It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 7
153
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

How can anything get weathered on the moon? It has no atmosphere hence no weather.


Moondust could easily make something look old. Remember how the Nasa astronauts had to deal with moondust infiltrating everything? Their suits and boots looked like they'd been put through hell by the time they got back.

For these parts to be right there at the landing zone of whatever craft this was is a good indicator they came off that craft. Maybe the soviets were taking the photos of the parts for later analysis in case something went wrong, or just to determine how they managed to come off in the first place. With the collapse of the USSR a lot of things (like the opening of their space city) have become public. Glasnost baby!




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
This is a great find Mike.....very interesting.

Can't help thinking debris though.

If it is debris it just goes to show how much out there...Time to get the Red Dwarf ship out there and start to collect it all...LOL

Of course it would be fantastic if it was something else...................



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by easynow
 


Hi easynow! Good find!
But as kryties mentioned above, these don't resemble the 'wheel' on the probe. Take a look...





Firstly, check out the 'antiquity' of the wheel. It looks hundreds of years old. Pretty weathered!

Secondly, the part on the probe does not have any discs.

Thirdly, the Moon artifact has a single spindle/axle.

But most important is the condition of that 'wheel' artifact that looks pretty old and corroded and partly covered with a layer of Moon dust.

Cheers!





anyone else think that the central bolt has 2 shadows?
and also the mass/diameter of the central bolt in relation to the outer disk is too small from the lunar compared to the size of the central bolt lying in the picture....

nice find op s&f



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I am trembling in the presence of Kings. I bow in humble grace.

While my opinion on the source of the "artifact" is moot. To my eye, the aspect of the artifact is mildly puzzling.
While I am somewhat familiar with basic photography principles and such, I am certainly no Internos.


The object doesn't seem to exhibit the effect of parallax error or vanishing point perspective as I would expect. (Of course I realize many factors such as lens focal length, angle of view, angle of lighting etc. play huge factors.)

Below, is a basic screen grab with mild sharpening, contrast tweak and image size increased.
(The red line on the left is a an exact duplicate copy of the red line on the right. Repositioned left by siding on X axis only.) i.e. They are parallel.
To me it indicates the center disk is not equal circumference to outer 2 or symmetrically aligned.
Perhaps that might ascertain the distinct possibility or refute a match to hi gain antenna. Or it is simply "eroded" more or was jostled. Either way, Awesome thread.




Edit to add:
(Forgot to mention odd shadow irregularity. Perhaps indicates rear disk much larger.)

Regards..........KK (Runs to BTS.)


[edit on 2-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 2-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Sorry maybe this has been mentioned before, just got to work.
have we got a measure or some kind of control of the distance of these pictures to compare with ?
That drill object or what ever the hell it is, doesn't look like an areal, the thickness of each 'wheel' is what gets me.
You would think that 'Aliens' wouldn't 'drill' their way down, if they got the tech for interplantary travel, they would blast or melt their way down.

just my 2 cents.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 

As the word on the street goes:

These interesting objects are a common site within the dairy industry! Mostly used in processing milk/creme/and bacteria medium, the items are part of an assembly line mechanism.

After the dairy medium has transformed into curds, it is moved from large vats along a tube that has this "Corkscrew) circles with center axile (like in the picture) to another group of small holding trays.
Here the inoculum of Penicillium is introduced in measured doses.

THIS PHOTO IS OF THE DEBRIS FIELD FROM A "GREEN CHEESE" FACTORY WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY REPTIILIANS FROM "beta reticuli" of the orion constellations. Known as the "Dairy wars" and later mentioned to our ancestors during initial visits to earth. THIS IS HOW WE KNOW THAT OUR MOON WAS ONCE MADE OF "GREEN CHEESE".

Trust Me I'm a Salesman!
Anyone need a tractor trailer load of Space "Munster"?



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
nevermind


[edit on 4/2/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


These were taken off panoramic shots done by luna 13 they just turned the camera around the craft and took pictures. Obviosly the russians were not surprised by this being there. If they were they would have made an anouncement to make the United States look bad!



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Kandinsky
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).


Hi Kandinsky! Good point. But let's see the dispersion between Luna 8 and 13...

Luna 08 USSR Dec 65 > 09:08N 63:18W

Luna 13 USSR Dec 66 > 18:52N 62:03W


That's miles apart!


Cheers!

Let's try to be clear: i deliberate omitted to mention the other missions because there is a HUGE difference between a soft landing and a crash
If we want to put all together then it's ok for me, but what we see comes from a SOFT landing, (let me add VERY soft one). To even think that what we see is a mechanical part coming from a CRASH is INSANE to say the least, for obvious reasons.


[edit on 2/4/2009 by internos]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Luna-13 was an E-6 spacecraft which used an airbag landing system, the bag being deployed at a low altitude. It's very likely a certain amount of miscellaneous hardware would come loose as part of the deployment process and fall near the lander.

