Mösting Crater Mystery - The Untold Apollo 12 Story (narrated)

LABTECH767

Oldshoe
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

Its very strange, that the object are not there anymore. How can that be explained

edit on 26-1-2014 by Oldshoe because: (no reason given)

Airbrushing and image manipulation, or they moved.
There is abundent evidence of image tampering by NASA and even faked moon video's where a shot from one missions was used in another and supposed to be several miles away, the evidence for ongoing activity on the moon however is very rare unless it has been airbrushed away but sometimes they make mistakes, even today or someone tries to get it out.

Or they were never there.

There are numerous allegations of image tampering by NASA by people who have made up their minds in advance that there is some, but no evidence of it. The reason there is little evidence of activity of the moon is because there is none, and the evidence there is, like the example in this thread, is made up.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


How can you be so shure? You must admit, that some of the smudge photos from the moon looks suspect.
Best regards

Very interesting! Is JimOberg DrAstro from GLP? "Sounds" like him.

Unfortunately videos & images like these infest youtube and the wider webb. Resolution is very poor. Imaging artifacts awash. Also a stunning lacking of understanding of scale. V Poor all round. Its wiser to use assets orbiting the moon. LROC etc.
No anomaly of note but plenty of false flags heralded by lossy images.
Cheers

onebigmonkey

LABTECH767

Oldshoe
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

Its very strange, that the object are not there anymore. How can that be explained

edit on 26-1-2014 by Oldshoe because: (no reason given)

Airbrushing and image manipulation, or they moved.
There is abundent evidence of image tampering by NASA and even faked moon video's where a shot from one missions was used in another and supposed to be several miles away, the evidence for ongoing activity on the moon however is very rare unless it has been airbrushed away but sometimes they make mistakes, even today or someone tries to get it out.

Or they were never there.

There are numerous allegations of image tampering by NASA by people who have made up their minds in advance that there is some, but no evidence of it. The reason there is little evidence of activity of the moon is because there is none, and the evidence there is, like the example in this thread, is made up.

Absolute nonsense, Evidence of tampering and photographic obfuscation most certainly does exist,
Here is a quick you tube search and I might point out this is far from the best example I have seen of this despicable technique, The NASA agency is an american public body supposedly civiliant in nature and they have litteral STOLEN this data from there own paymasters the american public so Go bury your head in the sand if you want to but the rest of the world are waking UP and we will not be so easily put to sleep by deliberate denial anymore.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Some nice documentary there and some short study film, For God sake it even made it into new scientist a good while back with photographic analysis of the HASSELBLAD GERMAN ZEIS manufactured len's with there etched markings going behind objects including the lunar rover and the astronaughts, this is impossible unless a cut a paste technique was used to composit the image's, do you know anything about photography and I am not talking photoshop but old fashions analogue photography, I do.

Another documentary about apollo 16.
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

How about the possability that someone out there in the Andromeda galaxy long ago cried out to the stars hoping that someone out there would save them when they found they were doomed, that is the premis of this video which claims NASA recieved a distress signal that took 11 years for them to decode.
www.youtube.com...

Or the possability that there are non humans amongst us,
www.youtube.com...

Back to the structures on the moon,
www.youtube.com...

LABTECH767

onebigmonkey

LABTECH767

Oldshoe
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

Its very strange, that the object are not there anymore. How can that be explained

edit on 26-1-2014 by Oldshoe because: (no reason given)

Airbrushing and image manipulation, or they moved.
There is abundent evidence of image tampering by NASA and even faked moon video's where a shot from one missions was used in another and supposed to be several miles away, the evidence for ongoing activity on the moon however is very rare unless it has been airbrushed away but sometimes they make mistakes, even today or someone tries to get it out.

Or they were never there.

There are numerous allegations of image tampering by NASA by people who have made up their minds in advance that there is some, but no evidence of it. The reason there is little evidence of activity of the moon is because there is none, and the evidence there is, like the example in this thread, is made up.

Absolute nonsense, Evidence of tampering and photographic obfuscation most certainly does exist,
Here is a quick you tube search and I might point out this is far from the best example I have seen of this despicable technique, The NASA agency is an american public body supposedly civiliant in nature and they have litteral STOLEN this data from there own paymasters the american public so Go bury your head in the sand if you want to but the rest of the world are waking UP and we will not be so easily put to sleep by deliberate denial anymore.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Some nice documentary there and some short study film, For God sake it even made it into new scientist a good while back with photographic analysis of the HASSELBLAD GERMAN ZEIS manufactured len's with there etched markings going behind objects including the lunar rover and the astronaughts, this is impossible unless a cut a paste technique was used to composit the image's, do you know anything about photography and I am not talking photoshop but old fashions analogue photography, I do.

