Alien Artifacts On The Moon? Images from Russian Luna Probes!

"Secondly, both these craft are completely different in design. What you have shown above is pics of the Lunokhod. Here are pics of the Luna 13. I don’t see anything that resembles something ejected from it that even remotely resembles the object in contention. "

These craft were certainly different in overall mission, and design. But they all came from the same factory, where there was no need to reinvent every subsystem as new models came along. If the disks-on-a-string were comm gear on Lunakhod, it's reasonable that a similar-shaped structure on an earlier spacecraft would have a similar function. That it does not appear on the photo of one side of the main Luna-13 spacecraft -- that crashed and fragmented on impact -- isn't proof it wasn't part of the flight vehicle.

I hope some old Russian space engineer can still make a contribution here -- but it was half a century ago when they were designing these gizmos. What are the odds that anybody from then, who knew this stuff, are even still alive?

Originally posted by JimOberg
I hope some old Russian space engineer can still make a contribution here -- but it was half a century ago when they were designing these gizmos. What are the odds that anybody from then, who knew this stuff, are even still alive?

There's one Russian I know whose lurking here on ATS!! But I doubt he's from the Russian Space Agency!

Even if we find one now, I don't think he'll know or remember the details of Soviet probes launched half a century ago! Darn! This is getting frustrating, what?

Cheers!

[edit on 4-4-2009 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mystiq

"page 106/151 For Maurice Chatelain had been placed in charge of designing and building the Apollo communication and data-processing system for NASA...."

No wonder with his credentials the most typical counterance when questioned was "no comment".

I highly recommend this book.

Actually, mystiq, I'm betting you just imagined the 'most typical counterance' to questioning Maurice Chatelain. You just dreamed it up, because it never happened -- unless, maybe, you can cite a single checkable source?

The only properly-researched response to Chatelain's story is to point out that these alleged credentials are bogus. He never worked for NASA. Briefly he was at North American Aviation, in Downey, California, during the Gemini program, but was fired before the Apollo program even began.

This employment record is all confirmable from the personnel offices of the organizations involved. I've done that. You can too. Embrace reality! Eschew confabulation!

Come on back to Earth.

Are you actually saying that Ingo Swann in his book where he gave this information including the mans background and suggested to look for it, was lying? I don't think he is, and his research in Penetration is top notch, including his logic in assessing the information NASA would have had at their fingertips.

reply to post by wmd_2008

b) The probe landing close by to the artifacts if they exist (close to nil)

You are correct the chances are not great,they are there however,and after viewing this composition of all Russian and American landings on the Moon and seeing the large spaces they covered(yes I know only small radii at the landing zones),not to mention nearly the whole front and back side of the Moon covered by orbiting satellites,you will see those chances aren't quite "as nil" as you might think.


Moon Landings



[edit on 4/4/2009 by jkrog08]

Now I personally am MUCH more interested in these following pics of Mikes.

1."The Tank"


2."The Craft"


3."The A-Wing"

(I realize these objects are relatively small)
Now I find these much more ambiguous,the first pic I think is likely a piece of an antenna..........but these pics?Is there anyway to judge the size of these objects(Internos)?

[edit on 4/4/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

b) The probe landing close by to the artifacts if they exist (close to nil)

You are correct the chances are not great,they are there however,and after viewing this composition of all Russian and American landings on the Moon and seeing the large spaces they covered(yes I know only small radii at the landing zones),not to mention nearly the whole front and back side of the Moon covered by orbiting satellites,you will see those chances aren't quite "as nil" as you might think.


Moon Landings



[edit on 4/4/2009 by jkrog08]

No the chances are still almost nil of being next to artifacts now parts the probes the chances are HIGH!!!

reply to post by jkrog08




You mean the ROCK ,the next ROCK , and the picture that could be a small rock.
No I am fed up seeing low res pics of ROCKS.

reply to post by wmd_2008


So do you not think there is any chance at all of a old or current civilization on the Moon?There is A LOT of other evidence besides this(a lot more convincing) that at least in the past the could have been a alien influence on the Moon,and really it is a mainstream theory that we (now) have hidden bases on the Moon.I appreciate your skepticism,for it is necessary for any legit discussion site.But I will say don't close your mind so much it hurts.Right now there is a clear change in favor of A LOT of the main theories being true in Ufology.

Hey look! They're on Mars too!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/71916e99e6d2c5fd.gif[/atsimg]

This image is from the rover, Opportunity, taken on sol 325 (1P157049138ESF40A3P2576L4M1).

NASA claims that it is a spring which was ejected when the heat shield was jettisoned. I can't seem to find a picture of this spring anywhere on any of the drawings of the rover landers. I think NASA is lying.


(No. I don't really think NASA is lying. Landers have all kinds of springs and stuff that pop off of them...on purpose.)

