'Official NASA Photos'

I have had these images on my computer quite a while now, I am sorry to have not shared them up until now...
I don't know if anyone has already found these, but I have never seen them anywhere else.

I found these NASA Space photos on the hq.nasa.gov server - That is their official server I assume?

I don't know what to make of them, and I am not sure when they were took and where, but I think they are from the 'moon landings'. There are weird lights in the skies - could just be the space shuttle, but they look more than that.

Anyway, here are the links -

www.webmasterdave.co.uk...
www.webmasterdave.co.uk...
www.webmasterdave.co.uk...

I have kept them with the ogirinal file names in case they give clues to the images. I have never found them since, so I put them on my website. They are quite large in size, so sorry all you people who still use dial up Internet connections like me.

Tell me what you think...

in the first picture, the shadow being cast by
the shuttle...
You wouldn't be able to see the shuttle if its shadow was cast towards the camera, idk, i remember seing a lot of sites about the moon hoax and they said somethign about that, there is plenty of sites about moon hoaxes and stuff, check 'em out, pretty cool

They could just be the bad photos that were discarded by nasa. Who knows?

I have seen loads of websites on the moon landings yes...
It's funny, because I have been told that my Grandmother (who is now sadly not with us) always said that the moon landing was a fake.

The second image is what puzzles me, with those 2 weird shaped bright lights in the sky (top right). And if these were infact UFOs (just by meaning "unidentified flying objects") - Why would NASA put them on their servers so that anyone could get hold of them?



[Edited on 11-11-2003 by MetalHead]

Just remember, our first-hand knowledge of light and shadow, and photography is limited to the way light travels through an atmosphere...not the vacuum of space...

Also, I've seen many sites that have fully explained the so-called "hoax" factor to (at least imho) satisfaction. I too had questions about the moon landing, and moreso after seeing that tv special a while back...but since then, my personal investigations led me to believe that it was indeed, genuine.

Gazrok...

I have no personal opinion on the moon landings, I am not sure what to think. But anyway... The images... So do you think the strange lights are just tricks with light?
Could well be... Anyone else got any ideas?

What !!! We landed on the Moon !!!
ALL RIGHT !!!

Lol!!!

Good one elevatedone

Regarding the last photo, (AS12-49-7319.JPG)...

Download the picture, load it in a viewer or Photoshop and zoom into the face mask of the astronaut's helmet.
What is the oblong object in the reflection that is suspended in the air?

The cloud of light above the astronaut is also interesting, is it a lens flare of some type or is it an object or perhaps is it a manipulated photo where something has been blurred out or "burned out" intentionally in the picture's printing process?

Whatever the truth is - it sure makes for some interesting speculations...

I love this picture! Good find MetalHead!




[Edited on 11-11-2003 by intelgurl]

I'm pretty dubious about the moonlanding myself. There are so many things that don't add up about it:

- No stars in the film/ pictures.
- Unusual shadows that are unexplained.
- The Flag rippling in the wind
- The unusual difference in quality between the terrible quality film footage and the photographs. Why is one such perfect quality and on so bad?

- When you speed the video up it doesn't look strange it just looks like they are walking/jumping around in normal gravity.

- You can already see footprints and scorch makrs before the lander is filmed landing. ( plus the fact that the lander was filmed coming down from the actual moon, who was filming that?)

- There is alot more strange evidence that I can't remember off the top of my head. There is one theory that they filmed the moon landing in similar looking terrain that is situated near Area 51 !

I think its the second photo with the two lights, they look like spotlights or the kind you would use on a movie set pointing to the theory that the moon landing was faked. The first one just looks liek light got into the lense and the third looks like there was an error in photographt. I see no possibily of aliesn in these photoes,sorry.

Thats OK JediMaster, I just posted them here to see what peoples views were.

Me, personally... Have no idea about these photos.

Intelgurl... I will do that... Thanks for that info, I hadn't noticed that. Glad you like the pic

I have not seen these pics anywhere else, or even not found them at the same place since, so I hope the Government don't come knocking on my door

I just noticed something on the 2nd picture - as12-49-7213.jpg...
Zoom into the astronauts feet, look at the foot prints... They look like they are in mud. I didn't think there was mud on the moon... I thought it was sand? Maybe I am wrong, can someone correct me on this?

But then saying that... We only know what the moon is like from what we have been told, isn't that correct?

That 'cloud' hovering above the astronaut on the third picture is very puzzling. The only suggestions I can give to that is either some object hovering above, but the light is blured, or... That NASA have changed the image to hide what was shown - But why would they do that? If they wanted to hide something they should of just not published it.