Another documentary about apollo 16.
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

How about the possability that someone out there in the Andromeda galaxy long ago cried out to the stars hoping that someone out there would save them when they found they were doomed, that is the premis of this video which claims NASA recieved a distress signal that took 11 years for them to decode.
www.youtube.com...

Or the possability that there are non humans amongst us,
www.youtube.com...

Back to the structures on the moon,
www.youtube.com...

edit on 27-1-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

If it's on youtube it must be true.

reply to post by Depends

You mentioned the unmentionable website.
I'd be careful with that.

LABTECH767

onebigmonkey

LABTECH767

Oldshoe
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

Its very strange, that the object are not there anymore. How can that be explained

edit on 26-1-2014 by Oldshoe because: (no reason given)

Airbrushing and image manipulation, or they moved.
There is abundent evidence of image tampering by NASA and even faked moon video's where a shot from one missions was used in another and supposed to be several miles away, the evidence for ongoing activity on the moon however is very rare unless it has been airbrushed away but sometimes they make mistakes, even today or someone tries to get it out.

Or they were never there.

There are numerous allegations of image tampering by NASA by people who have made up their minds in advance that there is some, but no evidence of it. The reason there is little evidence of activity of the moon is because there is none, and the evidence there is, like the example in this thread, is made up.

Absolute nonsense, Evidence of tampering and photographic obfuscation most certainly does exist,
Here is a quick you tube search and I might point out this is far from the best example I have seen of this despicable technique, The NASA agency is an american public body supposedly civiliant in nature and they have litteral STOLEN this data from there own paymasters the american public so Go bury your head in the sand if you want to but the rest of the world are waking UP and we will not be so easily put to sleep by deliberate denial anymore.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Some nice documentary there and some short study film, For God sake it even made it into new scientist a good while back with photographic analysis of the HASSELBLAD GERMAN ZEIS manufactured len's with there etched markings going behind objects including the lunar rover and the astronaughts, this is impossible unless a cut a paste technique was used to composit the image's, do you know anything about photography and I am not talking photoshop but old fashions analogue photography, I do.

Another documentary about apollo 16.
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

How about the possability that someone out there in the Andromeda galaxy long ago cried out to the stars hoping that someone out there would save them when they found they were doomed, that is the premis of this video which claims NASA recieved a distress signal that took 11 years for them to decode.
www.youtube.com...

Or the possability that there are non humans amongst us,
www.youtube.com...

Back to the structures on the moon,
www.youtube.com...

edit on 27-1-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

If you're such an expert in good old fashioned photography I would stick to looking at the originals, and not the ones online - I have lots of them. I am very familiar with how to take photographs as well as digital manipulation. I've been doing it for a very long time.

There are also plenty of places online where you can get originals (try the gateway to astronaut photography for some nice raw 50Mb TIFF images). What you are pointing out are cases where parts of images have been enhanced to improve detail. I do it with every digital photograph I have ever taken. This is entirely different from removing or adding things from photographs. That is, of course, that the manipulation they claim is there is genuine. They give no links, and neither of the photos I have just double checked at the Apollo Image Atlas, the Apollo Flight Journal or the Gateway to Astronaut Photography show the features it claims are there. Prove that the video makers aren't just making s*** up to prove their own point.

If you are so knowledgeable about photography you will know why there are no stars in images, as opposed to the nonsense touted in the first youtube video you linked to.

The Reseau marks are never behind the objects in the images, but they are sometimes obscured by overbright surfaces, which - as someone who knows about photography - you would know all about.

That supposed documentary about Apollo 16? It takes a long time to get to Apollo 16 - most of the images of Earth by Apollo are from Apollo 17, then Apollo 10, then Apollo 8. it takes a long time and a lot of padding to get to 16.

There are no aliens among us and there are no UFOs. Sorry to burst your bubble.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


Here you go, this is a source, there are several for this one that are official site's.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
and her is a close up from a high resolution copy obtained from source.

Here is what I see,

You know there is much more on that image but this thread is about the crater, needless to say though before someone cries ROCKS, HE whom lives in a glass house should not throw stone's.

reply to post by LABTECH767


Different photo, same crater, same rocks,

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I think this is a prime example of the X-files movie strapline: "I want to believe". It's not that I don't want to believe, but I'm not prepared to join the dots and say there is something there when there obviously isn't, same as the OP video.

butcherguy
reply to post by Depends

 

You mentioned the unmentionable website.
I'd be careful with that.

