Dark side of the moon: 55-year-old mystery solved

a reply to: TheLegend

I tip my hat in respect to you. Your reasonable replies are enjoyable to read. Thank-you.

originally posted by: TheLegend
a reply to: Rob48

Stop trying to use 50-60s photos of lunar far side. Have you even seen those photos? Their utility value is 0 to any side of the argument. E.g. Luna 3:
www.dvice.com...

Early images of the moon were not brilliant - I think we can all agree on that.

On the other hand, many high resolution photos from the Clementine Mission in the 90s had evidence of tampering, available publicly. A few examples:
www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...
Donna Hare with top-secret clearance and later Dr. Ken Johnston were some of the whistle blowers who came out and said it was their job to edit photos of any extraterrestrial presence. Gary McKinnon also hacked into NASA and the Pentagon and confirmed this. Several astronauts included.

Those people are not exactly reliable witnesses nor is livingmoon an unbiased sources of information. The latter is presenting photographic glitches as fact. The areas covered by them are well photographed by plenty of other probes. McKinnon claims to have confirmed something. This is not proof of anything.

LRO has no value other than examining unclassified portions. It's owned by NASA. They have edited photos and made countless lunar photos classified in the past since the Lunar Orbiters 1-5 and Apollo. They have admitted to this.

Again, you only have the word of unreliable sources and witnesses that claim this. Show us where NASA admit to editing photographs and which ones were classified. Apollo images were available for sale to anyone who wanted to buy them, as were Lunar Orbiter images, and all of them are available now.

They then made countless photos classified in the 90s with Clementine's high resolution photography - almost all from the lunar far side. In other words, the fact the U.S. government has classified lunar photos means you can discount LRO since any part on the moon they have previously classified would now be edited in the LRO data.

So I will ask once again: what is there that's "classified" on the moon, particularly the far side, or that needs editing? Why are whistle blowers and astronauts coming out and declaring they've been told to conceal certain alien evidence? Is it all a big joke?

You need to show which images were classified and the reasons given. Are they still classified? Are images covered by other probes by China and Japan that aren't classified? The alleged whistleblowers are making a living from their claims. That should tell you something.

NASA had one of their twin GRAIL probes, the Ebb, comprehensively film the lunar far side in January, 2012. Even before 2012 it would have been a simple fix to make it a streaming video. Instead they released the footage 2-3 weeks after they edited it and the video itself was only 25 seconds long. People compile, edit, and produce music videos that are minutes long and far more complex in a matter of hours. They have no explanation for this time gap or for releasing such short footage in fast-forward.

Ebb & Flow's images were series of stills, not live video, that's why it is a short video. In order to have live video from the far side you need another satellite to relay the signal.

P.S. your avatar is from the Apollo 17 mission, lead by Commander Eugene Cernan. Gene stated before that UFOs are from "other civilizations" and that "other Earths exist". Other astronauts even went so far as to say they were being monitored by UFOs while they walked the moon. Do you not believe him?

I think you need to place those comments by Cernan in context for us - what exactly did he say and in what context? Most people acknowledge that alien life is likely to be out there on statistical probablility alone. That same probability makes it unlikely that they have popped over for a visit. No astronauts have said they were monitored by UFOs when on the moon.

originally posted by: subtopia
ROB 48 If you think those photos from 2009 are the best your government can come up with of one of the most significant occurrences in known human history, being the first to walk on another celestial body, getting there before Russia, an object that has a direct and dramatic effect on our planets weather, oceans,tides and environment then good luck to what else you submit your conscious thoughts to.

Not my government. I'm not American.

Aren't we talking about the lunar far side here? Who landed on that, exactly? If you want photos of the surface at the landing sites then we've got thousands of them taken from chest-height!

And of course it is not just the LRO. Are you conveniently forgetting about Chang'e 2? That mapped the entire far side as well. Are the Chinese in on your great conspiracy too?

