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: 6
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by hoghead cheese
 


The reason it's not in all the Footage is because Goldstone had a Hitch so when it was switched to Parks the footage you see the "phosphorus Spot" that came from the Parks scan-converter in Sydney.

I have the "The Moonwalks as seen at Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station" DVD the footage with audio stating the "phosphorus Spot" is from Parks.



I will put the footage up on ATS after I get permission from the author



Zelong.


[edit on 12/10/09 by Zelong]




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


Sorry for my crappy English, but you don't seem to understand that you have just given proof that the OP's UFO was indeed an actual object. What I'm saying is:

1. You showed us a freeze frame of the live feed with the object in it.

2. There is the OP's pic that was taken on the moon with a camera and the object is at the same spot as the live feed.

Conclusion: the object is not a lense flare, but a real object. I hope my statement makes sense.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


No actually the second image does have the UFO in it, just up the exposure to the max and it will show, along with another strange circle and a lot of computer generated polygons.

It is all there in the second one.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by XIIIth
I'm not really sure what to think of this picture so I'm not gonna comment on the object in question itself. However, I've got a question for you lads.

Why is it that every picture from Moon (those that I've seen) has no stars? I live in a big metropolitan city and even in downtown, which is very well lit at night, if you look up at the sky you can still see plenty of stars. When you get out of the city during the night and look up - you can see millions of them (the stars that is). All those picture from the Moon have a pitch-black sky (or nearly so). I get it, lights from the craft and whatnot, but come on - pitch black?

So the question is... why are there no visible stars?

Please excuse my ignorance on the issue. When it comes to space I know little to nothing.

Best regards,
XIIIth


The lunar photos taken by the astronauts on the moon used pre-digital cameras. IOW, they used emulsion film which did not have a wide exposure allowance. So visualize you're on the moon and it's bright as hell and you want to take photos of the ground or rocks, or whatever. Of course, you have to take the extreme brightness into consideration so your camera has to be adjusted appropriately. That means closing down the lens opening to the smallest possible. You'll also want to use a higher than normal shutter speed 'cause you're wearing unwieldly gloves and you're probably not able to hold the camera steady.

Since the bright surface is closer than those dim stars in the distance, that means that the camera is not going to be able to record stars as recording stars require a higher lens opening than for brightness. So let's say for the surface you need f16 or f22 or even smaller lens opening. For the stars you're going to need f2, f4 and you may not be able to use f8 which is considered normal on earth.

Dim objects such as faraway stars require a longer exposure than something bright. However, in some photos and videos (actually emulsion films converted to video) you can see the brighter stars but not a sky full. The astronauts probably saw a skyfull of stars but they just couldn't photograph them, nothing of interest to use the film on.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I blew up the image of the 'ufo'. Since it's obviously elliptical shaped, would it be safe to rule out planets and stars?



So you can see the outline of the object more clearly, I applied a filter to it. The ufo or whatever it is, appears to have the shape of an egg.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
snip

And to the person who mentioned the flag seemingly wafting about, wasn't that proven to be air conditioning or cooling fans in the astronauts back pack?

snip

[edit on 11/10/09 by woogleuk]


Let's get real about the flag "wafting about." This argument is used by conspiracists who claim American astronauts never went to the moon and the flag is moving due to certain illogical reasons.

The flag is seen to waft about because the astronaut has to do the same thing almost everyone that goes to the beach and has one of those big beach umbrellas: they have to "screw" it into the sand. As you "screw" the umbrella into the sand the arm action sends up all kinds of vibrations affecting the canopy of the umbrella.

Same thing on the moon. The astronaut can't just push the pointed rod into the lunar dust, he has to "screw" it into the lunar dust. That'll make the flag jump all over the place and after the astronaut lets go of the pole, the flag is still reating to the kinetic force generated by the astronaut's arm movements. You'll notice that after a few seconds, the flag settles down and nothing will move it again.

Having said that, I do notice on one piece of footage where the astronaut plants the flag which is doing its dance, then the astronaut scrambles away but the flag is seen still dancing when it really should have stopped. I don't know what to make of that.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Can you do the same for the spot on the Astronauts suit?

Because although VERY similiar. To me, they don't appear to have the same "exact" shape.

If not I understand, probably alot harder to isolate the button on the Astronauts suit compared to the spot in the blackness of space.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by Nola213]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


Yeah the shapes are a little different, I enlarged both side-by-side. The one on the left is the light on the astronaut's suit, on the right is the one in space.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Whatever explanations that have come up, you can't see stars from the moon, and you can see stars in the 'altered' photo - which is exactly what it is.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Wow.. that is a huge find.. very nice job. There is so much proof out there that they are here and NASA (governmentS) are covering it up. What I do not understand is why are they covering it all up? There has to be a reason... the research to be done now is to find out why they are all covering it up. And why are the life forms here in the first place.

