It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Massive UFO Photographed On Back Of Moon" From Robert Morningstar A Delusion But Doesn't Want To

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:21 AM
Jay Leno likes to prompt a desirable answer from band leader Kevin Eubanks by asking him "Kevin, what do I hate?" and Kevin provides the desired answer "Stupid Criminals".

Well, I don't have anyone to prompt and I can't prompt you 'cause you don't have a clue either but the answer would be "Stupid UFO Promoters".

Today (Saturday) I went to for my daily dose of what's the latest from non-traditional news sources and was rewarded with another laughable UFO article. The title of rense's article was "Massive UFO Photographed On Back Of Moon By Apollo 10" I clicked on the link and was taken to the rense page with the article From Robert Morningstar 1-1-10

Robert said:
[Dear Jeff,

As I promised on your program, here is the Apollo 10 picture that I promised for New Year's Day 2010.]

No photo was included but there was a link:

At the website one finds:
[Massive UFO Photographed On Back Of Moon By Apollo 10
From Robert Morningstar

Happy New Year 2010
UFO Digest Presents The Sentinel

"Space Station Luna"
Discovered by Apollo 10, June 1969
Brought to Light by Robert D. Morningstar
January 1st, 2010

An Apollo photo enhancement by RDM* (above) reveals the mysterious shape of "The Sentinel," a massive object photographed in orbit on the far side of the Moon by Apollo 10. Read the whole story soon on UFO Digest as "Odyssey Two" Begins Anew...

"Something is going to happen. Something Wonderful!"
> Arthur C. Clarke, "2010"
Stay tuned for the story of "The Music of the Moon
& The Apollo 10 Cover-up"...]

And below that one finds this photo:

No photo ID is given but in the comments below the photo someone supplies it: as10-28-3988.jpg

I recognized the photo instantly because a couple of years ago I was involved in a discussion over at Unexplained Mysteries as to what the object might be and I found 2 additional photos (see below) of the object which Jim Oberg who had joined the discussion lauded me for.

To cut to the chase, here is what NASA has to say about the object:
AS10-28-3988 (0.8 Mb )
Command Module Mylar outside the front window. In preparation for a photographic pass over the planned Apollo 11 landing site, the crew re-oriented the Command Module while over the backside of the Moon. After regaining contact with Earth, John Young mentioned at 118:41:31 "This morning when we were turning around, first time, we had (means 'could see') about - I estimate maybe a foot-and-Êa-half or more of Mylar with that insulation coating on the back of it. It would appear out inÊfront of our window, and I guess it was from the top hatch which is where that insulation cameÊfrom in the first place. It Just sort of sat there for a while, and then quietly floated off. But my questionÊis, will this cause us any thermal problems?" The strangely-shaped 'blob' in this image is almost certainly that piece of Mylar, possibly out-of-focus. Scan courtesy NASA Johnson.]

The reason for this thread is to point out how deluded some people can get. I wrote to rense to tell them the above and I sent Robert Morningstar a copy of the email. His reply should not have surprised me because if he had done just basic research he would have found out that a prosaic explanation by NASA should have convinced him that he didn't have a case as claimed. But his reply to me did surprise me and I include it here along with the 3 photos for your judgement.

How many of you disagree with NASA's explanation and accept Morningstar's? And vice versa. Or whatever you think.

Robert Morningstar's reply:
[You keep thinking that way, Eddie...

If it makes you happy...
You certainly prove that"Ignorance is bliss".

Do you even know what mylar looks like?
I certainly do. I worked with it professionally for years, making solar reflectors
And, here's a question for you, why would the astronaut take 3 pictures of mylar?

You are very silly, but I am enjoying and the comments (pro & con), especially your childish "rehash"
of the trash that was first put out by James Oberg.

I told a colleague this morning who reminded me of the same patented Oberg "red herring" this morning. Obeg must have been really despearate to try to pawn that one on people, but I see some people will believe anything. Like you believing that is "mylar". How could the round shadow of the moon impinge on a small strip of mylar as seen in the photos (not all of which you've seen)?

