UFO Discovered In Old Apollo 14 Photos Of Moon, NASA Deleted Them

It makes me wonder if this....

. This resulted from a transistor failure caused by a sliver of aluminum that became lodged and shorted the system on the shutter pulse switching circuit. Also, the lack of a continuous pulse, which activated the focal plane shutter, caused an intervalometer anomaly resulting in multiple exposure of the same scene. In addition, this same region of the film was overexposed approximately two stops.

....was the cause of the area in question....which would explain it as either an artifact of that sliver of aluminum floating around in there, or an overexposed section, or a duplicate set of images. Each of which would make the images less than accurate and could explain them dropping those images from their posted list.

reply to post by Equiinox


Keith Laney he can't even tell when he is looking at a rock

Look at Keith Laney Mars rat!

You are not doing very well with these are you!

Very suspicious,that heres NASA spending millions of dollars in space programs,and yet they fail to send a very good camera??.....and all there is to take pics are rocks??..and yet they are not real rocks but 'mistakes' at the moment of analisis??..so to me is getting old that we are once again in point 'A',not moving forward but to revolve the evidence that once again somebody debunked years ago.......so we the public have to believe the evidence-explanation of the fail and poorly scientific photo-video results of the future missions also.nothing to see here.......till they finally get the proper camera to film without error.

Originally posted by rocha123
Very suspicious,that heres NASA spending millions of dollars in space programs,and yet they fail to send a very good camera??.....and all there is to take pics are rocks??..and yet they are not real rocks but 'mistakes' at the moment of analisis??..so to me is getting old that we are once again in point 'A',not moving forward but to revolve the evidence that once again somebody debunked years ago.......so we the public have to believe the evidence-explanation of the fail and poorly scientific photo-video results of the future missions also.nothing to see here.......till they finally get the proper camera to film without error.

So how many cameras did you launch into space, on a Saturn V rocket to travel the almost 600.000 miles round-trip to the moon? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to engineer a camera that will survive that trip, with zero malfunctions? Until you do that, you must accept their explanation, since you have no personal frame of reference to do an honest comparison. And, this was on Apollo 14 in 1969, which means the camera design and manufacture was years before that date.

I am not sure this is proof of anything. I personally have seen a UFO and it was a life changing experience.. but after watching this I am not sure this means anything. Not that it matters much but his accent must be Canadian. I am also not sure what he means when he says at 5:28 ish "what this does is there is a 90% chance of a 100% chance (of some word I cannot figure out despite listening to that part several times)." What the hell does that mean? There cannot be something that is both 90% and 100% at the same time. I am confused.. it would help if I could make out the word he says "effect?" "object?" after he says "100%".

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by Equiinox
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

I would like to hear your opinion too...then we can all discuss this thing on a logical level...right?

Am thinking why NASA deleted so many photographs !! Why would they want to hide the fact that we aren't alone !!

YOU are jumping to a conclusion that they were deleted because of that reason. You do not know that, unless you have proof of that. I could just as easily say they were deleted because the photos were not processed properly, and would give viewers the wrong impression.....leading them to jump to a conclusion that it was an alien space ship in the frame.....when it was a stray lens flare or shmutz on the negative when processed.

I wish it were aliens....I do. I am waiting myself for that actual evidence, but, alas, this is not it IMO.

I get sick of the constant harassment of guys posting legit pictures and people say the have no business posting them. At ATS for gods sake.


Very annoying to say the least and helps cool down what ATS tries to stand for.
You should be posting at a site called "Below Top Secret" !

I get sick of the constant harassment of guys posting legit pictures and people say the have no business posting them. At ATS for gods sake.


Very annoying to say the least and helps cool down what ATS tries to stand for.
You should be posting at a site called "Below Top Secret" !

I was not intending any "harrassment" at all to the OP. The only original content the OP provided in the first post was a single line question:

"One Question : Whats the motive behind deleting those photographs ? "

The OP did not offer any opening thoughts of their own as to why.....when mentioned later, I offered my opinion on why.

I could just as easily say they were deleted because the photos were not processed properly, and would give viewers the wrong impression.....leading them to jump to a conclusion that it was an alien space ship in the frame.....when it was a stray lens flare or shmutz on the negative when processed.

I'd like to keep on topic here, and that is my thoughts on the motive behind the deletion. But, after all the research myself and others did to uncover a viable reason (with no help from the OP I may add), this was the logical conclusion I came to with regard to why they were deleted (more accurately would be calling them de-lisited"). Sorry if it offends....but I did mean my earlier statement that I wish it WERE aliens....but alas, I do not believe that explanation has anything concrete (or even gelatinous) to be based upon.

Nibiru? I think so!

Did you know that nasa is doctoring photos of mars too?

www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2015

The agenda is really unknown but we have evidence to prove nasa is a puppet of the national security agency.

One I reach 20 replies I will make a remarkable thread.

Sorry, but this is not what you think it is. The terrain is completely different in each pic. I'll admit it was interesting at first, but after taking a good look at the pics and reading what people have said here...I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...it's not a UFO, but some kind of camera anomaly.

Originally posted by adrianmarin
Did you know that nasa is doctoring photos of mars too?

www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2015

The agenda is really unknown but we have evidence to prove nasa is a puppet of the national security agency.

One I reach 20 replies I will make a remarkable thread.

I check these forums quite a bit, so I'll be looking forward to your post.

Originally posted by adrianmarin
Did you know that nasa is doctoring photos of mars too?

www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2015

The agenda is really unknown but we have evidence to prove nasa is a puppet of the national security agency.

One I reach 20 replies I will make a remarkable thread.

Heard it all before lets see what you come up with!!!

originally posted by: Krakatoa
It makes me wonder if this....

. This resulted from a transistor failure caused by a sliver of aluminum that became lodged and shorted the system on the shutter pulse switching circuit. Also, the lack of a continuous pulse, which activated the focal plane shutter, caused an intervalometer anomaly resulting in multiple exposure of the same scene. In addition, this same region of the film was overexposed approximately two stops.

....was the cause of the area in question....which would explain it as either an artifact of that sliver of aluminum floating around in there, or an overexposed section, or a duplicate set of images. Each of which would make the images less than accurate and could explain them dropping those images from their posted list.

Where can this image be found on the NASA website?