Two-part air bag system for landing the payload on the surface of the moon. The landed spacecraft itself was ejected from the main bus just above the surface; it was surrounded by this air bag to absorb the impact.
www.astronautix.com...



I think the lander is the egg shaped thing on top. Certainly a lot of "extra" parts.

[edit on 4/2/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Kandinsky
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).


Hi Kandinsky! Good point. But let's see the dispersion between Luna 8 and 13...

Luna 08 USSR Dec 65 > 09:08N 63:18W

Luna 13 USSR Dec 66 > 18:52N 62:03W


That's miles apart!


Cheers!

Let's try to be clear: i deliberate omitted to mention the other missions because there is a HUGE difference between a soft landing and a crash
If we want to put all together then it's ok for me, but what we see comes from a SOFT landing, (let me add VERY soft one). To even think that what we see is a mechanical part coming from a CRASH is INSANE to say the least, for obvious reasons.


[edit on 2/4/2009 by internos]


This was basically a controlled crash it impacted the moon. There were no thruster rockets to slow descent (see original design) and guess what couldnt use parachutes do to limited atmosphere. This craft was shot at the moon like a bullet. Does that sound like a soft landing to you?



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Did'nt Japan send a rocket to the moon with HD cameras all we saw was some flyby crap nothing of a super clear pictures we were suppose to see. I guess there still airbrushing so it might still take a while before we get to see them.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr


This was basically a controlled crash it impacted the moon. There were no thruster rockets to slow descent (see original design) and guess what couldnt use parachutes do to limited atmosphere. This craft was shot at the moon like a bullet. Does that sound like a soft landing to you?

ahem!
NOT to me, but to the soviet space agency

Luna 13 became the second spacecraft (both from the Soviet Union) to successfully soft-land on the surface of the Moon. The probe landed in the Ocean of Storms at 18:01 UT on 24 December 1966, between the Krafft and Seleucus craters at 18°52' north latitude and 62°3' west longitude. Unlike its predecessor, the heavier Luna 13 lander (113 kilograms) carried a suite of scientific instruments in addition to the usual imaging system.

en.wikipedia.org...
a soft landing is a non crash. easy to get, isn't it?


[edit on 2/4/2009 by internos]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by underpassdweller


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).


Nevertheless, anyone can use satellite view on Google Maps and easily distinguish their car in the driveway of their house - seems anything the size of the lunar lander or bigger would be extremely easy to ID.


You're confusing the view from 6,000 ft, or sometimes 400 miles, with the view from 240,000 miles.


Jim, why are you trying to obfuscate the issue? I thought you were well aware that images of the Moon by satellites have been taken from as low as 40 km from the Moon's surface during perigee? But satellite images of the Moon from 240,000 miles? What are you talking about?

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Really interesting pics.

I think that the photos are definately of space probe debris.

The disks on a rod thing looks like a high gain antenae from a Zond space probe.

The large spheres are fuel tanks, the cone shaped object is actually a part of the descent stage.

When I saw these pics, I immediately recalled that the Luna space probes used a hard landing strategy. The probe was ejected from the descent stage just before impact, then it would bounce and roll to a stop before opening up and snapping pictures.

I found a great picture in my copy of "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology" that shows the entire descent stage and an illustration that shows how the hard landing sequence was supposed to work. Most of the objects in the OP's pics can be recognized as parts of the descent stage.

If I can find a similar picture online, then I will post the link.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by lunarminer]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberg
How can anything get weathered on the moon? It has no atmosphere hence no weather. You can go there and all the stuff left there looks as good as the day it left earth. It just might be faded a little from uv rays. I agree completely with Easynow's theory. No weather,no rust,no decay, they are pieces of the lander itself. Russian Space control might have had a few vodkas when they were landing it and banged up the front end a little. No offense to my Russian brothers.


Cyberg, it does seem that you haven't gone through this thread. So for your info regarding atmosphere, gravity and so on, take a peek at my post here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Hi Mike....

Haven't read through all pages yet but while searching that website I stumbled on to 'A Cover Up'... check these pictures out...






What do you think they were trying to hide? I mean "Trying"... didn't do a very good job to me... is this on purpose.????


Rgds



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Let's just ask the Russians what it is.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




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


www.celestiamotherlode.net...

The above photo clearly shows the Panorama 2 left object on Mike's OP.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by internos
 


Luna-13 was an E-6 spacecraft which used an airbag landing system, the bag being deployed at a low altitude. It's very likely a certain amount of miscellaneous hardware would come loose as part of the deployment process and fall near the lander.


There's no question of 'miscellaneous hardware' coming 'loose'! It's not a Leo toy after all. It's a Moon probe for crying out loud! Russians don't build stuff that crumbles and spews parts all over the Moon after a soft landing! Even if the covers of the bag had been ejected, they don't resemble those objects at all!

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 very soft landing!


Cheers!



new topics

top topics



 
153
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join