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: 9
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



his name also starts with an "A"

yes that is your version of the pic that i posted/borrowed but the truth is, LunaCognita is the one who originally made the discovery.




reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 



I think it's probably lens flare or reflections.

if it is then the other pics posted in the Opening Post of this thread have been altered and changed to hide it.












reply to Anyone that doesn't understand the background in this image...







download the full original version in this link...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

then copy the image and save it to your computer...

then use photoshop or a simple paint program or image editor to brighten up the image. you will then see what is hiding in the black background of the picture.

see my results here...
easynowsufoblog.blogspot.com...





Paint.net is a good program and it's completely free..

Paint.net



[edit on 17-1-2010 by easynow]




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   


reply to post by easynow

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's probably lens flare or reflections.

if it is then the other pics posted in the Opening Post of this thread have been altered and changed to hide it.



G'day again easynow

Well, perhaps that's exactly what they've done, simply to "tidy up" the image.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 



Well, perhaps that's exactly what they've done, simply to "tidy up" the image.


perhaps that is what they did but don't you think erasing a part of history that is as important as this , is wrong ? should the choice of rewriting the history books of the Apollo images be up to NASA or the Public taxpayers ?

maybe NASA should indicate the image has been altered ? maybe not ?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 



Well, perhaps that's exactly what they've done, simply to "tidy up" the image.


perhaps that is what they did but don't you think erasing a part of history that is as important as this , is wrong ? should the choice of rewriting the history books of the Apollo images be up to NASA or the Public taxpayers ?

maybe NASA should indicate the image has been altered ? maybe not ?


G'day again easynow

At first pass, I think that's a good idea.

Perhaps they could add commentary to the effect:

"Image xxxx contrast & colour changed to enhance Aldrin details - see image xxxx for original image"

or.....

"Image xxxx edited to remove lens reflections & debris images from scanning process - see image xxxx for original image"

However, perhaps that wasn't so practical at the time, or perhaps the workload would have been judged too onerous.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 




At first pass, I think that's a good idea.

well of course it's a good idea but i think it would open pandora's box by publicly stating the images were being altered or modified. easier to just not mention it right ?




However, perhaps that wasn't so practical at the time, or perhaps the workload would have been judged too onerous.

too onerous to mention the image has been modified for aesthetic reasons ?

imo that's too easy of an excuse and i suspect the real reason is because they just didn't want to do it from fear of public ridicule. yes i think so

don't you think erasing a part of history that is as important as this is wrong ?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


G'day again Easynow

I think I am agreeing with you in principle.

However, I don't think it matters too much when the changes are minor & of an aestthetic nature.

But then I guess you might say "well, a minor change might still obscure that ellusive UFO shot!"

Well, that is true.....it could.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 



I don't think it matters too much when the changes are minor & of an aestthetic nature.

ok thanks and your entitled to your opinion about it but i do disagree with you that it doesn't "matter to much"

i believe it's wrong to change the images in any way because we are losing the original perspective of the photo which is imo rewriting the history of the missions.



But then I guess you might say "well, a minor change might still obscure that ellusive UFO shot!"


maybe i would say that and maybe not


the question is, has it already happened ?





posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

NASA has people that alter or change images.




Great stuff Easynow!

Since you've posted an example of an EVA photo which has been altered, I guess I should post a spaceflight image that has been Altered ( perhaps by the kind folks at LPI) - And like you did, also tell people how to replicate what they are seeing in the image below.
=


...


In Apollo image AS17-148-22682, if one applies the bucket-fill tool to the right-hand side of the image, one will notice a strange effect. In these images it is quite evident that someone has blacked out a large portions of the image.









Get the file here and try it yourselves.


www.lpi.usra.edu...



Here is another example of this type of image manipulation this time from AS17-148-22718:





Keep up the good work Easynow. I always look forward to reading your work and about your latest finds.


Edit:

One more thing:

Easynow, if you compare these images to the versions at gateway to astronomy you might be able see what was edited out and how unnecessary the alterations made by (LPI?)were - as they only really serve to hinder any research efforts and for the most part the altered images do not appear to have required such drastic alterations to increase their "aesthetics".
*The images do seem to have been altered to match what people have been told to expect when they see space from this perspective.





[edit on 19-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
UFO's on the Moon during Apollo landings ? Well , there Might have been ...........






[edit on 19-1-2010 by Zanti Misfit]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Also, note another "spot" on the visible leg of the lander. It is not completely eliminated; however, it is somewhat doused.

