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: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by easynow
 


Anybody notice the Flag is waving in the wind?

No wind on the moon.....

~Keeper


Obviously, the flag is not waving in the wind, because there's no air in the Moon. Because there's no air, there's no air resistance, so when you erect a flag, it will keep on waving for a long time after it was placed, which caused it to wave in the first place. But I guess no explanation will be good enough for you because you know that the Moon landing was a hoax...


It's quite the same with these people who ridicule in advance any sceptics' claims that this light in the picture might be Venus or a comet. Even if it wasn't a copying error in just one of the copied pictures, I would still bet my money on Venus or a meteoroid. I wonder what happened to common sense.




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by cnuum
 



There is no need to ridicule my position in order to prove your point. I was simply asking a question, I never mentioned that the moon landing was a hoax, and for your to make that assumption is quite sad.

Please refrain from making sarcastic comments when I did nothing to warrant them, I was simply asking a question.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by cnuum
 



I wonder what happened to common sense.


so common sense according to you , dictates that we should label this object Venus when we don't really know what it is ?

wouldn't it make more sense to admit it's just something unidentified ?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I do not have a nit-picking monopoly, you can nit-pick all that you want.


ok thanks , glad to hear your willing to share the work load
(joking)



Because I implied precisely that in my answer, without the original negatives we cannot know for sure what is and what is not in them.

But I can also argue that even looking at the negatives we cannot be sure what was on the Moon, after all we were not there when the photo was taken, negatives can also be altered.


you definitely answerd the question there , thanks, glad we agree on that. it seems this will remain a mystery



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Well, I see dozens of lights in the sky when I look up at night. I can't identify all of them for certain, but my common sense tells me that it's a lot more probable that they are stars (or perhaps satellites) than anything else.

Same with this picture. In pics like this you're not supposed to be able to see stars or planets (other than Earth, of course), so I'd wonder if it were Venus, but not knowing for sure, I'd think Venus or a meteoroid reflecting sunlight were the best options.

Of course, in this case we have different copies of the same pictures that don't show the light, so a copying error seems to be the best option after all. But in the end, all we have is just a splotch of white in a picture, to me it seems quite futile to try to determine from that alone what it might be.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
No, of course not, but look at the show, clearly the Flag seems to be moved by some form of invisible force.
Show? What show?



I know there is a rod thingy that keeps it straight up but it would not have the "flutter" effect I see in the photo.
The "flutter" effect is probable because we are looking at a flag that was somewhat crumpled and that had not weight enough to fall down on the lower Moon gravity.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I wasn't ridiculing you, I've just heard people wonder about the flag waving on the Moon that were mostly those who thought it was a hoax. They believe things that are known to be untrue and refuse to believe things that are know to be true, which sometimes feels a bit frustrating.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Well that makes sense. I completely understand why it would look that way. Thanks for the answer as opposed to the nonsense I received above..

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by cnuum
 


Perhaps generalizing people because of past experiences is something you should stop doing, especially in an environment such as ATS where heated discussion can turn ugly at any time.

Just something I have noticed more and more members doing, specifically in the aliens and UFO boards.

No problem friend
. I understand how you could get frustrated with such things.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by fotsyfots
wow thats huge!! What i dont understand is why tptb felt the need to crop out everything in the background,regardless if it shows anomolies or just stock standard "space".

Because it wasn't photographed on the moon so they needed to eliminate all background earthbound anomalies!



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


hi great shots you found looks like the ufo iseen with my misses very orange unworldly orangie red travelling slow then fast then gone ,blink of an eye, not like a jet.
the astronaut with pack on back shouldnt he be standing straight with lees gravity. he standing forward leaning a little like a person on earth with a back pack . em, i wonder how heavy those packs are and then the g force on the moon .. thks s+f



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acharya

Edit:
Here is a
close-up image

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Acharya]


Gotta be some dust on the lense here as you can see was look like stars in the Shadows of the Lunar lander which is on the lunar surface. If you zoom in to the large picture, and scroll down into the shadows on the bottom right.

*scratches head* I though it was dust on my monitor.

I think it was just old photo technology causing the original anomoly. Although it's odd that it was there, then taken out ect. Also it's one big Bright anomoly....




[edit on 11-10-2009 by Nola213]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I can't see any shadow cast by the flag and flag pole in the OP pictures.

Click on the links for the magnification to have a good look.

No shadow.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Its swamp gas!
why are nasa constantly airbrushing things if they claim to have nothing to hide? I think the blatant air brushing of areas of the moon prove that there is something on there than very pixilated shapes in the rock simply because why on earth would they airbrush areas if theres nothing there? Very interesting find, I have added it to my collection of anomalies.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sum-one
 



I can't see any shadow cast by the flag and flag pole in the OP pictures.


This has been discussed before, at great length. Other threads.

The terrain surface is the reason...AND the angle of the camera and distance from the subjects.

Also, the pole itself is about 3/4 inch diameter...hardly likely to see that thin shadow from the POV. The Sun is very low on the horizon, so the shadows are quite long...and the larger flag shadow isn't in the shot.

OTHER photos, from different vantage points clearly show the shadows, as expected.

Here, taken later from inside the LM:

history.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
are you sure that is an ufo? it looks like an orb/reflection..



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acharya

Originally posted by Copernicus
A skeptic would say: comet.



It certainly does not look like a comet, it is round, see the big images here, here, here and here. Does not comets have tails?

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Acharya]


As much as I'd like to think this is a UFO, I don't. When you zoom in on those pictures, you'll see the bottom right of that circular object is cut off at a diagonal on every picture and is not fuzzy at all. If this were a UFO or something moving around, the angle of the diagonal would shift and be fuzzy like the rest of the circles edges, but it doesn't and isn't. This tells me that it is something either stuck on the outside of the lens, or more likely on the inside.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by pjslug]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I have no reason but to accept that the first picture might be the original one.

As you can see in the others the colors are different so the photoshop might has played his role.

This stuff is good but so what??

Nobody is messing with these anymore.That is the sad reality.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by kapodistrias]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
How come their is no shadow for the flag???



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cnuum

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by easynow
 


Anybody notice the Flag is waving in the wind?

No wind on the moon.....

~Keeper


Obviously, the flag is not waving in the wind, because there's no air in the Moon. Because there's no air, there's no air resistance, so when you erect a flag, it will keep on waving for a long time after it was placed, which caused it to wave in the first place. But I guess no explanation will be good enough for you because you know that the Moon landing was a hoax...


It's quite the same with these people who ridicule in advance any sceptics' claims that this light in the picture might be Venus or a comet. Even if it wasn't a copying error in just one of the copied pictures, I would still bet my money on Venus or a meteoroid. I wonder what happened to common sense.

Actually the laws of physics is the biggest problem that NASA have. For example no matter how much you slow down a video of a moon buggy the dust will still rise above the surface to a height determined by the speed of rotation of the wheels (Newtons action-reaction) and the force of gravity (Newton again).....oops gravity seems a little strong. The combination of EARTH gravity and a SLOWED video matches perfectly the height of the dust!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's another : remember the infamous moon take-off with no exhaust plumes and the claim that the camera pan was done from earth (despite a DOUBLE delay between what the Houston operator sees and the camera responds to but hey I'll allow that stroke of pure genius/luck). Let's use physics instead and work out from the size of capsule, the rate of ascent and thus get an acceleration factor. Ooops those astronauts would be mush on the floor!!!!!!!!!!!

all the best



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join