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.

 

Willease's lunar anomalies

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willease

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Willease
 

An obvious example of debris on the film and caught by the scanner.
You can see the fibers.
edit on 4/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Says you. Prove it. Is that going to be your answer to everything I post? It may be "debris on the film"...or whoever processed the image originally had a cold and we are looking at snot...who knows for sure?
Obviously somebody noticed because the second image was clearly doctored.


calm down please.

If you don't want people's opinions, then don't post the photos and ask, okay?

If the photo is not something on it (dead skin cells, dried out booger, etc), and it's suppose to be really there, then it would have to be some gigantic bacteria........

I'm going with something physically on the film, especially since something that big would have cast a shadow if it had been really there.




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Its obvious the debris is not part of the film image, the two are completely different focal resolutions, and not even close. You have to realize how this could be possible with a camera set to infinity. They also have different color profiles. One would have more of a case if this was originally a digital image but its not.



Common man! This can't possibly have been in the field of view with such a radicle clarity difference. I think the first Phage post in this thread explains it all and now we have two different examples of much the same thing.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I can't prove or disprove what the second anomaly is. I'm sticking with snot.

Here's a couple from Apollo 13...

AS13-61-8787
www.lpi.usra.edu...


AS13-61-8736
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Willease

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Willease
 

An obvious example of debris on the film and caught by the scanner.
You can see the fibers.
edit on 4/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Says you. Prove it. Is that going to be your answer to everything I post? It may be "debris on the film"...or whoever processed the image originally had a cold and we are looking at snot...who knows for sure?
Obviously somebody noticed because the second image was clearly doctored.


calm down please.

If you don't want people's opinions, then don't post the photos and ask, okay?

If the photo is not something on it (dead skin cells, dried out booger, etc), and it's suppose to be really there, then it would have to be some gigantic bacteria........

I'm going with something physically on the film, especially since something that big would have cast a shadow if it had been really there.


Don't tell me to calm down. I don't have any issues with Phage or anyone that responds with an idea as to what we are looking at. That's the reason for the thread, to get feedback. I am particularly happy with the explanation on the first anomaly he gave. If I seem touchy, it just seems that way.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

AS17-134-20455
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willease
I can't prove or disprove what the second anomaly is. I'm sticking with snot.

Here's a couple from Apollo 13...

AS13-61-8787
www.lpi.usra.edu...


AS13-61-8736
www.lpi.usra.edu...



The object(s) look as though they aren't near the moon in these two shots, in fact they don't look far from the source of the photo. I'm not entirely sure but I believe the Apollo 13 third stage passed up the command/service module en-route to the moon. They didn't follow exactly the same trajectory because of the oxygen leak knocked the command/service module around a bit before they localized that issue.

In fact the first image bares a remarkable resemblance to the Apollo 13 third stage lunar crash site.



Here is (a) source to that image. Source. A quick Google search got me that, I'm sure there are more.


The light in the sky is not my forté, there are more unexplainable light flashes images in the sky and causes could even be with the camera but there are very real flashes from solar wind for lack of better or more precise terms. Ionization in the thin lunar 'atmosphere' occurs most when the lunar night turns to day, and Apollos went to the moon in the morning. I'm sure they saw such phenomena. Again sorry for the lack of clearer terms.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Actually the 'snot' picture, (I would think more of a sneeze with the accompanying hair) is reworked surprisingly well, but in that picture or the OP picture, I don't see a smoking gun or an elephant in the room from either, and there has to be an X-factor. Don't forget NASA at the time got caught up in the same smoking gun idea with the Martian meteorite AH 84001 down to a deep microscopic level. Upshot of that is basically, the only way to look for life on another planet, is for humans to go there for themselves.
edit on 2-4-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Reworked? You may mean that after they saw the scan, they decided to clean off the debris and rescan the film. That would be the prudent thing to do. When scanning thousands of film images it sometimes takes a while to see flaws, (in that process) some can be corrected with cleaners.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Ooooooooo, Illustronic! Nice LROC find! And it does look very close in shape.