Leads me to think that all three are possible artifacts.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


thanks Exuberant1 for the images and i will check it out. most likely cropped from a bigger picture but like you said it would be interesting to see what else might be in the picture since they decided to exclude the rest of it.







reply to post by Strebor
 



Leads me to think that all three are possible artifacts.


it looks like the "spot" is actually a rock set in front of a hole or depression.


ALSJ version

www.hq.nasa.gov...


Lewis Archive Version

files.abovetopsecret.com...


IMO, the more likely scenario is the UFO is actually something that was there when the picture was taken and "flared up" in the image when the Lewis Archives copy was made and the ALSJ and LPI versions have been "sanitized"



possible explanations for the UFO..

Lunar Transient Phenomena



NASA's Chronological listings of Lunar events (Pdf)
ntrs.nasa.gov...



OR



Professor of Physics , Dr. Horace Crater has put forth a theory about transient magnetic anomalies and how these anomalous properties could be Alien related.


Magnetic and geologic surveys of many areas throughout the world have revealed magnetic anomalies that could not be produced by any natural or known phenomena. These transient magnetic anomalies have been recorded, indicating synchronous aerial magnetic anomalies have a multidimensional para physical place of origin, in terms of a different level of reality, where stability and solidity are being fuelled by a ceaseless process of subatomic particles, constantly dissolving into an implicit order, and then re-crystallizing within our space. Extraterrestrial biological entities may be using technologies and aspects of the physical universe that are beyond our current understanding to conceal their behavior, culture, appearance, and occasionally revealing their presence in our measurable space-time by making frequency shifts that leave traces of field flux, in certain energy spectra, allowing us to witness their presence.



Organizations (Project Phoenix and the BETA 2 Group) on earth have confirmed signals, using narrow band spectral analyzers, privately stating that the signals received, exhibited enough source information to determine and confirm an intelligent agent created them. The signals show language like structures, proofing "alien" intelligence to human life. The government has decided to suppress this information from the general public due to the widespread consequences, affecting all groups of society. Governments are scared of what this extraterrestrial contact information would mean to the different cultures on earth. They fear a breakdown in social order, a 'complete' breakdown in conventional religion. They even fear loss of control over the masses.


www.alienmania.org...
www.utsi.edu...



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Get the file here and try it yourselves.

I did.


Photoshop's non-contiguous bucket-fill is very useful for this type of work.




Easynow, if you compare these images to the versions at gateway to astronomy you might be able see what was edited out and how unnecessary the alterations made by (LPI?)were - as they only really serve to hinder any research efforts and for the most part the altered images do not appear to have required such drastic alterations to increase their "aesthetics".
*The images do seem to have been altered to match what people have been told to expect when they see space from this perspective.
I agree, and the only alterations I have seen are like that: greyscale Moon with a colour Earth, blackened sky, too much contrast, etc.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


they crop those pictures because some of the full versions are riddled with obfuscation...


AS17-148-22727



files.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-1-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Nice one easy.

*You know they do this because they care about us. They don't want us poor little things to get confused, so they make the images gentler on our brains.

Space agencies can be so kind.





[edit on 19-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



You know they do this because they care about us

with friends like that who needs enemies ?



well at least the Moon has some love for us...


spaceflight.nasa.gov...



here are the debrief transcripts from the Apollo 11 crew describing the UFO they seen in route to Luna..and whooo boy are they ever confused




Apollo 11 Technical Debrief Statements about the UFO that was seen during the transit to the Moon. notice the conflicting statements about the descriptions of the unidentified object...




Aldrin: The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was 1 day out, or something, pretty close to the moon. It had a sizeable dimension to it, so we put the monocular on it.

Collins: How'd we see this thing? Did we just look out the window and there it was?

Aldrin: Yes, and we weren't sure but that it might be the S-IVB [Saturn Rocket Third Stage]. We called the ground and were told the S-IVB was 6000 miles away. We had a problem with the High Gain about this time, didn't we?

Collins: There was something. We felt a bump or maybe I just imagined it.

Armstrong: He was wondering whether the MESA [Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly] had come off.

Collins: I don't guess we felt anything.

Aldrin: Of course, we were seeing all sorts of little objects going by at the various dumps and then we happened to see this one brighter object going by. We couldn't think of anything else it could be other than the S-IVB. We looked at it through the monocular and it seemed to have a bit of an L-shape to it.

Armstrong: Like an open suitcase.



Aldrin: We were in PTC [Passive Thermal Control] at the time so each one of us had a chance to take a look at this and it certainly seemed to be within our vicinity and of a very sizeable dimension.

Armstrong: We should say that it was right at the limit of the resolution of the eye. It was very difficult to tell just what shape it was. And there was no way to tell the size without knowing the range or the range without knowing the size.

