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.

 

New pics of the moon, Ah oh.. someone didn't do a good job with their air brush.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
www.disclose.tv...

OK, here is the link, dig into it and tell me, is this an eye opener or what? This is from the newest shots taken of the moon landing zone and if that thing is what this author suggest, stunning, simply stunning! Dig the shape of the shadow, a power generator two miles high? Ok, that is a wild guess for sure but a two mile high something of the shape of that shadow is still stunning. It ain't friggin natural and that wins someone a cigar.




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I saw these pics posted here by others on ATS, the new lunar reconasance orbiter apolo pics..and you know what? That totaly went by me!!! i was so disappointed in the photos, i failed to see that shadow indeed, is nearly twice the size of the crater tot hr right! The alleged apollo 11 limb module itself, does kinda loko artifically placed over the moon pic..but could just be its reflecting alot of sunlight too, making it appear false.


+13 more 
posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Pappie54
 


The article is NOT serious. Is it?
They don't take shots of the landing sites and people cry that they never went to the Moon. They take shots of the landing sites and people claim that there's some alien tower on the moon instead of simply acknowledging that yes, they have been to the Moon .
What are supposed to do those poor guys at NASA in order to proove that they have actually been there? They cannot land every single dude in order to prove that they have been actually there

Tell to the author of the video to change the mushrooms he's putting in his pizzas and everything will be ok.


[edit on 27/7/2009 by internos]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Pappie54
 


No substance to the post nor the news source linked. There is nothing in that story that lent any information on why or why not that wasn't the landing site.

The fact is this post and that article only lends to those who believe there were moon landings and those who think there were not are not cases because they believe in incomplete and ill advised news outlets.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
So you (or this website) are saying that the shadow produced by the remnants of the lander is actually an alien structure/tower?



Also how are they basing the estimation of the height at 2 or 3 miles high? are they completely insane?

I was always under the impression that they DID land quite close to a few small craters. One I believe they called "shorty" no?

That site is a complete joke IMO.


[edit on 27-7-2009 by QBSneak000]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
What about the Apollo 16 picture?
www.nasa.gov...

There dont seem to be huge crater nearby...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...


www.hq.nasa.gov...

still cant find it...
www.hq.nasa.gov...


There is a hill though...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 27-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Perhaps its behind the guy taking the photo?

2nd line



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Holy crap, someone who actually thinks. This is an extremely phenomenal moment here on ATS, let's start a parade! Get those floats movin' down the street.

Seriously though, good post. This is exactly what I've been saying for a while now. No matter what NASA or the government does to disprove/prove things, people will blatently ignore them and go with the most outrageous claims such as 'two mile tall alien structures/generators' instead of 'oh, the moon lander. Neat.'

Man. Sometimes I wish I had the heart to play people for fools. I'd be making so much money :\

[edit on 27-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Right here. Not exactly what I would call huge but it helps get an idea of the scale of the LROC image and shows that the sun angle was very low when it was made.




Quoting from David M. Harland’s book, Exploring the Moon: The Apollo Expeditions: “They were in the centre of a subdued crater about 100 metres wide. What they did not discover until they ventured outside, was that the rear footpad was a mere 3 metres beyond the rim of the 15 metre crater that Young had lost sight of [while landing the LM]. When he had hovered to select a spot on which to land, he was directly over the crater, and had narrowly missed landing on the rim.”

www.danamackenzie.com...

[edit on 7/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Note the post has an email address for info on the shots so if you think they are fake, or you thing the scientific process of estimating the scale of the object through the shadow length is incorrect, email the guy. You can go to NASA and find out if the pics are fake or download them yourselves. I do doubt most of you know how to equate the shadow length without all the data required as the position of the moon, sun, time, satellite position, etc, to even make a statement as the correct or incorrect size of an object casting that shadow. But you can question the author and any scientist you may know. Did you read how much a single pixel represents in length, something else needed for size estimation. the article said scientist made the estimation and with smarts and todays computers, I am sure if was not tough. I think this may be some good stuff and I don't see where anyone can make a definitive argument that it is not. The pics are real, the math is good, what is to argue with. With a wide field survey you could tell if the object is on a slop that would create a long shadow if the shadow flowed on the downward slop, but the object is not on a slopped plain. So at this point, I'm impressed.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by conar
 


Right here. Not exactly what I would call huge but it helps get an idea of the scale of the LROC image and shows that the sun angle was very low when it was made.




Quoting from David M. Harland’s book, Exploring the Moon: The Apollo Expeditions: “They were in the centre of a subdued crater about 100 metres wide. What they did not discover until they ventured outside, was that the rear footpad was a mere 3 metres beyond the rim of the 15 metre crater that Young had lost sight of [while landing the LM]. When he had hovered to select a spot on which to land, he was directly over the crater, and had narrowly missed landing on the rim.”

www.danamackenzie.com...

[edit on 7/27/2009 by Phage]


cant find the crater in your panorama...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Further away...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

but found a hill...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The flag got impossible shadow...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here it is

www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 27-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Pappie54
 


I've emailed the author but in the meantime could you provide the calculation that leads to this 2-3 mile estimate along with information on where you found the details of the surrounding topography?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Pappie54
 

"The scientist".

Ron Stewart, "scientist".
The same Ron Stewart who makes aliens appear out of nothing?
The Ron Stewart who developed PPP (Penetrating Photographic Process)?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That Ron Stewart? Scientist?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Just to add, (and bearing in mind it's very late here (well early, no sleep so it's the same thing) and I'm working on fumes but...) a rough estimate, assuming the "tower" is 2-3 miles high, would put the crater immediately to the right of it (little west crater) at something like 2 miles deeps wouldn't it. That'd be one hell of a crater considering that going by pictures from google’s moon map (which exactly matches the topography in the article's pic) is only about 30 metres across.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

No substance to the post nor the news source linked. There is nothing in that story that lent any information on why or why not that wasn't the landing site.


The reason for not landing at the original location is large boulders but they did land in close proximity - only a few yards away.

[Armstrong - "We measured the position of certain prominent landmarks at a couple of points prior to ignition and then after ignition. Once that was finished, we did a 180-degree yaw (to the face-up position) so that the radar could see the surface. My recollection is that the landing radar wasn't really reliable above something like 30,000 feet. They had tried it on Apollo 10 (at 50,000 feet) to see if they could get altitude readouts, and we did try to use it (at that altitude) to get some measurements. We wanted to do that while we were still up at a reasonable altitude to help the guidance equation converge. (The timing of the 180-degree yaw) was a balance between seeing the surface and getting the radar information in the guidance solution."]
quote taken from time marker 102:32:08 from history.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I love the missing wheel tread marks in this pic. Maybe they picked it up, carried it to the spot and sat it down


www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I think Nasa forgot that astronauts only left the bottom of the LM's on the Moon. The bottom's surface is not bright, it is black I think. It leaves a smaller shadow too.


[edit on 27-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by contemplator
I love the missing wheel tread marks in this pic. Maybe they picked it up, carried it to the spot and sat it down


www.hq.nasa.gov...



www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Can see the rover in action here, seems to disturp the soil a lot
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 27-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 

What is your source of information for the coloration and footprint size of the descent stage?


[edit on 7/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by conar
 

What is your source of information for the coloration and footprint size of the descent stage?


[edit on 7/27/2009 by Phage]


www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join