The great circular argument of the conspiracy crowd: there are no photos of the secret "whatever" because the photos are classified because there is a secret "whatever". Even though there are lots of photos from a variety of sources showing that the far side of the moon is really rather dull.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Those people are not exactly reliable witnesses nor is livingmoon an unbiased sources of information. The latter is presenting photographic glitches as fact. The areas covered by them are well photographed by plenty of other probes. McKinnon claims to have confirmed something. This is not proof of anything.

Again, you only have the word of unreliable sources and witnesses that claim this. Show us where NASA admit to editing photographs and which ones were classified. Apollo images were available for sale to anyone who wanted to buy them, as were Lunar Orbiter images, and all of them are available now.

Astronauts, cosmonauts, and contractors or former employees with top-secret NASA clearances aren't "reliable sources"? If so, then I guess you won't find any "official" source claiming to edit or conceal the photos. Why? Because those people are fired and then labeled "whistle blowers". So that request doesn't even make sense. Also, how is someone suppose to show a classified photo? Think about that for a moment, that doesn't make sense either. There is only the fact that space missions take XXXX amount of photographs yet release less to the public. Clementine of 94 for example. Whistle blowers have directly said it was also their job to edit or classify photos of any ET presence. Wikileaks cables have confirmed this as well and that there is an ET cover up. If YOU don't want to believe these knowledgeable people or sources then that's your prerogative and end of discussion.

The alleged whistleblowers are making a living from their claims. That should tell you something.

Some do, tho David McKinnon would disagree strongly. However, there is an obvious flaw with that logic. People who aren't whistle blowers and keep their jobs are also "making a living" by doing so. So do you discount what they have to say too?

nor is livingmoon an unbiased sources of information

Are you claiming that NASA is not a biased source of information here? In the Brooking's Report there are passages dedicated to alien artifacts that might be discovered on the moon, Mars, or Venus. There's also passages dedicated to conditions in which such information should be withheld from the public. This alone makes them biased, among dozens of other instances in regards to UFOS/aliens.

Ebb & Flow's images were series of stills, not live video, that's why it is a short video. In order to have live video from the far side you need another satellite to relay the signal.

Actually, the same probe in December of 2012 was streamed live as it crashed on the far side. NASA had no problem streaming it when it was hugging the lunar surface between 1-10 km (making any satellite relaying more difficult), but refused to do so for the January mapping mission which was much further out in orbit and far easier to stream. Essentially, they refused to stream a full view of the far side's surface while they then later took extra steps just to stream a tiny sniper's view of the surface. They also took 2-3 weeks to release the full view video with no explanation, seeing as they possessed the capabilities of doing it live. Sense = none.

I think you need to place those comments by Cernan in context for us - what exactly did he say and in what context? Most people acknowledge that alien life is likely to be out there on statistical probablility alone. That same probability makes it unlikely that they have popped over for a visit. No astronauts have said they were monitored by UFOs when on the moon.

Cernan's comments were in the LA Times of 73.
A cursory Youtube search will turn up videos astronauts talking about ufos and alien life. www.youtube.com...
This one includes a few transmissions, one from Discovery directly stating there's an "alien spacecraft" under observation and has some on the UFO from the Apollo 11 mission.
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: TheLegend

Actually, the same probe in December of 2012 was streamed live as it crashed on the far side.

Got a link to that video? Or any news articles pointing to it?

I'd love to see this live video from the far side of the moon.

a reply to: TheLegend
(And by the way, you might want to double check where Ebb and Flow crash landed.)

originally posted by: TheLegend
a reply to: onebigmonkey
Astronauts, cosmonauts, and contractors or former employees with top-secret NASA clearances aren't "reliable sources"?

Not if it becomes their agenda and a prospective income source to join the conspiracy bandwagon and tell lies.

The LRO's camera is operated by the Arizona State University, by the way: lroc.sese.asu.edu...

