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.

 

Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
the other Apollo 11 UFO



Buzz Aldrin

"there is something out there that was close enough to be observed,

and what could it be ?"








posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I agree, unless that area is full of domes.


It's funny that I didn't noticed that when I first looked at the photo by I interpreted the craters as craters.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
To me, the correct orientation (to human understanding) and direction of sunlight is this:


schizophrenic or shamanic?

www.sciencedaily.com...




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by depthoffield
 


I agree, unless that area is full of domes.


It's funny that I didn't noticed that when I first looked at the photo by I interpreted the craters as craters.


I didn't notice also, but i observed more the image and try to understand the elements... craters are the hint... and because of my perseverence, (and maybe putting the Exuberant1 and Mikesingh -team- to maybe some little shame in understanding a trivial image) look, i was called "schizophrenic or shamanic" by the other old friend Mcrom901:


Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by depthoffield
To me, the correct orientation (to human understanding) and direction of sunlight is this:


schizophrenic or shamanic?

www.sciencedaily.com...






So, this UFO:


Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Easy,

Here's that potential Apollo 11 UFO image which I sent you earlier. I figured I might as well post it here, given the threat title and all:




Since I don't believe in Aliens, given the choice between this being something alien and anything else - I'll pick anything else. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, as such an answer is acceptable and does not conflict with my "no aliens" belief systems as much as a potential alien UFO would do...

It must be a balloon, dust, error in the emulsion.

Anything is more acceptable than a flying object casting a shadow on the lunar surface.



Edit:

I updated the image with a close-up (from Mikesingh and his expensive program.)


[edit on 20-4-2010 by Exuberant1]







is maybe in fact just a false one:





Originally posted by depthoffield
To me, the correct orientation (to human understanding) and direction of sunlight is this:



because in this light direction, the craters looks naturally like what they are: craters. (If we asume the oposite direction of light, we have no craters, but only strange elongated cliffs casting shadows...which goes to absurd "conclusion": no craters on the moon?)

Which simply put the "object" in the artifact category, because the shadow of the object can't be ahead to the object itself.

Your opinion, Armap?




[edit on 20/4/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 20/4/10 by depthoffield]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


easy....come on....

THAT YouTube video?

Did you listen to it?

Hear the soundtrack?

About halfway through, a WOMAN'S voice....and that is a well-known sound clip from a female Astronaut, aboard a Shuttle mission, YET, it is spliced into that video, that is titled and purported to be about Apollo 11?

Clever editing, and spin to get the reaction one wishes.

Come on!

ATS members are NOT that gullible, give us some credit, or else, you are just insulting us.

BTW....Aldrin has already, many MANY times (and verified by other sources) confirmed that they were seeingthe panels fromt the Service Module.

FOUR panels, that encased the LM during launch. They 'peeled' away, like flower petals. The docking maneuver of the CM, with the LM, occured only a few hours after TLI burn, once Apollo was committed to the Lunar trajectory.

A couple of hours after TLI, the CSM broke free of the third stage....then maneuvered to dock with the LM, which was stored aft.

After docking, the combined spacecraft continued on, as planned....the last stage was then signalled from Mission Control to burn....some of the stages were sent to permanant Solar orbits, some were intended to impact the Moon. I have to check each mission parameters. Little sense in having the SR-IV stage impact the Moon unless thre were sensors already in place, like after the Apollo 11 landing, and subsequent.

Really....most of us can read about the reality of the Space Program....not a good idea to try to fool anyone.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
What are the cables appearing in the lower left hand side of the OP's photo ?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



BTW....Aldrin has already, many MANY times (and verified by other sources) confirmed that they were seeingthe panels fromt the Service Module.


verified by other sources ?

i think your just making that up

if you believe it was one of the panels then great ! NASA shouldn't have any problem releasing the pictures of it then --> right ?

i'm a skeptic, i need proof



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by scubagravy
 



What are the cables appearing in the lower left hand side of the OP's photo ?


i believe that cable is for the Tv camera









the picture in the opening post was taken with a Hasselblad surface camera


Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, lunar module pilot of the first lunar landing mission, poses for a photograph beside the deployed United States flag during an Apollo 11 Extravehicular Activity (EVA) on the lunar surface. The Lunar Module (LM) is on the left, and the footprints of the astronauts are clearly visible in the soil of the Moon. Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, took this picture with a 70mm Hasselblad lunar surface camera.

NASA images




70-mm Hasselblad Lunar Surface Superwide-Angle Cameras. These cameras, which were carried aboard the lunar module, were operated manually for the shutter and film advance.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Hey Easynow,

This one looks like a launcher tube firing out a UFO... whatever it is I've not seen another like it:



Or maybe it is something coming in for landing and the open bay doors are allowing the light access to the surface.

I guess we shall never know.



