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.


Taurus Littrow: A place that can [in] spire?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:16 PM
Please let me explain,that I am unable to confirm what I suggest below.


Since HR Imagery of Apollo is very selective, I have yet to date been able to confirm this suggestion [that indeed what we see on this image is above the surface] with other Hasselblad, Metric or Panoramic images, and trust me I have been looking at hundreds of images. Taking several months.

But please allow me to talk philosophy about this finding.

Taurus Littrow A place that can [in] spire?

AS17 the last flight of the Apollo Missions to the Moon.

[Well that is if you believe the unsubstantiated excerpts that AS18-20 actually flew. Obviously that is not the basis of this thread.]

Continuing on...

The crew of Apollo 17:
CDR-Gene Cernan
CMP-Ron Evans
LMP-Harrison “Jack” Schmitt

This Crew that flew the last mission to the surface of our sister Luna: there has been many questions about their flight, interesting events and happenings and visits to features like Nansen. My thread here is about the extremely awesome HR imagery that was part of On-Orbit operations, or know as Crew-Observations. I's like to take a moment to state that Ron Evans certainly photographed some of the most spectacular targets of opportunity [TO].

With his fellow crew mates down on Lunar surface, Evans had a unprecedented amount of time alone for observations, amounting to approximately 40 orbits alone.

I believe this is a wonderful, truly spectacular oblique taken by Ron Evens on Rev 64 of the Apollo 17 Landing Site.

If you look just the the upper right of bear mountain at the AS17-Taurus Littrow landing site, I have to just say this it looks suspiciously like something is spiring a few feet off the moons surface!

To locate Bear Mountain here is a useful link:

The few feet is a pun people, if it is actually “in the air' off the surface, this would literally be hundreds and hundreds of feet high.

No matter what anyone has say this is a STUNNING image of the Taurus Littrow Valley!

This is how I see it it best, 6mb file!

So lets have it: To [In] spire or not to spire?

[I guess Ron Evans, Gene Cernan and Jack Schmidt would be the ones that really know!]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 08:18 PM
Thanks for this thread. I have always had gret interest in the moon and I had not seen these images.

I am just getting into this subject more in depth so other than agreeing tht they they are awe inspiring I can't add much more.

Hopefully the bump will help get some of those more familiar involved.

Great post!

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by Kellter

Recently I have been spending considerable time looking at the beauty of Apollo, AS17 being one awesome flight.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 08:59 PM
OMG -- It's Gumby!

Seriously, though, in that high resolution photo it looks like some sort of creature--tall, walking with one foot in front of the other, and even dragging a long tail behind. My imagination may be in overdrive, but I'm just sayin'.

In any event, it certainly does not look like any part of the natural landscape.


posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by linux2216

It is gumby dambet!

I do have to agree, that thing looks nothing like the natural scape about the Apollo 17 landing site!

Curious the blue-green color to the formation.

wonder what that could mean!

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:10 PM
It's probably my mind playing tricks on me but...

Did you also see a humanoid figure lined out. ( cracks in the rock ?

In the middle of the picture there seems to be the leftovers from an avalanche.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Hey, could you point out where exaclty you see that "outline".

I am intrigued to see more....

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by theability

A little right above the middle . There is a head with a sort of body below it.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:33 PM
I was directed here through your subsuquent thread, and I absolutly appreciate time and effort being put into a thread. There is alot of garbage that makes it through the filter these days, so much so that we miss the worth while threads.

S&F for your effort my friend!


posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:38 PM
I am still looking about this image, and yes there seems to be the remains of a collapse of some sort, still having to look about for the "humanoid".

There features are amazing on this image!


posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:57 AM
reply to post by theability

To me it looks like it could be some artifact on the image itself or possibly even a reflection off the window and not something that was physically there.

I don't see it when looking at other images from orbit of the same area or from the two following photos after the one you linked to.

If you look at that last one. There is a larger curved blurry line not far from where your 'spire' was. To me this looks like it could be a reflection of part of the camera lens off the window.

Also, here are a bunch of images of the same area from the Apollo 17 metric camera that was on the service module.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by jra

jra, as I had stated in the begining of the thread, I have gone through quite a bit of images and haven't been able to locate confirmation.

Yet the thing that intrigues me is looking at the image, inverted. Kind of changes the appeal and makes the anomaly look unlike artifact.

mostly Though, Like you said, 23261 is of Apollonius G, 23262 is the one with the 'Spire'. Then the next frame 23263, there is no distinct apperance or outline that can be noted.

I have seen the images that you have sugested where the CSM is off in the distance as they rendevouz.

I was mighty impressed with the clarity of the images and the stunning beauty of the Littrow Valley.

I must say it sparks the vested interest, to look further and find more. Even if it means, just to offer alittle philosophy.

thanks for reading, jra I appreciate you time.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:19 AM
Again I say Ron Evans Sure took one nice Hasselblad Image!

