NASA's Apollo DSE "Black Box" Transcripts - revealing the unscripted truth about the Moon & E.T.

page: 22
198
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
this anomaly is very close to Chaplygin crater
It looks like that "anomaly" is over the Moon and not in the Moon. As Luppakorva said it look to be "flying", and I would add that, for it to look out of focus, it must be close to the camera, but I find it strange for something to be flying around them that close.

A true unknown, at least for me.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuppakorvaBut what makes me wonder are these paths what they say they left.

I have understood they were jumping, taking quite a big leaps compared to the ones we are taking here on earth when we are walking and here we are with quite a big path which can be seen from space? Now am I the only one who's wondering how's that possible or did they really do bunny jumping back and forth just for fun to make some visible paths to be seen?
No, you are not the only one, some people have talked about that.

In some photos we can see that the ground changes colour easily when disturbed, sometime ago I posted in a thread that had some photos in which that was very noticeable, just moving in one direction and back was enough to disturb the ground and turned it more brownish (and darker) than it was before, so I think it's perfectly possible for those tracks to be seen from orbit.


Now maybe I'm completely wrong with that but still, it seems that lunar module couldn't be seen from this position. Please let me know your opinions, much appreciated
.
I don't see any problem with that, why shouldn't the module be seen from that place?


jra

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luppakorva
I have understood they were jumping, taking quite a big leaps compared to the ones we are taking here on earth when we are walking and here we are with quite a big path which can be seen from space? Now am I the only one who's wondering how's that possible or did they really do bunny jumping back and forth just for fun to make some visible paths to be seen?


There leaps weren't that big and they weren't always hopping around. It depends on how fast they needed to move. And when they moved around, there feet kicked up lots of dust, creating a larger disturbance on the ground than just a footprint. An example. Note the dust around his feet and how dirty his legs are from kicking up so much dust. There are also many videos out there that show the astronauts walking around. Pay attention to there feet and notice how much dust gets kicked around when they move.


Also, If you take a look at this landing site from NASA pictures when the astronauts have been there. I took a fast look and Surveyor 3 seems to be in position where you can't see LM, yet from the pictures you can easily see it.


Why do you think the LM shouldn't be able to be seen from Surveyor 3? It's not like it's in the middle, at the very bottom of the crater. It's on the opposite side from the LM, near the rim of the crater. To me, it seems that the LM should most certainly be visible from that spot and it is. You can see it in many photos in the background.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by jra]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
another anomaly close to Chaplygin crater



www.lpi.usra.edu...





files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Any chance you could post that picture for me? I'm sure ground color changes quite easily when stepped into, but if they seriously jump.. they are not walking.. Now think it like you're walking on snow, you leave your marks but that's not a path. ..now this made me wonder this one.

If you take alook at:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

This is taken from the LM right? What I can see, astronauts have been running around and the place is full of footprints, I'm sure this have been pretty much the most visited place on that journey, flag up, look around back to the lm, go to check some place which is planned and off we go to the next one right? Now then, if you're to walk to one instrument that can be seen in LRO pic maybe that 2-3 times and they have clear paths, how come this area of the very near of the LM is not totally darkened up and can't be seen in that LRO picture?

I'm also wondering those paths.

Did they really visit Surveyor 3 and it's path only once and just happened to pick up exactly the same path which looks like to be a lot longer way to go for me when they went to Bench and Sharp points? Tried to look at the pics but I found no proof to show anything at all about that where they were walking, where the paths were and so on. If you could see it from the moon's orbit you have to see it from the ground as well right?

I just find it to be full of questions for my untrained eye and I'm happy to hear explanations for those.

About the Surveyor 3's positionand that picture, didn't take a better look yet.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP

yep your right it's not something on the Moon

it is covering up something on the Moon





posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
object next to Chaplygin crater



www.aurionmission.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


No that's not blurring or trying to hide something if you want to hear my opinion about that my friend
. Most likely something very near to the camera.