Go buy a little mylar, so you know what you're talking about.

Have great New Year...

Robert M*]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:29 AM
This is certainly interesting but . . .

for some reason all of these photos appear altered to me.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:30 AM
Can you imagine seeing this massive craft rotating in place ?? So much we don't know about past lunar visits. S + F !!

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by The Shrike

G'day again to The Shrike!

Surely there's a HUGE resemblance to a tear or some other phyiscal flaw in the negative or the photo?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:44 AM
Look like a big rock to me. Maybe that is the newest style of ship design this particular alien group likes to use... or maybe it's just a rock/asteroid caught in lunar-synchronous orbit.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by The Shrike

Yes it looks like a hole in the paper. Thanks so much for alerting me to this since I have been trying to wave at them from my house. No answer. Now I don't feel so bad.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:50 AM
Here is the images hosted by NASA ( better res)

[edit on 3-1-2010 by nophun]

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by nophun
Here is the Pic hosted by NASA ( better res)

Thanks for posting that much superior picture, nophun.

We can now see very clearly that it's not an alien spaceship!

It still looks like a physical fault or tear in the negative or photo, to me. I believe I can even see a "speckled area" immediately to the "left" of the object that shows where the "flap" came out of the negative or picture.

However, if NASA says it insulation, then I guess there's a fair chance they are correct. I can't see why they'd lie about that vs the "fault" hypothesis.

Maybe they're just wrong.

I's a tear in the negative or photo.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by The Shrike

G'day again to The Shrike!

Surely there's a HUGE resemblance to a tear or some other phyiscal flaw in the negative or the photo?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

that is just what I was thinking while looking at the photo's
it does look like a tear

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:59 AM
Yeah, because aliens like to build space stations that look like the top of an ice cream cone...just in case they get hungry.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by nophun

after viewing these pictures if you look closely it resembles the moon its self. maybe it is a piece of the moon that broke off from a meteor impact.
but who knows.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by The Shrike

I've seen these photos before on ATS. It could be the insulation they lost but when I originally saw the photos I was more inclined to believe the copies of the photos had been damaged and the white object was a tear in the picture.

Makes more sense that it's the debris the astronauts were talking about in the blurb. It's definitely not a craft since it looks nothing like an artificial aerodynamic vehicle of any kind. If it turned out to not be the insulation and not be a tear in the photo it would more than likely be some other space debris/asteroid.

Definitely not a UFO

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:37 AM
How are these photos stored? I mean, if everyone thinks its a tear, isn't it a tear in 3 images, not just one?

And also, I have a hard time imagining a rounded edge on a tear, a blurry rounded edge.

Interesting photos.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:44 AM
reply to post by beebs

Yes but if you look at the second and third clearer photos you can see where the rip came from and the other side of the hole in the paper!

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:44 AM

its an ice sheet in space?

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:46 AM
Why we are all fussing over a hole in the paper is the big mystery here to me.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:48 AM
I forgot to give a S+F and
to The Shrike for posting

The smaller images really give the 'blob' a upside down pyramid look with a very dark shadow on the left face.

They are interesting

Sadly, I got to go with NASA's story on this one.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:50 AM
reply to post by rusethorcain

I don't know... that explanation is a little sketchy. How come the second two photos have almost identical rips? Why does the first photo have something blocking the right side of the photo? Why is the rip in the first photo in a different spot relative to the ground features? Perhaps a change in camera angle...?

I doubt that all three are rips, if any at all. Mylar or space rock I'd say, but not sure of the rounded 'shadow' on the left side of the object.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:53 AM
what a off

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:57 AM
Might be a stupid question.
Why is there a tear in all 3 pictures ?


The next images have no defect, just the the 3 from that one particular spot.
Makes me think there is a object of some kind.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by nophun]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in