Isn't that A13 photo also the one with the "strap" in it? It's like dead center in the photo.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Just roughly playing really quickly with the dodge and burn tools. I used dodge in the dark spot and burn on the landscape around that.



It seems to me that the dark spot is tampered with and its really just the same ground as the rest of the photo and there seems to be a tower in the lower left of that "hole".

Also it has "wings" a bit like a craft, so maybe a tower/space station.


edit on 2-4-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

AS17-134-20510
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Now this is interesting, and it is not found in other panoramic images...

Looks like some sort of structure doesn't it? Definitly not a speck of dust!
AS16-P-4095
wms.lroc.asu.edu...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Willease
 


Looks like a downed weather balloon.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Space is a fascinating and mysterious place for the earthbound to be. One simply will see things ‘not of this earth’ and I believe with enough observation and proper detection instrumentation and study, most anything can be explained, or eventually will be.

Transient Lunar Phenomena, or TLP, have been observed telescopically for hundreds of years, but it wasn’t until the Apollo missions that mankind was able to get an up close and personal observational proximity to them. Why should this seem so foreign when we on earths more polar latitudes have a much greater light show in the aurora borealis, and aurora australis?



As I mentioned earlier, TLP observation occur largely at the crack of dawn on the moon, when the cold part of the moon suddenly becomes exposed to solar radiations again. All you need is a large rock and a star, and sublimation takes place (among other things not entirely related). But this is simply what takes place on the slow spinning moon.

On a smaller scale when the shadows of craters receiving sunlight after the lunar dawn these smaller flashes I believe result.

Lunar Flash Mystery Solved: Moon Just Passing Gas; Space.com



Now digital darkroom manipulation of jpeg images I pay little to no attention to due to the very encoding of the compression process, one can manufacture most anything from a digitally compressed jpeg. Frankly that is all I see in most all ‘enhanced’ jpeg anomaly examples. Allow me to illustrate.





Photo.net learn jpeg



Now I wonder what this lady is thinking.
Some digital enhancing tool site



Oh for shame...
edit on 3-4-2012 by Illustronic because: Added links



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Good point. Thanks for sharing.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

AS12-54-7991
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Willease
 


Very interesting oddities in these,adding to the mountain of obvious image tampering.

You will notice a daily pattern after a while,phage will try his best to pour cold water on any revelations,erickthe...(cant recall rest of the name) will imediatly back him up.Oh yes and Illusion hops from Aliens and Space forums just smirking and making catty remarks like a school bully.

The thousands of us that know the truth are pleased you posted..



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperface
reply to post by Willease
 


Very interesting oddities in these,adding to the mountain of obvious image tampering.

You will notice a daily pattern after a while,phage will try his best to pour cold water on any revelations,erickthe...(cant recall rest of the name) will imediatly back him up.Oh yes and Illusion hops from Aliens and Space forums just smirking and making catty remarks like a school bully.

The thousands of us that know the truth are pleased you posted..

Well thank you.
Phage was right about the first anomaly though so I'll give credit where it's due.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Its obvious the debris is not part of the film image, the two are completely different focal resolutions, and not even close. You have to realize how this could be possible with a camera set to infinity. They also have different color profiles. One would have more of a case if this was originally a digital image but its not.



Common man! This can't possibly have been in the field of view with such a radicle clarity difference. I think the first Phage post in this thread explains it all and now we have two different examples of much the same thing.

As Q would say "oh contraire"...
the first image was debris as was quickly pointed out, complete with proof. The debris can and was found in all of Apollo 15's metric images. However this one taken with the Hasselblad camera is not found in any other photograph. It was doctored out badly in the archives. You can no more prove it was debris than I can prove it is an alien space creature. And given the fact that humanity has discovered life were it was believed life couldn't exists including bacteria that survived on the moon for months, I wouldn't be so quick to write off the possibilities.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

AS11-44-6554
www.hq.nasa.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join