Alien Artifacts On The Moon? Images from Russian Luna Probes!, page 4

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:16 AM

link

reply to post by JimOberg

I agree - but at the same time, I'm not convinced that they would call attention to it - much in the same way NASA never calls attention to its incongruities. Either way, it's only speculation.

As I said in my previous post, I have a email off to the company requesting information on what it could possibly be. That being said, I don't speak Russian, so I had my message translated on babel fish, and I sent that. Hopefully I didn't ask them how their donkey was doing the mambo or something strange like that.

If/When I get a response, I'll be sure to post it.

Pocket_Aces

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:19 AM

link

First off great post!

I can see how people would think that the 3 piece wheel thing looks like the antenna from Lunokhod 1 or 2. I don't think it matches it though.

If you look at the image in question and notice that the middle circle is smaller than the two on the ends. The picture of the Lunokhod antenna shows that all the circles seem to be the exact same size.

It's very hard to tell from these images but the artifact also looks like the circles are thicker than the ones from the antenna. Without an exact size we obviously can't tell this though.

But I do think the circles are not uniform and would rule out the antenna.

My 2 cents.

Kryties

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:27 AM

link

Originally posted by Pocket_Aces

It's very hard to tell from these images but the artifact also looks like the circles are thicker than the ones from the antenna.

I would have to agree with this statement. The antenna shown looks almost flimsy compared to the more solid-looking construction of the object in the picture. Kind of like comparing 2 Macca's cup lids conected by a straw to a bodybuilder's dumbbell.

jackphotohobby

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:39 AM

link

reply to post by JimOberg

Sounds like the space probe equivalent of a Lada 1200. Bits may fall off, the ride may be rough, but it'll get you where you're going

.

For the benefit of sceptics like myself, could you elaborate on a possible explanation? It's not something I care enough about to do the homework on myself and would, given your background, take seriously.

Dean Goldberry

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:40 AM

link

reply to post by arizonascott

If official secrecy didn't control the "titans of industry" the same way it runs the government, a couple guys like Richard Branson and Bill Gates (or perhaps a with a couple or few others of the mega-rich) could get together and fund the first permanent moon colony-research station easily. Everything concerning space exploration could have been privatized years ago without the monolithic secrecy.

palg1

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:55 AM

link

reply to post by mikesingh

I understand that you are now an expert in lunar archeology.
Good for you. Where did you get your degree?
----------------

Your list of lunar missions is pretty substantial and I am comfortable in the thoery that these may be relics from previous missions regardless of the location of the landing site. As you say things in orbit don't always land near the landing vehicle now do they?

xbranscombex

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:03 PM

link

Someone please help answer my question...!!!

U.S says even with their advance telescopes and luner orbiters and stuff they cannot get close enough detail to take photos of the surface to show the Luner Rover and the American Flag..

So, they lied?

Because well, these photos are very close..

and I am in total AWE

Masisoar

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:07 PM

link

A lot of people in this thread are lightly giving so much credit and trust towards Mike's posts.

Have you seen this guy's past posts?

Sure the photos are interesting but it's not smart to jump to unsupported conclusions.

Those objects are what they are and unless we fly out there, we can't say for certain WHAT exactly they are.

dkman222

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:13 PM

link

Originally posted by easynow
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread451304did anyone notice you can see stars in some of these photos ? funny you can't see any in NASA pictures

Your absolutely right, you can see the stars in some of the photos!! i would love to see NASA try to dance around that one, they'd probably just say Russia faked the photos lol.

DaMod

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link

Originally posted by el.rebelde

Hi All,

To me it looks artificial and def to old to be off a previous moon mission. Not sure if any serious weathering can take place on the moon but that could be a reason for the aged look.

In the large circle it appears as though the item in question has been rusted, it has that jagged metal appearance.

The second circle en-circles a shadow of what I believe to be the other side of the rod that seems to run through the object, again pointing to an intelligently designed piece.

I usually find these moon images hocus-pocus but this is one of the more interesting finds so nice one!

Alas id could also be faked but it looks real to me.

Rusted??? On the moon??? Rust is Oxidation and as far as I know the moon hath no oxygen.

I would like to say it's nice to see something not from NASA. I have to say for those trying to debunk this, if your right.. then oh well. But if your wrong we need to get this thing and study the *(&^ out of it.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by DaMod]

DaMod

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link

Image number 4 looks like a bunker or perhaps a crashed craft of some sort. It really does not look natural.

ziggystar60

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link

Originally posted by xbranscombex
Someone please help answer my question...!!!

