UFOs photographed by Apollo

I saw this series of pictures in the Telegraph newspaper.

UFOs photographed by Apollo

I hadn't seen any of these pictures before.
Image 3 looks like a domed crater to me.

What do you think the others are?
Skeptics and debunkers welcome

ps Please don't turn this into "Did we really go there?" thread.

Ive never seen these before, pretty impressive. Have these been discussed before?

Apollo 11, 1969 - This anomaly shot by Neil Armstrong's crew has never been clearly identified

Apollo 12, 1969 - Video footage taken on the second Apollo mission to land on the moon appeared to show a bright disc about 100 miles above the lunar surface

Apollo 14, 1971 - Were these lights photographed from the Apollo 11 lander reflections from the Nasa craft or something that came to the moon from somewhere else?

Apollo 15, 1971 Astronaut James Irwin works at Lunar Roving Vehicle - but what is the object emerging from behind the hill in the background?

Apollo 15, 1971 - Film fault or flying saucer? A strange blue disc is captured over the surface of the moon

Apollo 15, 1971 - A bright object is pictured over astronaut David Scott on the slope of Hadley Delta

Apollo 16, 1972 - This object on the Apollo 16 approach to the moon has subsequently been dismissed as part of a probe on the moon lander by Nasa

Apollo 16, 1972 - A bright disc-shaped object is seen over astronaut Charles Duke during a walk on the lunar surface

Apollo 16, 1969 - What are these blue points of light (top and right in the picture) taken in this high quality shot of a moon walk?

WOW picture 3 looks like a city of some sort in the distance and that dome looks weird. I would love to have seen picture 4 if it was taken 10 seconds later!!!

When is Branson starting his space tours i'm signing up!!!!!

Every of this photo was already been discussed and debunked before here.

For the first one I just say only "Space Debris".

[edit on 15-7-2009 by ImShrike]

did you check put the link on the right of the telegraph page showing 140yrs of UFO sightings part 1 and 2? some good pics in there!

image 4 looks like part of the landscape...the others are cool though

reply to post by Irishpaddy


I started that thread too.
The Telegraph have some good articles hidden away, but also some strange things like Operation Blackjack.

For people who haven't seen that thread yet

140 Years of UFO sightings


[edit on 15/7/2009 by lightchild]

Here is a good one.

This type of UFO is known as a 'peekaboo' (at least on ATS):

The LM being followed by a UFO?

Orb-like UFO at Right side of Image (and look at the fiducials at the top left)


===

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by tim1989


Good post Tim...

Thanks

Ocker

Great photos and I couldn't give a monkeys if any have been debunked here before,means nothing!

Thanks for the post OP,some of those objects realy do look like their bulbs in a lighting rig

Originally posted by tim1989
Apollo 11, 1969 - This anomaly shot by Neil Armstrong's crew has never been clearly identified

It is glare/lens flare/not a dome

Here is the same anomaly, except in a location on the image which shows its true nature -:

Exuberant1 Identifies the anomaly which has never been Identified right here on ATS!

*Sorry Guys, but we can't keep using this one. Not anymore.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by tim1989
Apollo 11, 1969 - This anomaly shot by Neil Armstrong's crew has never been clearly identified

It is glare/lens flare/not a dome

Here is the same anomaly, except in a location on the image which shows its true nature -:

Exuberant1 Identifies the anomaly which has never been Identified right here on ATS!

*Sorry Guys, but we can't keep using this one. Not anymore.

?...so..erm..whats the glare from?

A spot light in the studio

Originally posted by lightchild
I saw this series of pictures in the Telegraph newspaper.

Newspapers love to post stuff that attracts people who will believe anything. It helps them sell ads to commercial groups who appeal to people who are as credulous as they can find.

It's an ecological principle.

is there any way of getting the link to nasa arhcive of photos?

It's a useful discussion to ask, how would somebody seeing such claims check out any contrary assessments of those images? How could internet search engines help, if they can?

Ther image labeled "Apollo 16, 1972 - This object on the Apollo 16 approach to the moon has subsequently been dismissed as part of a probe on the moon lander by Nasa" shows part of the problem -- the alleged prosaic NASA 'explanation' is bogus, that wasn't remotely what NASA explained it as (and explained it beyond any doubt, they did). The bogosity is on the part of the caption writer here, not NASA.

Originally posted by JimOberg

It's a useful discussion to ask, how would somebody seeing such claims check out any contrary assessments of those images? How could internet search engines help, if they can?

Ther image labeled "Apollo 16, 1972 - This object on the Apollo 16 approach to the moon has subsequently been dismissed as part of a probe on the moon lander by Nasa" shows part of the problem -- the alleged prosaic NASA 'explanation' is bogus, that wasn't remotely what NASA explained it as (and explained it beyond any doubt, they did). The bogosity is on the part of the caption writer here, not NASA.

I remember the article you are talking about, and it was extremely convincing the conclusion reached by Gregory Byrne and his team: there are no doubts, it WAS the EVA floodlight/boom, only some desperate can believe otherwise, sad but TRUE.

UFO No Longer Unidentified




I think that blind believers are a small part of the problem in cases like this one, while the idiots who crop, enlarge, darken frames like that one, until they reach this result

starting from here:

are the real problem.

Many don't understand, refuse to understand that whenever we ask for sources, for original images or (in case of videos) exact date time, it's not because we're picky, but because it's the only way we have to start some serious research: it's plenty of people who crop, resize, darken images in order to hide, or in order to show WHAT THEY WANT.
This is VERY frustrating for me, i swear, because some person approaching the matter for the first time will unavoidably fall into their trap.

How about AS12 50 7346, often published in this format?


showing some spectacular flying saucer (and since it was caugt on camera by Apollo 12 crew it had to be true).
The only problem with it, is that it's SIV-B, the 3rd stage of Saturn V, to take a look at the image in this comparison i made time ago, would be helpful:

But you can bet everything that this image will be passed for years if not decades as the real deal.

Another good example is AS16-120-19238

Aww, here they have been so nice to give the credits to Armstrong (as if he wasn't famous enough yet).

Sadly enough,

1) Apollo 16 crew:
(C) John W. Young Commander
(L) Thomas K. Mattingly Command Module Pilot
(R) Charles M. Duke, Jr. Lunar Module Pilot

Armstrong? Change drug dealer, whomever you are the guy who labelled this crop.

2)The photo is yet another crock, another cropped image hiding what actually was caught on camera:



Yes, once again the EVA floodlight/boom, no cigar cshaped spacecraft hovering over some crater on the Moon: sad? Yes. True? Yes

Some other images in the op show lens flares a go-go, one shows the classic blue glitch in the emulsion of hasselblad film (it was provided by Kodak at the time if i'm correct), but there's something interesting though, for example the sequence that i show in this animation

AS14-70-9835
www.lpi.usra.edu...

AS14-70-9836
www.lpi.usra.edu...

AS14-70-9837
www.lpi.usra.edu...

This is an animation made by me using the three frames in question:


Honestly, i couldn't find anything explaining this: it seems to be some light being cast to the Moon surface but from what?

Thanks for sharing




[edit on 30/8/2009 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Nice work on that animation Internos!

That certainly is an interesting series of images you animated.

*I wonder what Mr Oberg will make of them? (images AS14-70-9835 - AS14-70-9837)


Hey Jim,

To what would you attribute the areas of increased brightness that are apparent in images AS14-70-9835 through AS14-70-9837?



[edit on 29-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by internos


internos is a legend! The penultimate debunker!

I have seen all these photos before and are illusions of they eye! Its all about perception, people seem to see what they want!