The later one you posted is indeed interesting. One thing that I found to be a problem with these pictures is that they are taken in 70's or late 60's and if original story is true, films have been taken through van allen belt and all that radiation space offers. That makes "anomalies" for sure and it unfortunately eats up the credibility from the pictures such as this one is. Shame but it needs to be something really mind blowing to turn the public around.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Luppakorva
 


ok if that's what you want to believe then great


i have had a few other people look at that photo and they agree with me that it's an airbrush job to hide something. i am sure there will be others that will be along soon to tell me how wrong i am . it's ok i am used to the debunkers and the games they play.

the truth will be out soon enough



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


No offense
. I just don't see this one to be a whistle blowing picture though I'm looking the one that could exploit everything myself as well. I have not picked a side that I'm a skeptic or believer so don't take me as an enemy or someone who is against your thoughts, I have seen many things in my life including ufo (I really mean unknown flying object with that) and I feel I have lots to learn and to see. So I just take every picture and thing as they are, analyze them and then try to make it up my in my mind what it is without thinking beforehand is it anomaly or not.

So, please keep em coming


jra

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luppakorva
Now then, if you're to walk to one instrument that can be seen in LRO pic maybe that 2-3 times and they have clear paths, how come this area of the very near of the LM is not totally darkened up and can't be seen in that LRO picture?


You can see that the area is darkened in the LRO image. Here it is zoomed in more:



You can see the area on the above and left sides of the LM are noticeably darker. The flag is within that darkened area.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I was looking the very same myself. Thank you for your reply but I do have to say I'm not that convinced, if those fine paths are that much darker, I think that whole area should be alot more darker.

Have to look more into it before I'm ready to agree with you. But thank you for your reply
.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
These surveyor 6 images reminds me of the following portions of the Apollo transcript:






(I joined the bottom of page 130 to the top of page 131, for your convenience)




[edit on 6-10-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i have had a few other people look at that photo and they agree with me that it's an airbrush job to hide something.
If it was an airbrush job you wouldn't notice it.

Do those people to which you showed the photo know how a photo is physically altered?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by easynow
i have had a few other people look at that photo and they agree with me that it's an airbrush job to hide something.
If it was an airbrush job you wouldn't notice it.

Do those people to which you showed the photo know how a photo is physically altered?



well ArMaP you wouldn't happen to have a different example of a NASA photograph that has been airbrushed to compare it to do you ?




are you gonna nit pick everything in this thread or will you maybe contribute something on the positive side of this topic ?

got any links to transcripts or pictures you would like to post ?

anything ?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Good work Easynow.


It sure is nice to have someone posting images related to the transcripts. I appreciate it.

You know that part I posted earlier regarding the greenish layer in and around King crater (Apollo 17)- Well John Lear said that area has vegetation.

The Apollo 14 astronauts even wonder if they should be taking any pictures at all of this area and they say they are glad they had a chance to cut the TV show once the realized where they were. They all agree that it is most unreal looking "if that makes any sense (laughter)".

I'll post the excerpts below - You are gonna like it (it has vegetation, dikes, mines - Apollo 14
). Below that I will also include an excerpt where the green areas around King crater are described (Apollo 17).

Apollo 14:

(This is a combination of excerpts with the relevant points taken from multiple pages and recombined for your convenience. The context has been carefully preserved and they are in chronological order; this can be checked via comparison with the transcripts and the times printed on the excerpts
)


And now for the green in and around King Crater (Apollo 17):







Zorgon covered King Crater Back in 2007 in a post titled "The Valley of Secrets" .

Due to the transcripts which have recently come to light, it seems prudent to reproduce his post here:



""The Valley of Secrets" - By Zorgon



This is the original image from NASA





The object in the peaks is interesting but both photos are full of interesting things... Lots left to find and catalog...





There are many interesting things in this image especially in the lower right corner and in the central peak area... You will notice the black arrow that NASA has added to the image pointing to what John Lear and Robert Churilla describe as "Vegetation"

There is another image that shows the same area, but further out with more light...






A little color to enhance the Vegetation...




Here is a closeup of the thing in the central peak area






There are lots of areas that show lines of dots and "tubes" through the 'vegetation...





Also in image AS16-4998-P originally presented by LOOOFO you can see another angle of the object. This is one of the few images we have more than one view of an anomaly












There is still another view AS10-30-4354



And once again we see the object...






