverty in our own countries (UK and US), BUT have you not seen how the various regimes of this world block our aid? We could not even help some of the tsunami victims when they needed us the most, because of some political regimes who favor power over helping those in need.
This is the reason we can't help everyone and it is foolish to think we currently can. Unless you are simply happy helping YOUR people, that is. Get realistic on this issue, please, for your own good. The world is a verrrry messed up place and to help all of its inhabitants on a worldwide scale and create this utopian society, is IMPOSSIBLE in the next 100 years at least.
As far as us going to the moon, look, as I said it is verifiable fact that we went. I guess verifiable facts aren't good enough for some people. I just was hoping that someone as bright as you would have the common sense to accept one of the greatest acheivements of our time as fact, since it is...well, fact. No problem if you like living a delusional life though.
And perhaps I overstated the importance of space research, but perhaps I also understated it. With this second race to the moon, we will surely bring back a good amount of Helium 3, and I'd say that by 2025 we will have very practical ways to utilize this substance and begin to end the world's current energy crisis (a mear 200 lbs can fully power a city like Detroit for a year). This in and of itself should be reason enough to support the space programs of the world, as this would enhance the quality of life for all the peoples of this planet (which is your primary concern, and people need power to receive proper aid). If your goal is to help others, space is one of the best ways to start this ball rolling.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.wired.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
And sorry for the off-topic rant here, I just had to defend myself on this issue.
Back to the moon artifacts!
Believe me, there is nothing more that I would like than to help everyone in need on this planet. But it is wishful thinking that is simply not possible given today's social/political structures. I mean sure, given enough resources and plenty of time, I am sure that we could eventually eliminate hunger/poverty in our own countries (UK and US), BUT have you not seen how the various regimes of this world block our aid? We could not even help some of the tsunami victims when they needed us the most, because of some political regimes who favor power over helping those in need.
This is the reason we can't help everyone and it is foolish to think we currently can. Unless you are simply happy helping YOUR people, that is. Get realistic on this issue, please, for your own good. The world is a verrrry messed up place and to help all of its inhabitants on a worldwide scale and create this utopian society, is IMPOSSIBLE in the next 100 years at least.
As far as us going to the moon, look, as I said it is verifiable fact that we went. I guess verifiable facts aren't good enough for some people. I just was hoping that someone as bright as you would have the common sense to accept one of the greatest acheivements of our time as fact, since it is...well, fact. No problem if you like living a delusional life though.
And perhaps I overstated the importance of space research, but perhaps I also understated it. With this second race to the moon, we will surely bring back a good amount of Helium 3, and I'd say that by 2025 we will have very practical ways to utilize this substance and begin to end the world's current energy crisis (a mear 200 lbs can fully power a city like Detroit for a year). This in and of itself should be reason enough to support the space programs of the world, as this would enhance the quality of life for all the peoples of this planet (which is your primary concern, and people need power to receive proper aid). If your goal is to help others, space is one of the best ways to start this ball rolling.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.wired.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
And sorry for the off-topic rant here, I just had to defend myself on this issue.
Back to the moon artifacts!
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:38 PM by skibtz
Originally posted by Boom Slice
reply to post by skibtz
Believe me, there is nothing more that I would like than to help everyone in need on this planet...wishful thinking that is simply not possible given today's social/political structures...given enough resources and plenty of time, I am sure that we could eventually eliminate hunger/poverty in our own countries (UK and US), BUT have you not seen how the various regimes of this world block our aid?
This is the reason we can't help everyone and it is foolish to think we currently can.
Your weakness is embarrassing.
People need our help now.
Clearly they will not be getting any from you.
Unless you are simply happy helping YOUR people, that is.
Holy hairballs!!!
WTF!?!
I love the planet and all the peeps on it. I help everyone I can wherever they are.
And who are MY people?
Get realistic on this issue, please, for your own good.
For someone who couldnt careless about helping others you sure do like to throw your advice about.