The LROC team include faculty and researchers from various academic institutions, government and the private sector:

Brown University
Cornell University
DLR Berlin
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Malin Space Science Systems
Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum
University of Arizona
United States Geological Survey
University of Hawaii at Manoa
University of Münster
University of Pittsburg
Washington University in St. Louis

They even have the University's students on the team.

I'd like to see a single LRO image with obvious tampering. I'd like to see the admission that they airbrush images.

originally posted by: Rob48
Got a link to that video? Or any news articles pointing to it?

What SE you using? www.google.com...

(And by the way, you might want to double check where Ebb and Flow crash landed.)

Lunar far side, northern hemisphere. Invisible from Earth.
www.space.com...

originally posted by: wildespace
Not if it becomes their agenda and a prospective income source to join the conspiracy bandwagon and tell lies.

Average NASA salary is ~$100,000 and their official stance on ET, since the 60s, has been to conceal it with lies if necessary. Sounds like you described a certain organization perfectly.

As for whistle-blowers, some have worked the system, but many have knowingly sacrificed everything for it.

The LRO's camera is operated by the Arizona State University

During its primary mission in 09 the data was actually only managed and processed at the top-secret White Sands Facility. Only after the far side was thoroughly mapped was it made available for "other uses". The LRO is still owned by NASA and its data is first vetted by the Science Operation Centers (government sector on the project + system administrators) before it's sent to NASA's PDS. Students & faculty manage/measure status of instruments, scripts, monitor trajectory, temperature etc. and can't just snap/DL photos directly. Even if they could, the LRO already mapped the far side in secret for a year. You could program some handheld cameras to recognize a 3D face and blur it in any photo taken thereafter. Automating a retouch of a specific region on an already mapped 3D plane would be a cinch for NASA.

I'd like to see a single LRO image with obvious tampering. I'd like to see the admission that they airbrush images.

If you take the word of people with exceptional credentials who sacrificed glowing careers to bring you the information as admission, then there's 500+ from the Disclosure Project alone, including airbrushing photos. E.g. 1 Video: www.youtube.com...

Don't expect admissions from current government employees when it's their official policy to conceal that information and said employees would be fired or censored. That's like saying:"I don't believe X (alien artifacts) exist. Show me proof by providing confirmation from Y (NASA employee). However, Y will always be converted to Z (whistle-blower) if it does make said confirmation, therefore I am correct." It's circular reasoning. If that is the reasoning being presented here, then there's no point proceeding further.

a reply to: TheLegend

Could you point us to any that are actually in that youtube vid?

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Some testimony that specifically addresses classified lunar photos and/or a secret moon base here.
That video is from the National Press Club, D.C., of 2001. There's 120 more hours of testimony and 7 hours of video interviews I can direct you to if your summer is boring. Here's a list of more individuals involved with this non-profit research project. All are solid professionals and willing to testify before U.S. Congress under oath.

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: Margana
Dark side of the moon: 55-year-old mystery solved

Looks like Photoshop, look at the center how it's spliced and merged together... plus it's not showing the atmosphere region covered with lakes, rivers and forests mountain ranges! The Nazi Moon Base has been completely Photoshop out!!!

It said it was a " composite" so that indicates it wasn't an actual photo.

a reply to: Margana

I think you mean astronomy, not astrology! Anyways no matter, it appears you vanished

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Something I do not understand is how the far side of the moon would not be more cratered than the side that faces earth. Perhaps I do not understand how impacts occur or something, but here is my reasoning...The same side of the moon is always facing earth. Therefore for a celestial body of some type to hit this side, it must pass relatively closely to earth. It would have to pass one of the earth's "sides." Or at some point on the sphere. Of course it would not really be "close," but to hit the side facing earth it seems to me that it would first have to miss earth, maybe coming in at an angle or something, and not be affected by the earth's gravitational field to a degree that would throw it off from a lunar impact.