[edit on 21-4-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



This one looks like a launcher tube firing out a UFO... whatever it is I've not seen another like it:


another very interesting find and i agree i haven't seen one like that before either, good job


did you break into McMoon or something ?


www.thelivingmoon.com...







more on the Apollo 11 Tv camera..


The machine that was used to do this was named simply the Apollo Lunar Televsion Camera. Built by Westinghouse, it was a simple system which measured 11" x 6" x 3", weighed 7.25 pounds, and used 6.25 watts of power. It was capable of operating at 10 or 0.65 frames per second, depending on light level, and it had 4 interchangeable lenses.
The camera was mounted inside the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) in Quad 4 of the Lunar Module (LM) Descent Stage. This gave the capability of broadcasting the first steps of the astronauts as they climbed down the ladder of the LM at the start of the first EVA. The astronauts would then
detach the camera from it's mount in the MESA, mount the camera on a tripod, and carry it away from the LM to show the progress of the EVA.

www.myspacemuseum.com...







Apollo 11's TV Camera - the FIBER OPTIC LIE!




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
is maybe in fact just a false one:

Originally posted by depthoffield
To me, the correct orientation (to human understanding) and direction of sunlight is this:



because in this light direction, the craters looks naturally like what they are: craters. (If we asume the oposite direction of light, we have no craters, but only strange elongated cliffs casting shadows...which goes to absurd "conclusion": no craters on the moon?)

Hi DOF, I don't think I've ever disagreed with any of your analyses before, you do excellent work. And I'm not sure I disagree with this one, however I can see craters whether the direction of the sunlight is shining up or down (consistent, or inconsistent with the UFO shadow).

What you call elongated cliffs, I think could in fact be raised areas of impact ejecta as shown in gray here:



So I'm not sure you're wrong, but you haven't convinced me they can't still be craters if the moon pigeon and its shadow show the correct orientation of the sun.

The top of the shadow just to the right of your rightmost arrow looks like it could be showing the sunlight coming from the opposite direction you indicate, that is, consistent with the moon pigeon shadow.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Yes good old thelivingmoon the source of yes you guessed correctly

the pink sperm spaceship.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

How can anyone unless on drugs think that shows anything that they claim!



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


You might not see this as you have me on ignore but I am sure one of your friends will let you know.

You say Mikesingh has an expensive new program are we all to tremble in fear and will this program
let him know when he sees a shadow and not a spire
and maybe he should use that on
the livingmoon pink sperm spaceship



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




How can anyone unless on drugs think that shows anything that they claim!


hehe that is a good one ain't it ? .... i got a better one though


how can anyone unless on drugs believe what NASA is claiming ?


check it out,
they had to add more boot tracks to make this scene more believable




image #S69-40308 available 2-22-2010 on the Human Space Flight website showed signs that a cloning tool was used in the area around the flag.

credit to DrBunsen for noticing it..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is the picture that was on the HSF site and it is a frame from the DAC imagery


the next day it was replaced with this image



spaceflight.nasa.gov...





ArMaP's animated giff image showing the comparison

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-4-2010 by easynow]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Easynow.....

Thanks for putting that GIF together.

I see the same # of boot prints, albeit the exposure / brightness is different from 1 pic to the other.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


the giff image is labeled with ArMaP's name, that means he made it (check the links too) so you should be thanking him and you obviously rushed to a judgement on the boot tracks because it's obvious some disappear and reappear. you have to examine it a little closer and eventually you'll see what's up



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Nice one Easynow.

It looks as if versions of the frame from different stages of the modification process were released.


*You've produced a fair amount of quality research lately - Kudos mate.







[edit on 21-4-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Well, if there really were aliens (UFOs) observing them back then and appeared on some good shots, NASA surely would brush them out, just as anything else looking odd. It was a big event and they surely didn't want it to get messed up. But you know, it's kind of funny...instead of saying back then "Hey, we were observed by unknown extraterrestrial craft...." Disclosure could have been much earlier and we wouldn't be in the dark for another 40 years. But then again - it's the goverment.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 
the giff image is labeled with ArMaP's name, that means he made it (check the links too) so you should be thanking him and you obviously rushed to a judgement on the boot tracks because it's obvious some disappear and reappear.


NASA admitted they modified the image (by cloning) so that's not in question. But I also don't see much change in the boot tracks, I see the cloned rock disappear from the cloned image and another rock appear that wasn't visible in the cloned image.

It's definitely a good find, the first time I've seen undisputed evidence that NASA modified the actual content of an image, and not just brightness, contrast and hue. Why they did this is still a mystery. They said they guessed it might have been done due to a scratch but why wouldn't they just use an adjacent DAC frame instead? That's what I don't understand about NASA's answer.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

NASA admitted they modified the image (by cloning) so that's not in question.



Did NASA make this admission Before or After someone caught them using the clone tool?





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join