Could you please explain why it would be for my own good to ignore people who need help so I can fly to the effing moon?
Oh, here we go...
...As far as us going to the moon, look, as I said it is verifiable fact that we went. I guess verifiable facts aren't good enough for some people.
Verifiable?
A mirror on the moon reflecting laser beams?
We just put a handful of effing probes, rovers and crap on Mars.
I am sure that sticking a mirror on the Moon would have been a piece of piss even 40 years ago..
I just was hoping that someone as bright as you
Please, please. Stop it with the flattery already. Especially after your condescending diatribe.
If you dig me then put put some cash in my bank account
would have the common sense to accept one of the greatest acheivements of our time as fact, since it is...well, fact.
If you take the Moon Landing debacle to be a fact because there is a mirror on the Moon then you are seriously lacking in the common sense dept.
And please. Greatest achievements? The planet is about as effed up as it is ever going to be. A great achievement would have been avoiding it.
No problem if you like living a delusional life though.
Feck. Yo u don't dig me do you? No money in my account then?
Damn.
Helium 3 stuff
Ho ho ho.
Yeah. And I am gonna get me some Triwiblium 7000 and run an XS-Stealth Runner in the Gamma Belt Quadrant.
LOL
And sorry for the off-topic rant here, I just had to defend myself on this issue.
No. You are not forgiven. Defensive aren't we?
Moon Artifacts?
We are on topic:
What is this picture?
Is it evidence of a cover up?
Could it mean we didn't go to the Moon?
Could it be evidence that we did?
EDIT: Boom Slice - If you wish to discuss global politics and saving the planet then U2U me. But please feel free to discuss the topic at hand here
[edit on 7/8/2008 by skibtz]
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:39 PM by Boom Slice
reply to post by KATSUO
Now this theory would make more sense, because it accounts for the fact that we actually did go. Thanks for filling me in on this aspect of the theory, and I apologize if this was your point, skibtz. Although, I am still very skeptical of the faked footage theory, it at least is more reasonable since it accounts for the actual lunar trip, even if we didnt really see any or all of its footage.
www.lunaranomalies.com...
I find this to be a suspect theory, though, since there were times like on Apollo 17, when two astronauts took a rover on a long mission and then managed to point the rover-mounted camera away from their project "by accident" (rock research which the seasoned geologists got waaay over-excited about...hmmm I wonder if they were looking at something other than boulders? And the best part is they even go so far as to joke about how the camera wasn't pointed at them, saying something along the lines of "oh gee, that happens a lot"). So my point is why fake the footage, when they make blantant attempts to block us from the real research anyways?
(I couldn't locate the link for the Apollo 17 transcript and breakdown of the whole thing...maybe it was pegasus material, but I couldn't find it, sorry.)
I find it a shame that we can't know for sure what is up there, that we have to rely on a "civilian" organization to be our sole source of on-moon footage and data. Clearly NASA is more than a civilian organization and is actually a part of our Defense program as is outlined in its founding charter, which should never have been the intent.
Perhaps one day, someone will independently create and develope an ionized plasma propulsion system, a nuclear fission propulsion system, an anti-matter drive, or some other exotic propulsion system that would be safe, reliable, and cheap so that space travel would be the same as air travel, in that it would be available for all to partake. Rocket propulsion is clearly limiting this potential, and ultimately limiting our ability to investigate this issue on our own.
But at least with Russia, the ESA, Japan, China, and NASA sending manned missions to the moon and ultimately setting up permanent manned moon bases by 2025 (at least with NASA and China), in the not too distant future, the truths of the moon will hopefully be unveiled by someone.
Until then, let's keep our eyes, ears, and minds open for the biggest story of humanity's history.
Now this theory would make more sense, because it accounts for the fact that we actually did go. Thanks for filling me in on this aspect of the theory, and I apologize if this was your point, skibtz. Although, I am still very skeptical of the faked footage theory, it at least is more reasonable since it accounts for the actual lunar trip, even if we didnt really see any or all of its footage.
www.lunaranomalies.com...