Is this a kind of Unspoken Rule? I'll be careful if the answer is "Yes".

reply to post by onebigmonkey


A quick visual comparison anyone can do, just save and open the two (Full) image's at the same time (they are taken from the same magazine but sequential numbering show's how many apart) and flick between the two open window's, this will attest to the obvious fact that this image was taken several hundred yards at least (as shown by the parralex of the mountains at the far distance and there slightly different angles) to the right of the other image I have shown, now as that is the fact these two images are in the same general vicinity but they are most certainly not the same rock's, As a photographer you should know the difference, it has been many years since I have been in a dark room but this is an unescapable fact.

I can certainly understand someone not wanting to believe it though as the implications would for many be terrifying (not to mention putting most anthroplogical and long term past archeaological theorys to a very hard test) but how much more so would be and indeed are the implications that technology beyond what we have available to us has been recovered and used against us by an elite of criminals whom have subverted the greatest country in the world and turned it's democracy into a elitist controled and no longer a democratic state.

I like that picture though as there are a few anomolys out of sharp focus near the background that have cought my attention and I intend to see if there are any full resolution version available, though the item and several others in the other frame are not in the field of vision of this shot because it is not in the same place.

If you compare the skyline level of the images as well the shot you have shown would appear to show the rover with it's right tilted up so maybe on that side of a depression and the other I have heilighted with it's left tilted up so on the possible other side of A depression, the extreme left of your image is beyond the extreme right of the other image, the difference in locality is so great that the far mountains are visually greatly displaced in both skyline position and to a lesser degree angle of aspect and they are in fact several miles away from the camera.

Very interesting discussion...Anybody an idea how big this dustsucker is..?

reply to post by zatara


If you are alluding to what the guy on one video claim's is a structure over twice the size of new york that can move well he got it wrong as the obfusctation was used to hide something very close to the orbiter and another theorist analyzed it with a different technique showing what appeared to be an astronaut working on something, however as onebigmonkeys own website show's there are many photographs that prove the theory that NASA may not have gone to the moon (Personally I believe they did but the public got the show) and therefore under that logic it could be a piece of film set equipment.

I also believe the Moon missions were performed with less cost but even one percent of that budjet was a huge amount and I believe some of the missions were outright fake or at least what we got to see here was, The fund's were most likely used in covert and black operations outside of the normal operational activity of the US military and intelligence services without senate oversight, how large the overestimate was is a matter of conjecture.

reply to post by LABTECH767


I don't want to drag the thread off in the wrong direction, but I have to correct you.

The two images are taken by different photographers using different cameras using different magazines - one is colour and one is B&W. As a photographer you should know that

Both are part of panoramic sweeps:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

which give you firstly a better idea of the image context and that they are not taken several hundred yards apart.

They are both taken at Station 9 at Van Serg crater, which is quite a small one.

LABTECH767
as onebigmonkeys own website show's there are many photographs that prove the theory that NASA may not have gone to the moon

My website absolutely does not show that! Completely the opposite: we went, we landed, we found rocks, we came home.

reply to post by LABTECH767


Perhaps you should take some time and read up. All the apollo photographic hoax theories have been buried many times already. ATS has a great search function. If you however happen to come across some new claims that haven't been debunked feel free to share.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Right..... Well just one question guy's how do the Etchings on a Zeis made lense fitted to a hasselblad camera go behind element's of the photograph, These were special scientific cameras with the etch markings to be used for analysis not pretty display additions and you would not find them on a domestic publically available camera of the time, indeed many images show them almost completely covered, images of the rover or even astronaut's place over them like a cut and past job (Real cut and past not photoshop) and in other cases the background has been obscurred so that the len's markings are litteraly missing, have you ever heard the term air brush monkey's.
I wish you the best but I am afraid on this matter the evidence in court would be declared tampered with which plays both ways' and it can as such also not be used to prove the theorys I share, although we will point to it as there is a vacuum of evidence without it, although I would happily put most lawyers and politicians as well as the bankers on the moon and forget about them if you ask them is a tampered image acceptable as evidence in court they will tell you probably not and the case goes by that.

reply to post by LABTECH767


www.clavius.org...

LABTECH767

Here is what I see,

You know there is much more on that image but this thread is about the crater, needless to say though before someone cries ROCKS, HE whom lives in a glass house should not throw stone's.

Hahaha! I thought he was being serious till he posted this. You got me! Well played sir!.............he is joking right?