U.S says even with their advance telescopes and luner orbiters and stuff they cannot get close enough detail to take photos of the surface to show the Luner Rover and the American Flag..

So, they lied?

Because well, these photos are very close..

and I am in total AWE

The images in the OP which show artifacts on the lunar surface weren't taken from orbit or by a telescope. They were taken during the Luna 13 mission:

The Luna 13 spacecraft was launched toward the Moon from an earth-orbiting platform and accomplished a soft landing on December 24, 1966, in the region of Oceanus Procellarum. The petal encasement of the spacecraft was opened, antennas were erected, and radio transmissions to Earth began four minutes after the landing. On December 25 and 26, 1966, the spacecraft television system transmitted panoramas of the nearby lunar landscape at different sun angles. Each panorama required approximately 100 minutes to transmit. The spacecraft was equipped with a mechanical soil-measuring penetrometer, a dynamograph, and a radiation densitometer for obtaining data on the mechanical and physical properties and the cosmic-ray reflectivity of the lunar surface.

www.solarviews.com...

nomadros

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link

Nothing to do with UFOs really but I like the wave pattern in the crater in this picture

Kandinsky

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link

Good thread as per usual Mike. It's about time you made a thread, it's fairly quiet when you aren't posting! Also good to see Internos back in the game

The Luna 13 images definitely look like artificial objects. No pixellation or color highlights. Even when I tried, I just couldn't see them as anything other than mechanical artifact.

If debris from the Luna 13 soft landing can be ruled out...could it be remnants from the Luna 8? This craft failed and crashed into the Oceanus Procellarum (Sea of Storms).

Lunar soft landing attempt failed. Luna 8's objectives were to test a soft lunar landing system and scientific research. Weighing 1,552 kg (3,422 lbs), the spacecraft was following a trajectory close to the calculated one and the equipment was functioning normally. However, the retrofire was late, and the spacecraft impacted the lunar surface in the Sea of Storms. Tass reported that "the systems were functioning normally at all stages of the landing except the final touchdown." The mission did complete the experimental development of the star-orientation system and ground control of radio equipment, flight trajectory, and other instrumentation.
Source

Are we able to rule out the possibility that the impact threw parts of the craft across a particular area?

mikesingh

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Both Lunokhod 1 and 2 had this antenna, and here is a photo of Lunokhod 2:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c0746854b7d.jpg[/atsimg]
selena.sai.msu.ru...

This artifact in the photo from the Luna 13 mission looks like a part of such an antenna:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/28535cd08d60.jpg[/atsimg]

Ziggy, the first pic you posted above is of the Lunokhod, but the bone of contention is the Luna 13 pic. Now let's see what Luna 13 looks like...

No similar antenna here, so it can't be part of it! In fact there's nothing in common! So the mystery remains!

Cheers!

underpassdweller

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link

U.S says even with their advance telescopes and luner orbiters and stuff they cannot get close enough detail to take photos of the surface to show the Luner Rover and the American Flag..

Similarly, I've wondered why our military satellites can supposedly ID a single person through 35 miles of polluted atmosphere here on earth yet they can't take a single decent hi-res picture of the moon.

JimOberg

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link

Originally posted by mikesingh
No similar antenna here, so it can't be part of it! In fact there's nothing in common! So the mystery remains!

By no means. That's a computer graphics version, highly simplified. Compare the museum-quality flight-qualified vehicles at the novosti kosmonavtiki sites that I linked earlier.

Hari Seldon

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link

reply to post by mikesingh

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the artifact in photo 1 & 2 looks like a large industrial two section cable spool.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Hari Seldon]

JimOberg

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link

Originally posted by underpassdweller
Similarly, I've wondered why our military satellites can supposedly ID a single person through 35 miles of polluted atmosphere here on earth yet they can't take a single decent hi-res picture of the moon.

There's an obvious explanation for your bewilderment. You've confused Hollywood's 'Enemy of the State' (Will Smith) with reality. Such resolution remains physically impossible, while making some people (eg, bin Laden) THINK it's possible has tactical advantages).

ziggystar60

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link

reply to post by mikesingh

Hi, Mike, I know that Luna 13 didn't have such an antenna, but the two Lunokhods did. I suggested that the artifacts in the Luna 13 image may be remains from a failed (and unknown) earlier mission to place a Lunokhod rover in the same area of the moon.

I also know that this is just an idea, and it may be crazy. But I think it is very possible that there have been missions to the Moon that have been kept secret. And the resemblance between the artifact and the Lunokhod antenna IS striking.

( I also want to thank you for this great thread, Mike - one of many. You are a BIG part of what makes ATS such a great place to be!

)