I find this to be a suspect theory, though, since there were times like on Apollo 17, when two astronauts took a rover on a long mission and then managed to point the rover-mounted camera away from their project "by accident" (rock research which the seasoned geologists got waaay over-excited about...hmmm I wonder if they were looking at something other than boulders? And the best part is they even go so far as to joke about how the camera wasn't pointed at them, saying something along the lines of "oh gee, that happens a lot"). So my point is why fake the footage, when they make blantant attempts to block us from the real research anyways?
(I couldn't locate the link for the Apollo 17 transcript and breakdown of the whole thing...maybe it was pegasus material, but I couldn't find it, sorry.)
I find it a shame that we can't know for sure what is up there, that we have to rely on a "civilian" organization to be our sole source of on-moon footage and data. Clearly NASA is more than a civilian organization and is actually a part of our Defense program as is outlined in its founding charter, which should never have been the intent.
Perhaps one day, someone will independently create and develope an ionized plasma propulsion system, a nuclear fission propulsion system, an anti-matter drive, or some other exotic propulsion system that would be safe, reliable, and cheap so that space travel would be the same as air travel, in that it would be available for all to partake. Rocket propulsion is clearly limiting this potential, and ultimately limiting our ability to investigate this issue on our own.
But at least with Russia, the ESA, Japan, China, and NASA sending manned missions to the moon and ultimately setting up permanent manned moon bases by 2025 (at least with NASA and China), in the not too distant future, the truths of the moon will hopefully be unveiled by someone.
Until then, let's keep our eyes, ears, and minds open for the biggest story of humanity's history.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:02 PM by Boom Slice
reply to post by skibtz
Allright, well there's no sense needlessly arguing about basically nothing here. My main point is that the world is so messed up that you can't help EVERYONE in the near future. Africa? Are you kidding me? It is such a mess in some areas over there that no amount of resources could ever set them straight in a short amount of time. Slavery, murder, rape, AIDS, rampant violence, freedom fighters, hunger, and this is just one part of the world, no amount of resources could stop that in less than 100 years.
And rememeber that the #1 item on the US's national budget is human health and services. We are the world's leading source of aid. We set aside nearly around $650 billion a year from our national budget just to help people, and as one of the most generous countries, our citizens donate billions more on top to help others worldwide. NASA gets only about $15 Bil a year, which considering the great things that can come out of it, is peanuts.
www.federalbudget.com... (sorry if the website is too right-wing for some of you to handle, but the numbers are accurate)
And go ahead laugh about Helium 3, but much of the physics and scientific community is not laughing. This is serious stuff that WILL change the world. It's serious enough that 5-6 independent space agencies are making manned trips to the moon to investigate its true potential. It is just one reason for why a return mission to the moon will be very useful, especially considering that there is enough Helium 3 on the moon to power the earth at its current rate for 10,000 years! And since we have already made safe, cheap, reliable Helium 3 power sources, we know it can be properly harnessed. But I guess that we should just laugh this off, since energy is not a serious issue AT ALL.
And Skibtz, for future reference, you don't have to be so nasty. I respect and appreciate your ambitious save the world thinking, and I wish not to change your drive. I just wished to discuss these issues in a respectful, intelligent manner. Sorry if your intentions don't mesh with mine here.
Edit to add: And I apologize if I came across as not being respectful.
Take Care.
[edit on 7-8-2008 by Boom Slice]
Allright, well there's no sense needlessly arguing about basically nothing here. My main point is that the world is so messed up that you can't help EVERYONE in the near future. Africa? Are you kidding me? It is such a mess in some areas over there that no amount of resources could ever set them straight in a short amount of time. Slavery, murder, rape, AIDS, rampant violence, freedom fighters, hunger, and this is just one part of the world, no amount of resources could stop that in less than 100 years.
