John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Great pics, thanks john/springer for making them available.


I'd be interested to hear more about what may be behind the touching up.

When I look at the composite image it looks pretty much how i'd expect a place bombarded by millions of tiny asteriods/rocks and whatnot, full of tiny pock marks. Couldn't really see the mining camp and inroads people have mentioned.

Anyone wanna show me how they came to that conclusion?

Sorry if this has been asked already, but were these taken during Apollo missions or Surveyor or other pre-Apollo missions?

Question retracted...


[edit on 9/14/2006 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by 8th
How come I have the feeling that if John had posted 4 completely different pictures, you all would have still found a face, a sphinx, spheres, ET's, and so on.

Ummm considering John's other discussions here, what else are we to do when he posts moon pics?

I mean they are great pics considering the time they were taken, but the Martian ones coming in from Spirit and Opportunity are much more detailed... so there must be something hiding on these LOL

Pics are nice, but nothing really stands out in my mind. Unitl we see concrete, undeniable evidence, pics like these can only be best left to one's interpretation or imagination.

Originally posted by firebat

So I think he did, indeed, say it.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by firebat]

Oopsy So he did but in reference to the original landing not on these photos LOL

I stand corrected...

As to the composite... it really does resemble a mine... too many terraces for an impact crater IMO but that would make it a HUGE mine considering the previously discussed scale

Analyzing these photos won't get anyone anywhere.

The human imagination can run pretty wild. I refuse to look at a blurry rock formation and then automatically assume artificial manipulation.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be awesome if there were aliens on the moon. It just seems to too improbable, way too impractical, and just plain silly for an alien race to be hiding on the far side.


just my .02

Originally posted by zorgon
Ummm actually no he didn't. He said he would let us look around for awhile first

See that's how rumors start... bust into the room and shout a statement like that LOL

wrong (its okay though)...

Originally posted by johnlear
Of course, the real story, as many of us know is that there were 2 saucers on the ground in the primary landing area and that is why they had to overfly and find someplace else to land.

Originally posted by firebat
So I think he did, indeed, say it.
[edit on 14-9-2006 by firebat]

thanks

Originally posted by nephyx
Hahahah zorgon got owned. Okay , so i see some pictures of the moon. Where are the pictures of these so called 'Saucers' ?
[edit on 14-9-2006 by masqua]

we all have our days

anyway, what i am really interested in now is the talk of the two "saucers" on the surface...

i wonder why john lear thinks this

this is the 'aliens and ufos' forum after all...

Does anybody remember a thread here about 18 months ago, with Astronaut's comments on the moon? I can remember a conversation about "terraces" and another about a "bridge"... I think there was also a photo of what looked like a road/trail along the edge of a crater - you could see a pair of wheel ruts and they curved around obstacles, etc along the trail for a couple of miles... I can't find the thread but I'm sure it's related to these photos. Anybody...?

"Two Saucers" on the Moon - A bit of a missunderstanding.
See, we all now know the Brits arrived on the Moon first. The weather is better there than back home. One day they stopped for tea one splendid afternoon. When done they remembered to stow the cups - but errantly left out the saucers.
Major major conspiracy about those saucers - look into it. Google away -

If I remember I think it was Gromet that forgot to pack the saucers.

Originally posted by Mouth
It just seems to too improbable, way too impractical, and just plain silly for an alien race to be hiding on the far side.

Actually, the other way around. The back side is the most strategically important point imo. If i were to build a base in sol. sys, knowing there are some aborigenes on the third planet.. that would be it. In fact, i knew this way before heard any of these rumors.
The fuzz is simple: if you have no satellites around there - you have no realtime knowledge of what's going on there, but those who sit there see half the earth's sphere. It's like a high point.

Originally posted by timeless test
John Lear has helpfully pointed out that the first four photographs were taken from an altitude of approx 49km, (around 28 miles), and the fifth from more than double that altitude. Now this doesnt help too much because we still dont know the area covered by the photographs and so the scale we are looking at, but it is reasonable to assume that the dimensions of any discernable features you may believe you see will be measured in kilometers rather than metres. Someone with a far better idea of the geography of the Moon than me may be able to make a stab at the approximate area covered.

I too was going to say something about this because...

Originally posted by johnlear
These extremely clear photos were used in the Lunar Lander simulator to simulate as close as possible what the astronauts would be seeing on the ground where they were going to land. That is why Neil Armstrongs story about the 'boulders' and how 'surprised' they were to come upon a field of 'boulders' which they had to 'overfly' is not very believable. In others, in over 500 simulated landings Armstrong and Aldrin never saw that 'field of boulders'?