I suppose the explanation might be that the moon is not that close to the earth. There is plenty of room for a body to get by and impact our side of the moon. But it just seems that since the other side is facing toward open space that it would receive more impacts. Perhaps the gravitational field of the earth actually helps to direct certain impacts into the lunar surface. I just don't know.

I hsve the same reasoning as you. I suppose we just aren't educated to understand.

originally posted by: TheLegend

originally posted by: Rob48
Got a link to that video? Or any news articles pointing to it?

What SE you using? www.google.com...

(And by the way, you might want to double check where Ebb and Flow crash landed.)

Lunar far side, northern hemisphere. Invisible from Earth.
www.space.com...

Oh dear. Total reading comprehension failure. You clearly didn't actually read it, just plugged keywords into Google and hoped for the best. What does that article actually say?

A NASA probe recorded a spectacular flyover video of the moon's far side shortly before intentionally slamming into a lunar mountain last month.

NASA's Ebb spacecraft shot the stunning final moon video on Dec. 14, just three days before it and its twin Flow ended their gravity-mapping mission, known as Grail, with a dramatic crash near the moon's north pole.

Ebb was just 6 miles (10 kilometers) above the lunar surface when it captured the images using its MoonKAM (Moon Knowledge Acquired by Middle school students) camera. The probe was skimming over the far side's northern hemisphere at the time, near an impact crater named Jackson.

Grail scientists pieced together about 2,400 individual frames to make the nearly two-minute video, NASA officials said.

So you are wrong on at least three counts:

One: the video doesn't show the crash: it was recorded three days before the crash. No video of the crash exists. The nearest thing we have is that the LRO's LAMP instrument monitored some of the debris plume above the surface.

Two: the video wasn't "streamed live". The images were captured on the lunar far side, then transmitted to Earth when the probe had line of sight to Earth. Those individual images were then assembled to make the video.

Three: Ebb and Flow did not crash on the lunar far side. The co-ordinates were approximately 75.62N, 26.63E:



That is on the near side of the moon, right about here:




The "live stream" talked about in news reports was this. No video of the impact: what would have been filming it exactly?



If you manage to totally misinterpret this very simple news story, why ever should we trust what you say about anything more complex? It is clear you are just making things up to fit your agenda.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Something I do not understand is how the far side of the moon would not be more cratered than the side that faces earth.

It is more cratered. Look closer.

Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders described the view: "The backside looks like a sand pile my kids have played in for some time. It's all beat up, no definition, just a lot of bumps and holes."



The near side just has these huge basaltic lava plains, which, as I understand it, we caused by the Earth's tidal forces. The Earth pulls on the near side stronger than on the far side.

a reply to: Rob48

One: the video doesn't show the crash: it was recorded three days before the crash. No video of the crash exists.

Your point? You specifically asked for a video to the live stream crash (that vid^ is exactly that), not a videotape from the probe. I didn't discuss Dec mission images, just they live streamed data while hugging the surface yet not for the more comprehensive mapping mission in Jan. If you want to discuss stills turned into vid, that was dubious at best. The Dec one took 4 weeks to produce in a process that should take 1-2 days max with 2,000 large file photos. Import photos into WMM or iLive (would take them about 1 hr with decent processing/ram) > drag & drop on timeline (few mins) > set universal interval aka fps (few secs) > save project as movie file (8 hours) > upload to site (3- hours) > done. You have to know nothing about vid software to think this would take over 2 days. The most reasonable explanation is the photos or post-production vid was being heavily retouched.

That is on the near side of the moon, right about here:

Actually the crash occurred further north in the dark side.
www.nytimes.com...

Unfortunately, since the action will happen on the dark side of the Moon, there will be nothing for earthlings to see. “We’re not expecting a flash that is visible from Earth,” Maria T. Zuber, the mission’s primary investigator, said Thursday.

As I said, the crash was in the "northern hemisphere, invisible from Earth." Oh wait, I see I said "far side" instead of "dark side" in that sentence too. Are you really making a point out of that over everything?

It is clear you are just making things up to fit your agenda.