And rememeber that the #1 item on the US's national budget is human health and services. We are the world's leading source of aid. We set aside nearly around $650 billion a year from our national budget just to help people, and as one of the most generous countries, our citizens donate billions more on top to help others worldwide. NASA gets only about $15 Bil a year, which considering the great things that can come out of it, is peanuts.
www.federalbudget.com... (sorry if the website is too right-wing for some of you to handle, but the numbers are accurate)
And go ahead laugh about Helium 3, but much of the physics and scientific community is not laughing. This is serious stuff that WILL change the world. It's serious enough that 5-6 independent space agencies are making manned trips to the moon to investigate its true potential. It is just one reason for why a return mission to the moon will be very useful, especially considering that there is enough Helium 3 on the moon to power the earth at its current rate for 10,000 years! And since we have already made safe, cheap, reliable Helium 3 power sources, we know it can be properly harnessed. But I guess that we should just laugh this off, since energy is not a serious issue AT ALL.
And Skibtz, for future reference, you don't have to be so nasty. I respect and appreciate your ambitious save the world thinking, and I wish not to change your drive. I just wished to discuss these issues in a respectful, intelligent manner. Sorry if your intentions don't mesh with mine here.
Edit to add: And I apologize if I came across as not being respectful.
Take Care.
[edit on 7-8-2008 by Boom Slice]
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 03:07 PM by Crystalbaraland
reply to post by rezial666
You left out the vertical and horizontal lines and all of the "crap" in the sky. What one does with these photos, and almost ALL photos, when excessively brightened such as Hoagland does, is to create artifacts.
In these NASA photos the originals were taken with emulsion film resulting in negatives and slides (not sure of slides). Anyone familiar with emulsion film knows that since it is physically handled by humans and machies, all kinds of handling marks appear. Look at any negative that has been handled with a high magnifying glass. You'll see "invisible" scratches, dust, etc.
Normally, the contrast of the photo will hide these marks. But when brightened excessively, as these NASA photos are being done by the experimenters here (and by Hoagland, Bara, et al), you're going to see nothing but natural results.
And like I said in another reply, you'll get different results with different copies of the same photo.
Next mystery.
You left out the vertical and horizontal lines and all of the "crap" in the sky. What one does with these photos, and almost ALL photos, when excessively brightened such as Hoagland does, is to create artifacts.
In these NASA photos the originals were taken with emulsion film resulting in negatives and slides (not sure of slides). Anyone familiar with emulsion film knows that since it is physically handled by humans and machies, all kinds of handling marks appear. Look at any negative that has been handled with a high magnifying glass. You'll see "invisible" scratches, dust, etc.
Normally, the contrast of the photo will hide these marks. But when brightened excessively, as these NASA photos are being done by the experimenters here (and by Hoagland, Bara, et al), you're going to see nothing but natural results.
And like I said in another reply, you'll get different results with different copies of the same photo.
Next mystery.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 03:48 PM by Pauligirl
Originally posted by hande
Here is one photo from Apollo 12. Lunar surface (AS12-49-7294). Maybe reflection, but reflection only above horizon. Maybe Klingon mothership?
Source:
www.apolloarchive.com...
It's FEMA coffins. In space. Really.
I swear. Trust me.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 04:28 PM by macr59
Hi Guys,
I ain’t enjoyed myself so much for years.
Just found another 2 weird photos from the Nasa site:
Unfortunately I cant post them here as explained before, but again I will provide the link and the results I get. If someone can post them and show their results it would be much appreciated.
These 2 are actually in sequence but there is such a huge difference in both. Can anyone explain?
Both pictures can be found here
But here is the direct links
First
My Result
Second
My Result
Now surely, since these were taken in sequence from the same angle we should get the similar results.
Anyone explain?
I ain’t enjoyed myself so much for years.
Just found another 2 weird photos from the Nasa site:
Unfortunately I cant post them here as explained before, but again I will provide the link and the results I get. If someone can post them and show their results it would be much appreciated.
