Another Fake Video?

Originally posted by mystr
I think the most probable thing is that the author have satarted his works knowing the existence of the anomaly near the delporte crater.

But how he knew? And about the two who posted in youtube comments saying that they already heard about the ship? (one of them said he saw a still of the ship in 1992)

Here's a list of NASA images containing the anomaly:

I never heard of it, and seeing nobody in this topic mentioning anything either, makes it not very well known i think.

Thanks for the nice list, i have them all now. And if it is a 'rock' it is the weirdest looking rock i've seen on the moon sofar.

Here's a slightly diffierent angle of the anomaly. From Apollo 15.

Originally posted by Karilla
Here's a slightly diffierent angle of the anomaly. From Apollo 15.

Good example: doesn't it seems to you that the "ship" it's strangely blurried? Isn't it strange?

I did think that it was odd they talked about a cockpit and a nose. To me it would have seemed logical that we are looking at the aft end, if it crashed and left that berm/crater.

On the video before it zooms in, could that be a photo slowly sliding by? And what is with the dancing lights on the surface?
I think this could easily be disproved if the first part of the video could be matched to another known video or picture. Since there are a limited number of moon videos and pictures, this should not be to hard. If this can not be done then I must remain suspicious that it is a real video. Unfortunately, none of us here are familiar with what a lunar alien crash site should look like. So to say "It looks so fake", makes me wonder how many real alien crafts on the moon you have to compare it to.. Ever see a picture of something real that looked fake? If we don't keep our minds open to this, when the real thing comes along, we will dismiss it out of hand.

Originally posted by RedPill
On the video before it zooms in, could that be a photo slowly sliding by? And what is with the dancing lights on the surface?

There are no pictures (in the wild that is) to show that detail unfortunatly. If you can find them, please put a link here.


Edit: Fixed typo

[edit on 10/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Black box represents area of the movie, the black arrow is traject the camera is moving.

This is a small picture from Apollo15 on what flight routes it took
Purple line is revelation 15
Red line is revelation 38
You will see that Apollo15 not (officially) took the black route, nor any other Apollo.



[edit on 10/5/2007 by Cygnific]

A couple of pages back someone has posted images of Delporte and Lutke craters. They seem to be identical to the ones in the video. If this is a fake, the perpetrator has access to better moon info than we do. He would have to work at NASA anyway, no?

Small example from movie and Nasa picture of Delporte crater:
Dont forget that the Nasa picture is topdown.And lighting is different also.

Just noticed this video on YouTube, posted May 09, 2007:

Re: ALIEN SPACESHIP ON THE MOON flyover bef. landing APOLLO 20



IMO, brings up an interesting point. The image is from the Russian Phobos 2 mission.



The image was captured just before communication with the probe was lost.

Can we say it is the same as this lunar anomaly? No.

Are there similarities?

Hey all....
So, I've been trying to figure this video out for a few days now. I don't know if it's fake or real. I'm not any kind of expert.
I did do lots of poking around the internet though. I can't find any previous allusion to a secret Apollo 20 mission so I guess this could be the sole invention or revelation of retiredafb.

I can say that this guy has been busy though. He has this posted at dailymotion as well. He has links to the youtube on all kinds of websites.
Here is his recent google groups activity. groups.google.com...
Activity at air-space: www.air-space.us...
One of his entries on an Italian forum: www.collettivamente.com...
Also, cool sci-fi: www.coolscifi.com...

I think he is French. His myspace profile.myspace.com...
says he is Lorraine, France. I know he claimed to have been in Rwanda which has French as an official language (as well as Bantu and English).

That's all for now. I have to get ready for work. >_<

About it crashing. I dont think it did, they said they could see something like landing gear

Implosion, that does look alike, nice find.
Same with the rest of you guys, good work trying to debunk

Originally posted by RedPill
Ever see a picture of something real that looked fake?

Kinda offtopic here, but yes, infact there's this Bravia commercial. I would swear it's CGI (especially around 00:32) but it's not.

Originally posted by mystr
Hello, here's a zoom of nasa www.lpi.usra.edu...

Compared with one from retiredafb.

After hours spent on the job (efficent zooming was VERY difficult) i can say for sure that the ship's area is blurried and underdetailed: don't know why but it is.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by mystr]

[edit on 9-5-2007 by mystr]

The top image has the look of a U-boat or other submarine hull lying on the floor of the ocean. The craters are all that make it look like its on the moon.