Says one who ignored 99% of content and used 3 whole posts in attempt to conflate a few sentences and directly tried to dismiss everything because of a word misuse.

And don't resort to passive aggressive remarks. It's childish & furthers nothing. Nobody is forcing you to read anything.

originally posted by: TheLegend

Your point? You specifically asked for a video to the live stream crash (that vid^ is exactly that), not a videotape from the probe. I didn't discuss Dec mission images, just they live streamed data while hugging the surface yet not for the more comprehensive mapping mission in Jan. If you want to discuss stills turned into vid, that was dubious at best. The Dec one took 4 weeks to produce in a process that should take 1-2 days max with 2,000 large file photos. Import photos into WMM or iLive (would take them about 1 hr with decent processing/ram) > drag & drop on timeline (few mins) > set universal interval aka fps (few secs) > save project as movie file (8 hours) > upload to site (3- hours) > done. You have to know nothing about vid software to think this would take over 2 days. The most reasonable explanation is the photos or post-production vid was being heavily retouched.

The mission was not about returning photos - they were a bonus and not particularly high quality. If I recall the main aim of the images was educational outreach. The main aim of the mission was actually that data stream. A time gap between taking images and releasing them is not proof of tampering.

Actually the crash occurred further north in the dark side.
www.nytimes.com...

Unfortunately, since the action will happen on the dark side of the Moon, there will be nothing for earthlings to see. “We’re not expecting a flash that is visible from Earth,” Maria T. Zuber, the mission’s primary investigator, said Thursday.

There is a difference between "you won't be able to see a flash" and "the impact will be on the far side so you won't see a flash". Many small objects hit the moon's near side without producing a flash visible from Earth.

The impact was on the near side - just. If it was on the far side, there would have been no data sent back because there would not have been line of sight transmission capability.

From that news article:

There was no imagery of their end because the area was in shadow at the time

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The main aim of the mission was actually that data stream. A time gap between taking images and releasing them is not proof of tampering.

No unrealistic time gap would be proof of no tampering however. Interestingly with NASA, there is always an unnecessary hole in every narrative that's just big enough to conceal or warp the truth if need be. That is why so many conspiracies surround them (along with the fact no individual can independently verify anything they do and it's their official policy to conceal info on aliens).

The reason given for the collision not being visible was because it occurred on the dark side at the time of impact (on technically near side).

But no-one on Earth will be able to see the collision as it will happen on the dark side of the Moon.

news.sky.com...
As said, I incorrectly referred to the dark side as the far side in a sentence. "It crashed in the northern hemisphere, invisible from Earth, far side." Swap "far" with "dark" and voilà.

I've wasted enough time in one the most boring topics ever, created by a puppet account. Summary: some people take everything a government organization presents them at face value while others question the gospel. Depending which you are, either nothing worth concealing is on the moon or we don't know what's on the moon.

a reply to: TheLegend

And some of us are sticklers for accuracy and truth.

it impacted on the near side. The impact was not visible because it was not big enough. The main aim of the mission was not photography. Your arbitrary definitions of 'reasonable time' and 'too long' seem to be your only proof of tampering, rather than actual tampering.

Saying it don't make it so.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
And some of us are sticklers for accuracy and truth.

"Truth" born of circular reasoning.

The impact was not visible because it was not big enough.

No. The primary reason it was not visible was location on the dark side.

But no-one on Earth will be able to see the collision as it will happen on the dark side of the Moon. news.sky.com...

Crash Site Picture
In other locations the 46 meter explosion/plume could have been detected by some high-end telescopes at observatories. Since you keep unnecessarily bringing up that it happened on the near side I think you're confusing "dark side" as being synonymous with "far side".

Your arbitrary definitions of 'reasonable time' and 'too long' seem to be your only proof of tampering, rather than actual tampering.

Didn't try to prove there was tampering. Just the possibility of tampering. In a court of law that alone is enough to doom a testimony. I've already said that.