[edit on 4/4/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by jkrog08


I don't know about their size: they look to be relatively close to the camera, but it's very hard to say:
now for example there's a software made for Mars rovers images (the stereo ones) that allows you to calculate the size of what you see in some reliable way, i don't remeber its name though. But in the case of these images, while the objects look to be very close to the camera, even the horizon does. I think that this is something that requires someone who was involved in the soviet space program, to be clarified

Originally posted by mystiq
Are you actually saying that Ingo Swann in his book where he gave this information including the mans background and suggested to look for it, was lying? I don't think he is, and his research in Penetration is top notch, including his logic in assessing the information NASA would have had at their fingertips.

I'm not interested in Swann's motives, i'm interested in what can be proven based on independent validation efforts. And Chatelain's 'myth' of being in charge of NASA space communications during Apollo is total nonsense.

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Well, I dunno what you claim that the piece shown below

is the same as this...

Doesn't seem to be so!



Cheers!

No offense but it would only hold one of the discs and yes it is the same shape. I'm sorry if you your eye can't pick that out. I can see it but then I'm an experienced CAD and 3D modeler and in my youth worked often in construction with prints and plans. I see it perfectly and as soon as I get a little time I'll make a model to illustrate. You also have to include the tips of the other petals which would clamp around that piece. Can you get a full set of plans? That is what is needed. Otherwise you could spend forever guessing and debating and never have a valid answer.

How do you think they accomplished the opening of the petals? Is it crazy to think when it opened it ejected the part that held it closed?

reply to post by Blaine91555


You may be right, Blaine. The petals may have opened due to the explosive bolts. But that piece lying on the surface does not look like an explosive bolt to me! If it is, then the Russians need to change their bolt designs by making it much smaller to save space and weight! You know, every ounce sent to the Moon costs thousands of dollars!!

Needless to say, we need to know the size of that piece lying on the surface. Could be pretty big. One is half way to the horizon!

Cheers!

[edit on 4-4-2009 by mikesingh]

Wow, I say. Interesting. At first, I thought it might be some kind of space junk that fell onto the moon....but the atmosphere and gravity of the moon isnt very strong, but its still possible I guess, HOWEVER if it fell from space, there would be a crater around the objects, and clearly there arent. Second, I thought of it being from one of the lunar landers, however, looking at the aging on the objects (mainly the circular things in photo 1) it looks like it has been sitting there for quite some time, and again this raises the atmospheric issue on the moon. Things just dont "collect dust" on the moon even within say 40 years. There is no wind for the moondust to swirl around in, and the gravity is so light, that for dust to settle, it would leave a different pattern???

Just my thought, but as far as I would figure, atmosphere and gravity would play HUGE factors on what "sits" on the moon

Well at the very least this sure adds to the mysticism associated with the Moon.It is just to hard to tell for sure what these objects are without HD or high res capabilities.Maybe some pics exist,if they do they are probably under lock and key.Someone earlier said the chances are nil of finding anything on the vastness of the Moon.Maybe these landing sites were chosen because orbiters saw something,maybe not once you think of why the government would let them out.There is a lot of info right now in all aspects of Ufology and this is how the truth will eventually be found,from people like Mike,members of ATS,and other "fringe" networks.I say keep up the good work regardless.Nice work either way Mike!

Hi Mike,

Here is what I think we are looking at. Forgive the quality, I did not have much time today -

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a121a517c38.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b33174e68ab.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11c7264f75e7.jpg[/atsimg]

The cap (blue) which I have tilted up would be the piece the upper right arrow is pointing to on the petal.

The green and yellow are two of the petals with the other two missing to show how they come together.

The red piece is the part on the moons surface.

What I think is that part (the red piece) upon landing was ejected by either an explosive bolt or a spring loaded mechanism to throw it free and open the petals.

It makes the most sense to me and the lander from 13 has the same petal arrangement as the one in the bottom photo from 9.

Anyhow, hope it makes sense. I did this quick so the proportions are all wrong but it should illustrate what I think we see and why it is there. The cap (blue) I tilted up but it would be flat against the top when closed and I think that is why the one petal has a part shaped somewhat like that in the bottom photo.

I hope this makes sense to people.

I wonder if plans exist for these craft?

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by Jerbowski
There is no wind for the moondust to swirl around in, and the gravity is so light, that for dust to settle, it would leave a different pattern???
Just my thought, but as far as I would figure, atmosphere and gravity would play HUGE factors on what "sits" on the moon

Hey Jerbowski! I thought you may be interested in this conspiracy. (I love conspiracies!! )

The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

Cheers!

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Anyhow, hope it makes sense.

Yes it does! Excellent rendition Blaine! That's one of the best explanations so far. But then again check out the apparent condition of that piece on the Moon. It looks pretty corroded and a piece from the first disc seems to have chipped off. Is it due to corrosion occurring over many decades or did it break off due to the explosive bolt? Or did it break due to the impact? This last is unlikely as there was a soft landing on the Moon at

OOoops! Double post! What the heck???

[edit on 5-4-2009 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


My thought on that may be it was damaged in the process whatever it was. Perhaps it had a case hardened coating or nickel coating that was damaged in the process. Hard to tell. May just be that it stirred up the soil and what looks like corrosion is just the deposited soil from its impact that adhered to it for some reason. Possibly a lubricant that the dust stuck to.

Anyhow I'm off to bed. Long day. Thanks for another good thread.