Aldrin: So then I got down in the LEB [Lower Equipment Bay] and started looking for it in the optics. We were grossly misled because with the sextant off-focus what we saw appeared to be cylinder.

Armstrong: Or really two rings.

Aldrin: Yes.

Armstrong: Two rings. Two connected rings.



Collins: No, it looked like a hollow cylinder to me. It didn't look like two connected rings. You could see this thing tumbling and, when it came around end-on, you could look right down in its guts. It was a hollow cylinder. But then you could change the focus on the sextant and it would be replaced by this open-book shape. It was really weird.

Aldrin: I guess there's not too much more to say about it other than it wasn't cylinder.

Collins: It was during the period when we thought it was a cylinder that we inquired about the S-IVB and we'd almost convinced ourselves that's what it had to be. But we don't have any more conclusions than that really. The fact that we didn't see it much past this one time period - we really don't have a conclusion as to what it might have been, how big it was, or how far away it was. It was something that wasn't part of the urine dump, we're pretty sure of that. Skipping ahead a bit, when we jettisoned the LM, you know we fired an explosive charge and got rid of the docking rings and the LM went boom. Pieces came off the LM. It could have been some Mylar or something that had somehow come loose from the LM.

Aldrin: We thought it could have been a panel, but it didn't appear to have that shape at all.



Collins: That's right, and for some reason, we thought it might have been a part of the High Gain Antenna. It might have been about the time we had high gain antenna problems. In the back of my mind, I have some reason to suspect that its origin was from the spacecraft.
history.nasa.gov...







[edit on 19-1-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Don't worry.....it was just somebody lighting a cigarrette...



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
they crop those pictures because some of the full versions are riddled with obfuscation...
I don't understand why you posted that photo, does it mean that you consider those changes in the colour of the sky the result of obfuscation?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Now Armap, You know such a thing would never happen on purpose.

NASA would never engage in obfuscation of any kind (except the accidental or good kind).

Anything that might raise suspicion or seem out of place in an image or otherwise, well that is probably just coincidental or done for our own good.

Sure other government agencies do lie, steal and engage in deception - but not NASA. Any obfuscation found surely must be an accident or coincidence.




reply to post by easynow
 




Hey Easynow,

I'm gonna quote you so that the members can see the legal framework that allows us to be lied to and these images to be censored (partially withheld) or completely withheld:








EXECUTIVE ORDER 10501
SAFEGUARDING OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES
Here is a link to the original 10501 Executive Order from 1953 (Eisenhower Admin.)

www.fas.org...



NASA Office of Defense Affairs: The First Five Years
Chapter 14 - NASA SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM.
This chapter deals specifically with the discussion surrounding NASA's adoption of their modified EO 10501 National Security interpretation in 1966

history.nasa.gov...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...







They are allowed to lie to us and tell us they are being honest when they are not.

But some people will not countenance any deception on their part. What say you to that Mr smartypants? Huh?

I bet your not so smart IRL....






[edit on 20-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Anything that might raise suspicion or seem out of place in an image or otherwise, well that is probably just coincidental or done for our own good.
That is why I don't understand why easynow posted that image, it doesn't have anything out of place, I have seen in real life many photos looking like that.

Obviously, some people may say that they changed the photo in a way to make it look like a normal anomaly (if there is such a thing
), but then why didn't they changed it to make whatever they wanted invisible? They have the means to do it and nobody will ever know.

That's the biggest problem I have with the idea that NASA (or any other space agency) try to hide things on their photos but for some reason some of those things are found out, if they want to do it they can do it without looking suspicious. And no, it's not just for digital photos, the techniques to change photos exist since photos exist, for more than 100 years at the time of the Apollo missions.

I have said several times that I have seen images altered by NASA and high resolution images disappear, so I don't understand why do you, from time to time, imply that I am one of those people that say (or think) that NASA does not lie.

PS: there's no such thing as a good kind of obfuscation.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



That is why I don't understand why easynow posted that image, it doesn't have anything out of place, I have seen in real life many photos looking like that.

ArMaP, i am skeptical of your skepticism




i posted that image so people can see there is more to the picture than meets the eye and just because you have seen many photos "in real life" that might look like it has the same effects does not mean the NASA photo with the obfuscation (imo) is the same thing.

if i go buy two different brands of strawberry ice cream and they both have the same color and texture and appear to look the same , are they the same ? no they are not and you are using circular logic to dismiss my accusations and opinions. of course it's your prerogative to due so but lets not have yours or my opinions masquerading as facts ok ?




PS: there's no such thing as a good kind of obfuscation


i bet the NASA image correction team believes differently



[edit on 20-1-2010 by easynow]




top topics



 
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join