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: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   


Here we see stars and bright star (jupiter, venus) ? Maybe someone can check star program and show what star system this is..




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I disagree with what you say. I expect to see a shadow for the flag-pole and there is NO shadow. I don't buy your explanation.

'People' go to great lengths to try and dismiss the obvious errors concerning shadows on Apollo images. There are many many errors.


But ummm thanks for your reply.




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Notice that the UFO in question looks an awful a lot alike a spot on the Space suit's backpack, just behind the shoulder? Im just saying, maybe this is just an artifact or exposure issue.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sum-one
 


Hate to beat this off-topic to death, but it kinda sorta relates, since people STILL claim fakery with Lunar mission photographs..(you'd think that'd get tired, after a while)...

I'll try again, seeing as the OTHER photo either wasn't viewed, or the oint was somehow lost...

Take a look at the Astronaut (Aldrin's) left leg shadow. Compare to the right leg shadow. See the difference?

Know why???

Go out to a sandy place (or dirt, that works too) that is rough...lots of bumps and dips. And various slopes. Then, look at the shadows.

OK, back to his leg...how wide do you suppose his leg, in the suit, is? My lower calf looks to be about five or six inches wide....just eyeballing it. NOW, encase that leg in a spacesuit.

Again, WHY is the shadow so narrow? AND, why is one wider than the other? (As far as I know Aldrin does not have a peg leg..).

Getting the answer yet?

BTW, I've hunted the web for and have found plenty of pictures of flagpoles here on Earth where the pole shadow can't be seen. Even though other shadows are where you expect them to be.

Se, this is the problem with people looking at these photos, over and over again, and seeing what they are convinced is something wrong, because they are ONLY familiar with Earth, and how things look here...AND won't entertain the idea that they also see the same sorts of "anomolies" here...BUT, because it's the Moon, many have this pre-conceived notion that it ALL must be "faked"....

Same with that "UFO". Only now, 40 years later, does someone 'notice' it???



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I believe earthlings call it "the Sun"...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Acharya
 


The pictures are interesting, but I don't think that it's possible to determine that something is moving.

If you look toward the bottom of the pictures you can clearly see that the terrain is different. So the pictures had to have been taken at least from slightly different locations (even if in close proximity to each other) and presumably over a period of time (since the locations vary). Given that the moon moves through space, the sky is going to change (just like Earth's).



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I don't understand how it has been determined that the picture with the spot/object is the "real" picture while the one without it is the "tampered with" picture.

Isn't it possible that the picture with the spot/object is an artifact in the print rather than something that was actually in the frame?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 

Are you for real? come on how blue eyed can someone be without being arrested?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moraz
It's just a chinese lantern..................

oh wait.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Moraz]



ok, this made me literally lol..think thats like the second time I laughed at someone making a joke (verses being a joke anyhow while trying to be serious).

but seriously...its clearly is a weather balloon filled with swamp gas.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartan1337
I believe earthlings call it "the Sun"...


What earth are you living on that makes the sun behind someone shine shadows going almost towards it?

and last I checked, there is only 1 sun...

and...and..nevermind, just go back to bed.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Again..I disagree.

YOU want to believe that there has been no-tampering of Apollo images. (for some reason??)

I wouldn't be surprised if the shadows coming from Aldrin's legs have been added on, to a white-washed, or completely falsely constructed image. There is a growing case for there being whistleblowers who worked with the Apollo images, who left clues for people to find.

The absence of the flag-pole shadow is, IMO, an example of this.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
That's a pretty incredible find there, Easy! Great job and wow! This is a humdinger of a conspiracy. S+F'd Buddy!

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Do you think the astronaut while posing for his photo was secretly like



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hey ArMap,

Didn't Zorgon mention that he has all these tiffs downloaded?

Maybe he could help us out with the original to get forward in this.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
It looks as though there has been some retouching/processing between the two photos. However, the potential UFO is strikingly similar in color and size to the reflection off one of the fasteners on the backpack.



Good case for "image artifact" that was removed in later processing.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I agree that it is some type of reflection, or lens flare.

Since there is no atmosphere on the moon there is less scattering of the light from the Sun and other places, and it acts way different than it does on Earth. When it reflects off of things it acts more like a laser beam.

This would explain why they removed it, because lens flares are unwanted in final prints of photographs.

If it was a UFO, they wouldn't need to remove it, because they can just claim it is a star or planet.

If it was a star or planet, they probably wouldn't remove it.

So I'm pretty sure it is just stray light reflecting on the camera lens, and creating a lens flare.

There is already proof that NASA erases unwanted artifacts for final prints that will be found on magazines and posters and books around the world to make them "aesthetically pleasing".



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


Thank You, that was what I was referring to in my post above. Those two spots.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
Apollo 11 UFO Picture with NASA Logo

This first picture is from NASA's Lewis Space Center Archives, as you can see by the official labeling around the border (the image was cropped for presentation by NASA). note the fact that the Lewis archives use a DIFFERENT cataloging code number - listing this as frame # C-1989-4028 as opposed to the proper Apollo mission-magazine-frame# catalog designator of AS11-40-5875. This means that if you search for the Apollo frame# on Google looking for this specific frame, you wont find this official NASA/Lewis archive version, as it is labeled with an entirely different catalog code.









the full size image (2880x3600) can be downloaded here (6mb)
www.sendspace.com...









this is the same picture with no ufo !



www.hq.nasa.gov...







same picture again , different colors and no ufo !



www.lpi.usra.edu...






I've seen this picture before, but never paid attention to that area. And you know what, I went to a few other sites and nasa's and there is an anomaly that must be explained. It's not a crop issue, it was literally brushed out. If you look at the small mound behind the astronaut, and halfway from the back of the astronaut to the top you see a dark rock. In the original photo the object is right above the rock in plain site. But in the brushed photo it's missing. It would have been suspicious or looked weird if they would have cropped up that closely to the astronaut. Especially when photographers would have been able to tell that it was off compared to the left side of the photo.

They won't explain why, because it's to big to be the orbiter and if the orbiter was that big that sucker would be only a few miles up if not closer to the surface. Also if it was the orbiter, then people would say why can't we see stars then, because if that was reflecting from 50 miles up then we should be able to see some bright stars. And on top of that why crop out the orbiter. It's because it's not the orbiter and it's definitely not the earth or any other planet, unless we have a second moon that is a UFO watching Buzz. Which coincides to some of those real or fake conversations of the astronauts saying that objects landed on a rim of a crater and watched them.

www.apolloarchive.com...

www.nasaimages.org...:ASTRONATU-AND-FLAG-ON-MOON---MERCUR



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hande



Here we see stars and bright star (jupiter, venus) ? Maybe someone can check star program and show what star system this is..


It's not stars, if you look down in the landscape you can see "stars" too



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
It looks as though there has been some retouching/processing between the two photos. However, the potential UFO is strikingly similar in color and size to the reflection off one of the fasteners on the backpack.



Good case for "image artifact" that was removed in later processing.


Good eye!

In the photo without the "spot" in the sky, the spot on the astronaut is also gone.

The lend credence to the idea that the two spots (the one in the sky and the similar one on the astronaut) are just spots on the photographic print, and not actually there.

This is good evidence that the spot is perhaps only on that print and isn't a real object.

[edit on 10/11/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join