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:26 AM
I too missed this thread, and have to be honest...I can't study it right now.

A star and flag for the effort, and because I responded, it will be front and center for study and a more on topic reply from me later.

What I can say is, this is imagery that I had not seen before, and for the pure stunning beauty of it I thank-you.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by rotorwing

Thank you for the reply, I truly enjoy sharing great imagery of Apollo. Such an interesting feature too!

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by theability

You are seeing a feature that is horizontal, NOT projecting vertically above the Lunar surface.

I am amazed at what people can "see", when they desperately wish it.

If you searched with the same determination you could find examples in orbital photos taken of the Earth, too.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker



Let me quote myself.....

Taurus Littrow: A place that can [in] spire?

Please let me explain,that I am unable to confirm what I suggest below.


Since HR Imagery of Apollo is very selective, I have yet to date been able to confirm this suggestion [that indeed what we see on this image is above the surface] with other Hasselblad, Metric or Panoramic images, and trust me I have been looking at hundreds of images. Taking several months.

But please allow me to talk philosophy about this finding

Seriously, you need to learn how to read.

I am not deperately seeking to see anything, I wanted to talk philosphy about Ron Evans taking SPECTACULAR IMAGES during the course of the Apollo 17 mission.

[edit late note]

And you know what, in all actuality you can't prove it's not above the surface just the same. Funny that since neither you nor I have been there to know otherwise!


[edit on 3-4-2010 by theability]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

By the way, the reason you'd use obliques, is to see if something is above the surface, right?

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by theability

OK, I skimmed, and was distracted by a follow-on posting that talked of a "humanoid" figure, thought you were egging him on. My mistake.

AS TO an 'oblique'.... still, even then, anything that would jut out (and up above) the surface would have to be HUGE in order to be significant when photographed from a 97-kilometer high orbit, n'est pas? Not likely, as has never been seen.

You mentioned a "blue-green" hue?

Don't see that (except in the 'false color' images).

Again, the perspective of distace (photo from orbit) will cause any subtle variations in color to wash out, and be hardly noticeable. (Why the Moon looks so monochromatic, to the naked eye, even through telescopes, from the Earth).

Now, of course, photos reproduced by various media will have slightly different tones, and perceived 'colors'. Monitor differences, when viewed online, too.

Here's a longer-view oblique, from 'lpi'...certain ridges are well-delineated, mostly due to the shadows they cast, because of the Sun's angle. Of course, those natural crater walls, and other features, are high, and thus obvious. Point of the 'oblique', as you mentioned...

BUT, even without the oblique angle, any variations in surface depth are well-spotted, again via shadows. The craters, for instance --- quite obvious that they are concave. Of course, we know that they are craters, so we expect to see the depressions.

Here's a view of the same area, from a telescope on Earth:

Here's the vertical view, straight down. Note what I said about the shadows, and how terrain features are discernible, even without an 'oblique' angle:

Again, all the Apollo Lunar landings were planned and timed to occur at local Lunar 'morning'. The most obvious reason was for better perspective, and orientation, since the longer shadows assist with that.

Also, the temperatures are most conducive, then.

Now, I really like this one (from a pilot's perspective, I can relate) because it's lower down, just a few kilometers above. Much as you would see from an airplane, over mountainous terrain on Earth:

[edit on 3 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by theability

I try to stay away from imagery.
Why? Mostly because it can be manipulated and when it is done well I am at a loss.
Data and thinking like a lawyer serves me best.
It is hard to deal with human beings as we are all prone to lie or embellish. Especially when we are passionate in our beliefs.
Unfortunately things in the courts these days have digressed to shambles.

Psychological requirements ESA - Human Spaceflight and Exploration - Astronauts - ...

Major aspects taken into consideration are psychological suitability, ... Astronaut training requirements. The astronaut selection process is based on ... - Similar

The general characteristics expected of applicants include good reasoning capability and memory, concentration, aptitude for spatial orientation and manual dexterity. An applicant's personality should be characterized by high motivation, flexibility, gregariousness, empathy with fellow workers, a low level of aggressiveness and emotional stability. For long-term flights on the Space Station ability to work as a team member in an intercultural environment is of high importance.

First read "The Right Stuff" it goes into better detail.

When you do you will see that the Mag. Seven were selected out of millions of applicants IMO to be political robots more than fliers.
I take this oath in the spirit of National Security blab blab etc.
There could have been hypnotically programmed or implanted through any orifice of their body during their exams at Huntsville.
Gemini could have been completed with a monkey or rat occupant and most of ---

If not all of the claimed Apollo program, most certainty could have been completed by robotics. Pictures, rovers, reflectors, even water if they only knew to looked for it. Haha.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in