These 2 are actually in sequence but there is such a huge difference in both. Can anyone explain?
Both pictures can be found here
But here is the direct links
First
My Result
Second
My Result
Now surely, since these were taken in sequence from the same angle we should get the similar results.
Anyone explain?
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 05:02 PM by Lee_K
The images in the above post arent showing so if you right click on them and paste the URL into your browser they'll show up.
Wasnt too sure exactly what I was looking for, however! Can anyone tell me what this is in the top right corner of this picture? (You may need to zoom in).
[Image]: history.nasa.gov...
Wasnt too sure exactly what I was looking for, however! Can anyone tell me what this is in the top right corner of this picture? (You may need to zoom in).
[Image]: history.nasa.gov...
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 06:18 PM by ArMaP
reply to post by macr59
What do you mean by "similar results"?
If you are talking about the way the images look after you have altered them, that is because they did not looked the same before you altered them, they look like they were taken with different settings.
Is that what you are talking about?
PS: your images do not appear on your posts because you are not using the links in the way the ATS software wants, you should use "Direct link to image" tag with the "image" button on ATS, it should look something like this:
[ img]http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5231/avatar1sw5.gif[/img]
What do you mean by "similar results"?
If you are talking about the way the images look after you have altered them, that is because they did not looked the same before you altered them, they look like they were taken with different settings.
Is that what you are talking about?
PS: your images do not appear on your posts because you are not using the links in the way the ATS software wants, you should use "Direct link to image" tag with the "image" button on ATS, it should look something like this:
[ img]http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5231/avatar1sw5.gif[/img]
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 11:17 PM by Crystalbaraland
Originally posted by macr59
Well said Crystalbaraland, totally agree with you.
However, why the very large difference between the High Res photos and the first one??
Surely if the High Res photos were emulsion, we would get similarities. But we don't.
What I want to know, is where are the orginals?. Do they even appear on the internet, or is it just copies of copies?
Anyone know?
Well, macr59, it could be as simple as the various means of handling in the digital domain and in the mechanical domain. Every step may create undesirables, a pixel here, a pixel there. One never knows. Nothing stays pristine.
The originals of the emulsion are in NASA vaults some of which may allow visitors but those are the big prints, not the negs.
A source for high resolution photos may be www.spacearchive.net... which Hoagland/Bara endorse in their book "DARK MISSION:..."
The NASA lunar photo of the "spar" or "girder" leaning or resting on Mons Vitruvius featured in the above book came from this website. They have photos in very High Resolution, Middle Resolution, and Low Resolution.
It helps to have cable to download the huge photos in High Res.
The Edge of Reality - Updated Report on the Illinois Police UFO case, January 5th, 2000.
Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags
Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags
Famous Argentinean painter observed UFO studying parabolic antennas
Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
1/28/2012 craft in sky From Puerto Rico - Need help getting more info!!
Posted 5 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 5 days ago with 21 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Occupy Wall street, we are witnessing social revolution.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 2 hours ago
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 2 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 7 hours ago, 35 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 7 hours ago, 35 flags
Threatened by a Ron Paul victory in Maine, GOP (insider spills beans) adds last minute caucuses.
2012 US Elections, Posted 12 hours ago, 26 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 12 hours ago, 26 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 15 hours ago, 22 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 15 hours ago, 22 flags
Greek police union wants to arrest EU/IMF officials
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 13 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
BREAKING rumour: Kim Jong-Un assassinated?
Breaking Political News, Posted 17 hours ago, 179 replies
Breaking Political News, Posted 17 hours ago, 179 replies
Most Canadians want the death penalty back
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 97 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 97 replies
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 7 hours ago, 67 replies
2012 US Elections, Posted 7 hours ago, 67 replies
Massive Obama Conspiracy to Kill the Second Amendment
US Political Madness, Posted 9 hours ago, 63 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 9 hours ago, 63 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.040 seconds
Page processed in: 0.321 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.040 seconds
Page processed in: 0.321 seconds