I found this while searching for the last photo. It is part of a "stereo pair" of photos.
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
NASA only has the first pic available in their archives.
images.jsc.nasa.gov...

It's weird. There appears to be some sort of pattern in the glow. Like slanted lines.

Good find darklanser
The pictures you found don't have that 'cloud' at the top... Wonder why?

And the pic I have was like I said actually taken from their server, so it can't of been someone messing around with the image and added that 'cloud' to make it look suspicous.

Perhaps it was a bad photo? Like someone mentioned, it may have got damaged while being processed?

i don't know what is up with this one: www.webmasterdave.co.uk... it's kind of weird...

this one www.webmasterdave.co.uk... just looks like lens flare to me.

and the first one I am not sure.

But in relation to not being able to see that side of the lander, you would be able to. Reflection from the surface of the moon onto that area. Like having a blue book on the table and having the light reflect off it onto you giving a blue tinge.

Originally posted by MetalHead

There are weird lights in the skies - could just be the space shuttle

The space shuttle ? In 1969 ?

heh... indeed. shuttle in '69? it can't even leave earth orbit.

all 3 pictures are from the apollo 12 missions. just look at the name of the images. the "as12" part is what tells you what mission it's from. so if it was "as13" then it's from apollo 13.

i've seen these images before. this is a great site with tons of high quality images on it www.apolloarchive.com...

the first pic there is taken while looking at the sun and getting a huge lens flare while doing it.

same thing with the second image. the sun is just off to the right of the camera and those bright spots are just lens flares.

the third one i can't really explain. again i would think it would be some effect from having such bright pure light. since you are in a place with not atmosphere to refract the light. you get pure light. the surface is mostly a light grey. so that reflects a lot of light as well. plus the astronauts are all in whites suits.

this explains one point earthtone brought up. why there are no stars in the photos. well with cameras you have to deal with exposure levels. you have to have a quick exposure when taking a picture of objects that are bright. like on the moons surface. this means the shutter is open for a very short time. the stars are not bright enough to show up on film with a quick exposure. though the astronauts themselves could see the stars when they were on the moon.

one other point you made there earthtone.

"plus the fact that the lander was filmed coming down from the actual moon"

you mean footage of the lander landing on the moon and seeing it from the surface? i've never seen or heard of such footage. have you seen this? if so i'd like to see it. if you've only heard of such footage then i'm sure you mean footage of the lander leaving the moon. in that case it was just the camera from the rover watching the thing take off.

Excellent explainations jra (and great job beating me to the punch, hehe...)...incidentally, you can find other instances explained well on the nasa site as well....

did a bit more searching and asked around as to what that thing was exactly in the 3rd pic. here is the what some one told me.

That's a "sunstrike."

For reasons of dexterity and mission planning, the darkslides were not re-inserted into the magazines prior to removing them from the camera.

Each roll of film was pre-loaded into its own aluminum magazine on earth in a darkroom. This is one way in which you can use a Hasselblad camera. (You can also load and unload the film yourself if you've only got one magazine, but it's hard enough to do if you're not wearing a space suit.) This preloaded magazine comes equipped with a darkslide -- a metal cover over the front of the magazine to keep light from ruining the film.

Normally to install a Hasselblad magazine, you lock into place on the back of the camera body and then remove the darkslide through a slot at the top. You can't advance the film or click the shutter until the darkslide is removed. And then at the end of the roll you slide the darkslide back into place and disconnect the magazine. It won't disconnect until the darkslide is in place.

Apollo mission planners realized this was unwieldy in a space suit. The darkslides were fitted with oversized rings to allow you to pull them out just by hooking your thumb in the ring and pulling it out. But the planners didn't want the astronauts to have to worry about where to put the darkslide or how to get it back into that little slot. And so they had Hasselblad modify the camera so that the darkslide could be removed prior to putting the magazine in place, and that it could be disconnected without replacing the darkslide. And so the astronaut got a new magazine from the supply (they were prelabeled and assigned to each task) removed and discarded the darkslide, and installed it.

Now this procedure will expose the first frame of film as the darkslide is removed. So after the astronaut installs the film, he will have to advance several frames in order to get to "fresh" film. And at the end of the roll he will have to leave some frames unexposed so that he can wind the already photographed frames safely into the depths of the magazine.

This procedure was never perfect. And so on most of the rolls of film, the first frame and the last four or five frames will have streaks, spots, blurs, and other symptoms of light leaking into the magazine when it wasn't attached to a camera. Your picture is sixth from the end of Roll 49, and the other pictures that follow show evidence of light leaking in.

www.clavius.org...

has some other examples of light leaks.