Like you said, the probe was 49km above the Moon. Do you seriously think it would be able to see boulders on the ground from that altitude? I don't get how that doesn't seem believable. It doesn't matter that they had 500 simulated landings. They could have had 1 million and still not encounter a field of boulder, because it's simulated.

Originally posted by solidshot
and have you noticed that they show stars in the background where as i believe the original moonlanding shots didn't?

I don't believe those are stars. Seeing as how both the 'sky' and the shadows on the moon surface have little fuzzy white dots. I'd say some of it is film grain and judging from the hair count, I'd also have to say that Bob Lazar needs to clean his scanner

One thing to remeber about the Lunar Orbiter probes as that they used film. The probes had the ability to develope the film and then scan it and send it back to Earth. This is the reason for the horizontal lines, because the photos were scanned in strips and then pieced back together. This onboard film developing machine wasn't perfect either. Some times there would be air bubbles when the film was pressed up against the surface with the chemicals used in developing the film, as well as marks on the film were the developing system started and stoped.

John, I do appreciate the scans though. They are nice and thank you for sharring them. And if you or anyone else wants to see more photos from these probes, there's a good collection here: www.lpi.usra.edu... and here is the Photographic Subsystem Reference Handbook for those who might be interested.

EDIT: To add a bit more.

Originally posted by zorgon
I mean they are great pics considering the time they were taken, but the Martian ones coming in from Spirit and Opportunity are much more detailed... so there must be something hiding on these LOL

You are comparing apples to oranges. The Mars Rovers are on the ground, the Lunar Orbiters, orbitted the moon. You can't compare the two in terms of detail... You could however compare the Lunar Orbiters to the new Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter which will be taking the most detailed images of Mars yet.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by jra]

does the f-19 run on element 115 ?

Fantastic pics and a great thread as always when Mr Lear is involved. I was wondering if you got any pics with the 7 mile high buildings you said are on the moon? I hope this does not come across as a spiteful question!

anyone got Copernicus5-full.gif laying around..?
It's kinda gone..

ah - I got the full size from other source..

okay here I go - this is Copernicus 5
I just had alook around... This is Medium size - and somhow the colors where sharper in medium size.. or there was more greys to choose between...


line 1 from top - I just see some tracks on ground... Dirt tracks..from somthing..
And a small pile of geometric junk... Dunno if it means anything and how should I?
line 2 looks like a square thing... looks like it. With some black shadows from a small pile of sand on top of it..

line 3 this is the giant bug..or ant...shape thing.. this is from the medium Copernicus 5 size...

line 4 I took the freedom to draw some lines on the last image, after i had corrected the colors.. Could be anything.. this is just south from the ant-thing.

larger version of it... Still medium.

Well - i asked for the full size and I realized it actually is 14 MB in size - so maybe thats why I could not see it.. but i got it by mail.


My eyes quickly found interrest in this object again I zoomed in on it...And got these few clips out..

First zoom top - here are some strait lines across the ants bag.

second zoom - Some rubble beside the ant - They are very lit up by the sun - and it's proberly rocks of some sort.

last zoom... The front end of the ant-thing... Could bear marks of a cross of some sort... Looks a bit symetric to my eyes..

Fun stuff.. These pics where proberly taken before I was born... I don't have a clue.. But it's always fun just to imagine things... In photos like these..
Just like the Mars pictures...(I know this is moon shots) So much black and white...

Don't they have color camera on the Mars Orbiter by the way? -it really is a shame they only come in Black and white...
Maybe it's just a tradition to broadcast black and white images to the publich... who knows?

[edit on 14-9-2006 by Ram]

Originally posted by SKMDC1
I did notice there is some change in scale for pics 3 and 4 as compared to 1 and 2, and there seems to be some slight distortion in pic 4.

reduce 1 and 2 to 25% and 3 & 4 to 33.5 % they fit that way

Why is everyone so willing to look at a rock and assume its something else? How delusional are some of you?

Oh and noone has explained to me why these pictures are so amazing yet.

Originally posted by nephyx
Why is everyone so willing to look at a rock and assume its something else? How delusional are some of you?

Oh and noone has explained to me why these pictures are so amazing yet.

We are all very delusional, thought that was obvious. Isn't that the way psychiatrists find out about you dark secrets make you look at ink blots?

I hear tell that the ones who DON"T see anything but the ink blots are the worst ones

This Image does seem to be doctored. What arouses my suspicions is the white patches, these are solid and seem to contridict the pitted lunar scape elsewhere on the image.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by sparkies]

[edit on 15-9-2006 by sparkies]

[edit on 15-9-2006 by sparkies]