Great find!!!



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 



Sorry for my crappy English, but you don't seem to understand that you have just given proof that the OP's UFO was indeed an actual object. What I'm saying is:

1. You showed us a freeze frame of the live feed with the object in it.

2. There is the OP's pic that was taken on the moon with a camera and the object is at the same spot as the live feed.

Conclusion: the object is not a lense flare, but a real object. I hope my statement makes sense.


good point and right now i agree ...





how can this picture .....









possibly be from a scan that looks like this.....







[edit on 12-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera
Lunar Module training mockup, showing relative position of deployed camera

* Usage: Apollo 9 (Earth orbit), Apollo 11 (lunar surface), Apollo 13 and Apollo 14 (back-up to the lunar surface color camera, never used)
* Optical resolution: ~220x~220
* Lines per video frame: 320, 1280 (not used)
* Frame rate: (SSTV) 10 frame/s, 0.65 frame/s (not used)
* Bandwidth: 409.6 kHz
* Black and white
* Sensor: 1 vidicon
* Analog FM transmission


en.wikipedia.org...














Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., lunar module pilot of the first lunar landing mission, poses for a photograph beside the deployed United States flag during 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. While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the LM the "Eagle" to explore the Sea of Tranquility region of the Moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar-orbit.


www.solarviews.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I think everyone has missed the true problem with these pics, THE FLAG CASTS NO SHADOW ON THE LUNA SURFACE. Was this some sought of test to see if we would focus on the make believe or hearsay and not what our eyes can clearly see????



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:24 AM
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]


ok .. there is DEFINATELY something not right with these pics!!!
There are LPD (light point defects) that lookS like they got 'smudged'!! WT*!! how is even possible if these 'stars' are truely out in space ??

I'm at work right now and can't c/p to show.. but if you explode the vew.. and just using IE 6.0 to view the pics by clicking on the expand pic button in bottom right corner .. you can certainly tell it's VERY odd.....

Here's my contention: Every freaking skepic on the planet that says ' you can't see the stars becuz of the reflexion of the light from the sun off the moon surfaces....blah blah blah .' .. well.. if these pics are real, then that REALLY blows that theory out of the water !!

Easynow, I think you can see what i'm trying to point out.. and GJ on capturing the light.

In my Opinon: this can only be a few thing off the top of my head.

1). Star/planet
2). someone forgot to turn off the light blub in the studio
3). UFO

As for why it's not in ALL the pics ....hmmm..yea.. it's NASA..

SIDE point: It's the 21st Century and we can take color pics with simple cell phones but can't with a billion $$ telescope !! NOW THAT'S RICH !!


[edit on 12-10-2009 by Komodo]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
OK, I'm going to close this case are you ready?

Watch this video of the Moon Landing:



Now you will see the bright spot throughout the footage.

Note at around 1.09 the bright spot is still visible even thought the astronaut is still in front of it!

It's either a 'bright pixel' (which I'm sure many of you with digital cameras will recognise) or some other video camera anomaly.

Even commercial photo-editing tools have features to get rid of such critters, NASA only did the work for us.

Case closed.

P.S. So called UFO objects are real - some are advanced UAVS (see Nazi saucer tech) and some are unknown (to the public that is) living intelligent entities - the plasma like objects.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 



OK, I'm going to close this case are you ready?





so you think this picture is from the video ?










[edit on 12-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
...In my Opinon: this can only be a few thing off the top of my head.

1). Star/planet
2). someone forgot to turn off the light blub in the studio
3). UFO

As for why it's not in ALL the pics ....hmmm..yea.. it's NASA.....


You missed one:

4.) A "spot" on that particular print of the picture.

Don't forget, this is film that needs to be developed using chemicals and special paper. The print with the spot could simply be due to a problem with the developing, the chemicals, or the paper.

Therefore, the spot could be on THAT print, but not on the negative. The other photos that don't have the spot are different prints made from the same negative.

The fact that there is a similar-looking spot on the astronaut himself makes me think both spots aren't really there.

[edit on 10/12/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



The fact that there is a similar-looking spot on the astronaut himself makes me think both spots aren't really there.


you do realize the "spot" which is actually a bright spot on Neil's backpack is in all the other photos right ?

that makes me think it's possible there was something in the picture that flared up just like the flare up of the spot on his backpack.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Look at down/left side there is a long line of wire...

Humm...Wires do not float?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
There is no ufo on this video.
These are some scratches on the lens. You can see it clearly, while the astronaut ist coming to the front.
Thera are two lens(es?) *damn whats the plural, sorry for bad grammer* on the camara.
Best you can see it, is from 1,21. The light shadow walks from one side, through the astronaut, to the other side. Like a mirror.

Oh well, I did´t read the whole post, perhaps someone metioned it before.




top topics



 
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join