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: 9
153
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
It could very well be wreckage from a classified mission... Russia has covered many things up over the years... namely their mistakes. Could this be one of them?

IRM




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Sorry if this has already been addressed but has anyone asked NASA about these images?I know you said they couldn't be left over debris from the Apollo missions,but maybe from probes?As we all know there is PLENTY of speculations on secret human and alien moon bases.Maybe this is evidence of these bases(I mean if they have been there as long as we hear then there is bound to be some junk left around).Great find as ussual Mike,star and flag from me.I would really like to hear a explanation from NASA,or at least another countries space agency.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Note in this image that the discs look to be quite thick, in comparison to the antenna pictures and models of the Lunokhod landers.

Also note that each disc appears to have a 'lip' around the circumference of the flat face of the disc that juts out a few centimetres. The antenna pictures do not appear to display this characteristic either.

The discs also do not appear as widely spaced as those on the antenna.



Lunokhod antenna pic. 1


Lunokhod antenna pic. 2


Lunokhod antenna pic. 3


[edit on 3/4/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
If this is an earthly metal, have any studies been done as to what would happen to metal in zero gravity for all those decades? would some kind of build up on it account for the thickness?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


So are you saying you do not think this object is an antenna?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Kryties
 


So are you saying you do not think this object is an antenna?




Leaning towards no on the antenna idea when I saw this hq pic of the rover that has the "famous antenna"
I luv this thread, I wont be happy until I find out what the "object" is...

Here is a good Video on this hole "crash site" so to speak (shows all wreckage) sorry if already posted.
www.youtube.com...[


..btw.. In the OP's pictures, the third pic down. I think it is the Same object as the "antenna look a like" object in the first pic Except it has two Discs? In the youtube video you can full screen it and see! time 1:00-1:10 into the vid... just my thoughts, thanks.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by kyleplatinum]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Have to love the fact that, something that looks like debris from the shuttle, is quickly taken on board by the people so desperate for proof of alien life as proof.

Its clearly debris from the shuttle.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
OK, there is something going on with respect to our comparisons here.

The image on pg1 in OP is the same image I used on pg6 for my analysis.
( related to perspective. I used link in OP and snatched a screen grab.)

Also on pg1, easynow posted another "object" image, it matches the one that Kryties made his disc width comparison from above ( pg8)

Please notice the shadow variation, etc.

Are we comparing apples to apples? What was the souce for easynow's and Kryties image? Just trying to be clear here. Food for thought.


Not intending to de-rail, just puzzled and more curious than before now.

Regards....KK

[edit on 3-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
disregard what i just said in this post

[edit on 3-4-2009 by MR BOB]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
OK, there is something going on with respect to our comparisons here.

The image on pg1 in OP is the same image I used on pg6 for my analysis.
( related to perspective. I used link in OP and snatched a screen grab.)

Also on pg1, easynow posted another "object" image, it matches the one that Kryties made his disc width comparison from above ( pg8)

Please notice the shadow variation, etc.

Are we comparing apples to apples? What was the souce for easynow's and Kryties image? Just trying to be clear here. Food for thought.


Not intending to de-rail, just puzzled and more curious than before now.

Regards....KK

[edit on 3-4-2009 by kinda kurious]


Kryties image is a different picture taken from a higher point (maybe diff camera?) in the video I posted...you can pause it at 1:46 to get the same angle of the object as seen in pic provided by Kryties.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
It's a little hard to see in this image. But what might be in the photos are broken off parts of these circular disc shaped parts of the Lunokhod lander's stabilizing arms (or ramps, or whatever the heck they are). Not a piece of the rover, but the lander. Somebody with a clearer diagram of the lander might be able to verify that.




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyleplatinum
Kryties image is a different picture taken from a higher point (maybe diff camera?) in the video I posted...you can pause it at 1:46 to get the same angle of the object as seen in pic provided by Kryties.


OK, but easynow posted same image on pg1, your post with video = pg8.

Plus we were targeting Mike's find. Why bother to play a video to get a frame grab, when higher rez static pictures exist? Not to diminish your observstion, just sayin'.

Perhaps Kryties and easynow will simply let us in on their image sources if not from OP or link in OP.

Regards.......KK

[edit on 3-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by kyleplatinum
Kryties image is a different picture taken from a higher point (maybe diff camera?) in the video I posted...you can pause it at 1:46 to get the same angle of the object as seen in pic provided by Kryties.


OK, but easynow posted on pg1, your post with video = pg8.

Plus we were targeting Mike's find. Why bother to play a video to get a frame grab, when higher rez static pictures exist? Not to diminish your observstion, just sayin'.

Perhaps Kryties will simply let us in on his image source.