So here we have a unique case where three different NASA images show the same anomaly from three vantage points..."



**Original post by Zorgon here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 6-10-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Well.....I STILL see descriptions of what they are seeing as COMPARED TO something familiar, and seen from above....ON Earth.

ALSO, you can notice the geological references thrown in, AND the reference to "Farouk"...you do know who he was, correct??

They also talk about the Sun. AND the way the light hits certain regions, DUE to the Sunlight.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, here.....from the perspective of an observer who could be ON the surface of the Moon, at any latitude other than near one of the poles, that observer's experience of the Sunlight would be very, very different than what we are accustomed to, here on Earth.

14 days, from Sun 'rise' to 'set'....time that WE are used to, on Earth...14 days....336 hours. Sun is up, and arcing over (again depending on your latitude, it will be at a different height above the horizon).

NOW....for a 'visit', by Humans, in a spacecraft, who are orbiting at a particular inclination to the equator of the Moon, and seeing a view on each orbit of a scene which changes little, hour by hour from our method of keeping time....BECAUSE the tableau does not change as fast as it does on Earth.....

These Humans on orbit for....just a few hours (days in another way to describe those hours...48? 72? at the most, compared to the total length, ans SLOWNESS of a typical Lunar 'day'....which, from 'rise' to 'set' is, as mentioned, 336 hours.....

I do not know how better to explain this....the Moon is an ALIEN world!! Words to describe it will, by necessity, resemble those we use to describe what WE KNOW FROM our experience here on Earth!!!!!

Because, we have no OTHER words....since we are just beginning to explore our Solar System.

Equating the hyperbolic commentary made by Astronauts talking to each other, and then trying to IMAGINE and inflate what they were actually seeing and describing is purely in the imagination of those who think they 'know' what was actually seen, and was talked about.....

I cannot say it any plainer than that....IF you wish to remain in the fantasy of "picking up on" subtle things you THINK you hear? Then, power to you!

Good Science Fiction can come from those concepts, as well....hope you write and publish a great novel....



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Now here is something you fellas might find curious.

Our astronaut sees a flash with his eyes wide-open and then *poof* - a big chunk of the transcript goes missing....


(Apollo 14)



[edit on 6-10-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
well ArMaP you wouldn't happen to have a different example of a NASA photograph that has been airbrushed to compare it to do you ?
I don't know if I have any airbrushed photo, a professional airbrushing job is not noticeable even on the original, so in a digital copy it is useless to try to find them


are you gonna nit pick everything in this thread or will you maybe contribute something on the positive side of this topic ?
I will nit pick only when something like that is posted, as if asking to several people would make it real.

If you had said that you asked a professional photographer and he/she had said that he/she considered it an airbrush job to hide something I would give it much more weight than a "few other people" without any reference to their knowledge of what you are talking about.

As a kind of antecipated PS, airbrushing is only used to cover large areas with the same colour, if they want to hide something or change what is on the photo to something else they use fine brushes to add black ink or stilettos to remove the emulsion.


got any links to transcripts or pictures you would like to post ?
I haven't found the photos I talked about before, to show to Luppakorva, but I am looking for them.

PS: that the link you posted for aurionmission does not work, at least for me. Also, several of your images from the first posts have been replace by the "bandwidth exceeded" warning from Photobucket.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



As a kind of antecipated PS, airbrushing is only used to cover large areas with the same colour, if they want to hide something or change what is on the photo to something else they use fine brushes to add black ink or stilettos to remove the emulsion.


As an added "applause" to this comment, it has been such a "catch-all" claim for years, this "airbrushing" nonsense.

ArMaP made it very clear, about disticntions between 'airbrushing' on a photo, which is THEN copied, and any intentional alterations to the original negative....BTW....emphasis on the word "negative"!!! I hope someone will understand the concept, there....

BUT, so much of the claims, lately, of "airbrushing" are merely digital artifacts that are NOT intentional....it is actually quite comical.


And, since I know a little about airbrushes, since I've actually used them in my hobbies (nothing to do with photos, just building scale models) I have a fairly good idea of what they CAN and CANNOT accomplish....





top topics
 
198
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join