It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

Luna space probes impacted the moon noticed i did not say landed. The orbiter them blows off its cover more trash and most images were low quality In practice, images were all transmitted for preview at 235×220 which you can tell from these photos. These are diffinately from the space craft and i like to know how someone can say something looks rusted on the moon! never mind i wont go there just suggest you find out whats needed to create rust.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:37 AM

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
The only question I have is why havent we been back? If we have much more advanced technology than we did then, then why not go back and investigate these things more?? NASA spends so much money launching satellites and rockets and sending the shuttle up, why not spend those millions going to the moon again...

[Conspiracy on]


Why spend huge budgets on going 'back' to the Moon when the top secret Military space program to the Moon is well and truly running? Where do you think the budget cut imposed on NASA went? Probably to this secret space program and other related black budget operations! But that's another story!


So why didn’t the US get back to the Moon? Was it because of the UN’s Outer Space Treaty that forbade it, or could there have been another reason? Was there an alien influence behind that as well? This sounds like familiar claptrap and beyond bizarre! Nonsense actually…Or is it?

Having said that, let’s take a look at a document co-authored by none other than Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, then Director of Advanced Studies Princeton, New Jersey, and father of the atomic bomb and Professor Albert Einstein.

Operation Majestic-12 was established by special classified presidential order on September 24, 1947 at the recommendation of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal and Dr. Vannevar Bush, Chairman of the Joint Research and Development Board. The goal of the group was to exploit everything they could from recovered alien technology.

Einstein and Oppenheimer were called to give their opinion, drafting a six-page paper titled “Relationships With Inhabitants Of Celestial Bodies.” They provided prophetic insight into our modern nuclear strategies and satellites, and expressed agitated urgency that an agreement be reached with the President so that scientists could proceed to study the alien technology.

Extracts From The Paper, Relationships with Inhabitants of Celestial Bodies

“Res nullius is something that belongs to nobody such as the moon. In international law a celestrial [sic] body is not subject to the sovereignty of any state is considered res nullius. If it could be established that a celestrial [sic] body within our solar system such as our moon was, or is occupied by another celestrial race, there could be no claim of res nullius by any state on earth (if that state should decide to in the future to send explorers to lay claim to it). It would exist as res communis, that is that all celestrial [sic] states have the same rights over it.”

In short, the US, the Soviet Union, or any other human state on Earth could not claim the Moon as their exclusive property — because it was already occupied by extraterrestrials.

Did Einstein and Oppenheimer have any inside knowledge of the presence of ETs on the Moon and therefore included it in that Paper?

Does that mean there was an ETs presence on the Moon that prevented us from going back? Were we warned off?

[Conspiracy Off]

I'll leave that for you to surmise.....

Text of the Outer Space Treaty

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

I didnt realize that the moon having gravity was in doubt. All bodies have gravity. However all bodies do not have weather. The atmosphere of the Moon is very tenuous and insignificant in comparison with that of the Earth. One source of the lunar atmosphere is outgassing: the release of gases such as radon that originate from radioactive decay within the crust and mantle. Another important source is the bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeorites, the solar wind, and sunlight, in a process known as sputtering.[1] Gases that are released by sputtering can either:

* be reimplanted into the regolith as a result of the Moon's gravity;
* be lost to space either by solar radiation pressure or, if the gases are ionized, by being swept away in the solar wind's magnetic field.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by dragonridr
i like to know how someone can say something looks rusted on the moon! never mind i wont go there just suggest you find out whats needed to create rust.

Rust? Where did I say rust? I said corroded.

In broad terms, it is the interaction between a material and its environment that results in a degradation of the physical, mechanical, or even aesthetic properties of that material.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by mikesingh]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:45 AM
Those objects are not part of the terrain. That much is obvious. So we have:

1. Parts of the Russian Probe (But what parts????)

2. Alien Artifacts

3. Man-Made Artifacts

I`ll remain open to all three.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:53 AM
yeah! good images! Good thread!

Youd did a good job here Mike.


posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by easynow


Until you show me the original configuration of that part that is "broken", you surely do need to say more.

I have no idea what that piece of equipment is so I have no idea if its broken or not, let alone what the broken piece should look like.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:05 AM
Obtaining good images of the entire spacecraft, to see how much junk is thrown onto the surface during the landing operation, can be illuminating.

Both google and the 'yandex' Russian search engine are helpful, especially if you search using the cyrillic for the probe, and its sister ship Luna-9.

here's what I found:

Image of debris-strewn moonscape
from article on Soviet space cameras
with caption to above view:
“Pieces of the landing craft are seen in the distance on the left view.”

Survey article on all Soviet Moon images:

Mockup on surface:

Some Luna-13 views in Lavochkin museum (use left/right arrows for more)

Views of sister ship Luna-9

Luna-9 full spacecraft

full spacecraft with labels

color graphic of full spacecraft

art of braking engines firing

sketch of landing dynamics

art of descent dynamics

artwork, on the surface

artwork, on the surface, with landing stage

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by pyrytyes
reply to post by mikesingh

The object with "wheels and an axle" looks like an auger, for drilling holes.
I don't see any obvious holes in the ground, though.
The shadow does not indicate a distinct wheel and axle configuration, between the first and second/middle disk, but more of a "screw" cofig.