Regards.......KK

[edit on 3-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



I didnt think he got the pic from a frame grab..Im just pointing out the fact
that there is another picture of the "object" taken from diff camera and diff angle(higher)... after i found the video I realized Kryties pic was the same pic used in the video.

I just want to know what it is...??



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyleplatinum
I just want to know what it is...??


You and me both bro.


Mike S. is notorious for such finds.

I reckon my grass won't get mowed this weekend.


Regards.....KK



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:14 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.


The moon is 384,403 km away from Earth. It's not possible to take a hi-res picture of it from the surface from Earth.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Kryties
 


So are you saying you do not think this object is an antenna?


Yes, I am saying that the object is NOT the antenna. The structure of the antenna does not fit the characteristics of the object as shown in my pictures.

A few people have asked what image I used for my comparison, here is the link...

www.mentallandscape.com...

[edit on 3/4/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dionix187
Have to love the fact that, something that looks like debris from the shuttle, is quickly taken on board by the people so desperate for proof of alien life as proof.

Its clearly debris from the shuttle.


What Shuttle? If the shuttle is landing on the moon, that would be news.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by easynow
 


I personally do not think that object in the first picture looks anything like the piece of the Luna 13 spacecraft that you circled. The object in the picture has 3 distinct 'sections' or 'discs' whereas the piece of the Luna 13 spacecraft you circled does not show this same characteristic.


Of course you wouldn't even though if you bother to look closley thats the most likely reason BUT why let that spoil the fantasy of aliens having been on the Moon.

Another thing I love on here is people taking still from videos and other sources which are often low quality and having watched to much CSI blow up the images and somehow seem to think they can see more detail.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



What was the souce for easynow's and Kryties image?


i am guessing my source is probably the same as everyone else's since the only place i have found these lander pictures is here

something i think needs to brought up in the conversation here is the actual size of the Luna 13 lander and how big is the part that is in question.

from searching around i have found a few different pictures of a model of the Luna 13 craft. the question is:

is this model at the correct scale ? if it is the correct scale then this lander is actually pretty small and that would make the part in question also very small.


www.lpi.usra.edu...


Google Book



after consideration of the actual size of the lander i can only conclude that the unknown part is very small. i would also have to believe all the other objects including the rocks and whatnot are also very small. i could be wrong









this is just a guess, but i think the comparison discrepancies in the two photos might have something to do with the available light at the time the photos were taken.




Thetation landed before sunrise over this area. The sun rose onecemberoursinutes Moscow time. Since the landing region was located close to the equator, the sun rose to an almost vertical position with respect to the line of the horizon, and its height increasedegree*each hour. Before the sun passed through the zenith, that is, before local lunarthe shadows of objects, running from east to west (afterwest tohanged their direction very slightly. Consequently it was possible to orient the fragments of the panorama on the basis of directions of sunlight. The photograph published shows the lunar landscape in the direction to the south of the station. It was obtained during the third picture transmission session. At the moment of transmission of the first pictures of the area, the elevation of the sun was six degrees. During the second transmission session

www.faqs.org...



as far as the "soft landing" i would have to say that yea it could be categorized as a soft landing only because of the air bag system that it used to soften the impact. there was an impact either way imo

also ,it seems as this probe was going thru the decent process it shedded or discarded some parts as well.


In addition, parts of the station which were discarded in landing may be seen In theareful investigation of the photograph willong time.

www.faqs.org...



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Please notice the shadow variation, etc.


Excellent eye/brain linkage, Kurious! I don't think anyone noted that before.

The Luna-13 sent back images for several days. I'm estimating that change in sun angle as about 20 degrees, which could be stretched if the surface it'c cast onto was at a significant tilt to the sun.

But with a 30 day solar period, that gives 20 degrees per day shift in solar elevation, near the lunar equator at least.

So it's within the range of two pictures taken a day apart.

This Lunakhod speculation baffles me -- the first vehicle wasn't launched until 1969, too late to have already been on the Moon in 1966.

A number of Soviet probes of that era disappeared or crashed in unknown regions. But the chance of Luna-13 landing within a few tens of feet of their debris is so infinitesimal it ought to be ruled out.

Either these objects came off the lander stage when it crashed, or the probe itself when it unfurled its petals and jettisoned wraps and overs and clamps, or ...

But if they are not of human origin, it implies the entire lunar surface must be covered with them, for Luna-13 to have accidentally fallen so close.

Luna-9's views were from a different tilt angle, and do not show nearby areas where such debris would have fallen. It would have been nice to see some of the same shapes in that sister ship's images, but no such luck.

The later Soviet soft-landers came down still attached on top of their landing stages, as did the Surveyors, and never seem to have encountered anything like this debris field.

I know an open mind is a useful tool, and space is so weird that every image needs to be pushed into the strangest possible interpretation. but I suspect some folks are just plain pushing too hard here.




top topics



 
153
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join