What is that on the right side, middle, to the right of the "spindly doodad".
Is reminiscent of a bent pry bar. The edge of the picture cuts it off, the entire length is not shown.

Good find, thanks!

Good find Mike!. Yea Pyrytes might be on to it...It does look like a broken auger of some sort...? I who knows so much crap is being found the last 3 years it's hard to say. I mean it is a object no doubt....But my first though is a drilling auger for soil samples comes right to mind..Then well the other stuff? Who knows maybe it intergalactic trash...I don't see any no littering signs posted on the moon...

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by JimOberg
Obtaining good images of the entire spacecraft, to see how much junk is thrown onto the surface during the landing operation, can be illuminating.

Agreed! But that doesn't look like junk thrown onto the surface due to the landing operation! For that to have happened, there would have been a tremendous impact as these pieces are pretty far from the lander. And with that impact, I wonder how the Luna probe continued to operate?

The main descent engines of the probes generally cut off at an altitude of approx 20 m and the landing jets cut off at 2 m height at a velocity less than 2.4 m/s.

And that means a soft landing!


[edit on 2-4-2009 by mikesingh]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Terces Pot Evoba
resembles the high gain antennae from the Russian rover Lunokhod 1

I agree with you! Both Lunokhod 1 and 2 had this antenna, and here is a photo of Lunokhod 2:

This artifact in the photo from the Luna 13 mission looks like a part of such an antenna:

I know that according to official information neither Lunokhod 1 or 2 were anywhere near the site of Luna 13. In this map you can see the landing sites, and the Luna missions are marked with red flags. ( Lunokhod 1 = Luna 17, Lunokhod 2 = Luna 21):

But isn't it possible that there perhaps were other, unknown attempts at sending a Lunokhod to the Moon, and that one of them went wrong? If so, I'm sure the people responsible for the failed mission weren't interested in letting the world, and especially not the US, know about it...

Just a thought.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:23 AM
The "panorama 2 left" image seems a little skewed (width wise).. As for when I downloaded the image they are more egg shape... They remind me of, Aliens (the Movie)- Pods for their incubation?????

edit to correct name of image

[edit on 2-4-2009 by hdchop]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:24 AM
Cool thread mike! We never see stuff like this from nasa.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by ziggystar60

Very compelling. The lunakhod antenna portion seems to be the front runner for me.
However, back in the nasty, dirty, recesses of my mind I couldn't help thinking of the Hamel engine. The cone in a cone in a cone.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by ziggystar60

Yes, ziggy: the piece of antenna looking like the lunokhod one was brought somewhere else here on ats regarding this stuff, and it does make much sense: but we have three problems with it:
first, there is not indication of the existence of such antenna on the lander we are talking about, but this means nothing: Jim Oberg will be more able than me to explain why they would hide the devices related to transmissions/communications
the second problem i have with the piece of antenna theory is that i don't see why an antenna could break that way, and not, for example, at its basement: i mean it does not make sense that type of breaking
the third problem is the impact site: do you see any marks of impact around there ? I don't. Everything should leave a mark, let's assume that it bounced at least two three times: where are the marks then?

Anyway, ziggy, the antenna explanation as said makes much sense because of the resembleance. Maybe Jim knows what transmission devices were installed on Lunik 13, i honestly don't.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by internos]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

The 4th image, I hate to say it looks like a tank. Even the wheel object nearbye looks like a triple track section of the wheel assembly. Crazy

Nice find!

I wish some independent source (like MIT grads or similar) would put together an independent mission and send a small rover of some type to take images not affected by NASA and their annoying airbrush retards. Maybe Virgin Galactic and Richard Branson could help them out on a rocket design and a little funding, keep the rover light and just get this thing done for the sake of truth.

But then again, Branson most likely is on board with silence.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:03 AM

Just a little mood music for this topic.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

I'm not so hot at space exploration, so forgive me if any of this is really dumb, these questions are borne of ignorance.

I'm not sure if the odds of finding something from previous explorations of the moon are astronomical. I would like to know the operational range of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 - to see if the areas explored overlapped with the later Lunar 16 or Lunar 17.

I'd also like to know if fallout cones in which debris could fall from previous missions (while in flight) overlap. I don't know if landing position is a good guide to where debris could fall because it doesn't take into account the path followed to landing, which must cover a larger area than the strict operational range of the probes once landed. e.g. whether debris could fall from a previous mission while in flight and overlap with an area in a later mission.

Starred and flagged BTW, because I like a good mystery

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:06 AM
It would be nice if somebody could get the Lavochkin engineers to reply to what pieces of their own spacecraft all this fuss is about. But I'm afraid they're probably all rolling on the floor laughing too hard.

Exactly what is the premise of this thread? That for forty years, released images from Luna-9 and Lunar-13 showed clearly non-human artifacts, and nobody noticed until now? Especially the Russians and their own passion for aliens and UFOs? There seems to be a disconnect here, and it may be internal to folks who insist on interpreting these images into a pre-existing context.

I don't get it. Why wouldn't the Russians themselves make an issue of such a discovery the moment they saw it?

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

i don't know. that first one looks like this to me

post hole digger bit

[edit on 2-4-2009 by hillbillywingsfan]

[edit on 2-4-2009 by hillbillywingsfan]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in