Well, he's posted another one:

In the late 70's, nasa tried to hide alien artifacts...

The links he's posted on YouTube don't work.

Here they are:

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 12/5/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by lasse
Edited to add this side note; By far the funniest reason for debunking this I have seen is that "there were no Apollo 20 - End of story". That just cracks me up There were no B2 either until..what..1988?

Anyone who thinks they could launch a Saturn 5 rocket in secret needs to either learn something about the space program, or go back to grade school. A Saturn 5 is vastly larger then the current space shuttle and their launches were visible over an extremely large area. At present the space shuttle is clearly visible from where I live, which is 130 miles from the cape, and is probably still visible another 70 miles beyond that, minimum. Therefore, a Saturn 5 would be visible to about 200 to 250 miles radius, 400 to 500 miles diameter. Comparing a Saturn 5 rocket to a stealth bomber is about like comparing a Cessna to a 747.
Here is what a shuttle launch looks like from roughly 130 miles away:

Yeah, good luck hiding a Saturn 5 rocket:

jleslie48.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
I mean NASA cannot even keep the Lisa Nowak-N-Nutt thing under wraps, let alone an entire mission.

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
That's why they launch Saturn rockets at a secret base in the Antartic and use electronic stealth technology to avoid detection. The public is probably behind around 50 years in actual level of technology being employed today in secret quarters.

Obviously you don’t realize the amount of infrastucture involved in launching a rocket like this. Besides the stuff that I see JRA has brought up already about how they have to build stages all around the country and ship them to the Cape for assembly, there is a lot more to putting a rocket like this in space then you most likely realize. The biggest factor is that you have to have the correct facility to assemble the Rocket, which requires a building like this:
external image
Where each piece can be stacked together like this:
external image
external image
external image
Rolled to the lanchpad:
external image
Which is also a tremendous structure:
external image
These Saturn 5 pads no longer even exist, as they were too expensive to maintain, let alone be built in the harshest environment known to man. You have to have an entire city of contractors to maintain and even run such a program, the logistics of this operation are tremendous, which is why it costs so much to launch a rocket. The cost is not in materials, it is in labor.
If you honestly believe that such facilities exist in Antarctica, then why not go there and find out for yourself. Go take pictures of them for us, and post the online. Antarctica is not the old Soviet Union after all, and you can go there. Here, apply for a position at McMurdo Station: Raytheon Polar Services :and let us know what you find down there.

Originally posted by greatlakes
I would think it would be difficult and time consuming (but not impossible) to add detail and resolution to existing video and images. The detail is not only on the ship, but everywhere, the surface and craters itself...

But he may have simply taken high resolution photos that exist from NASA, printed them, lighted them properly, then panned a camera over the photos with a window pain in front of the lens. This would be much easier and quicker then reproducing all that terrain as either a diorama or 3D model. There is an abrupt change in the filming when we go to the object itself, which is disturbing to me. It smells of someone switching from one scene to another. Therefore, the only area that had to be reproduced in high detail using a model and diorama was actually quite small. It is fairly simple to do this, and for a good modeler, it may only take a week of serious work.
A practiced modeler, can do something like this very easily:

hello to all viewers, i answer to everybody by mail. I didn't want to post here but;
I live in Rwanda since 1994. The government provides me protection and discrecy, but digitizing and video treatment is poor here, so, don't be offended.The crew patch video made 90mb the first time, the team here didn't knew what a codec was, so only 4seconds 90mb 758-576 was posted. Same problems with subtitles, choice of a codec, format.

Astronauts are some of the most highly trained folks on the planet, there is no way this was written by anyone who worked for NASA. Also where is this guy located, Rwanda? Isn’t that like next door to Nigeria, where all the E-Mail money scams originate? Seems like the folks over there have nothing better to do with their time then think up ways to make money off gullible folks on the internet.

Originally posted by defcon5But he may have simply taken high resolution photos that exist from NASA, printed them, lighted them properly, then panned a camera over the photos with a window pain in front of the lens. This would be much easier and quicker then reproducing all that terrain as either a diorama or 3D model.

Sure, take an image and pan over it would produce something, not quite what exactly until someone tries it to the image. Which brings up the question, WHAT IS THE PHOTO that may have been used with the proper angle and perspective?

I originally thought that it could be done using computer enhancement to the entire video portion. This would entail much more time consuming tedious work I would think, but again not impossible.

Ok, NASA have cut this image around, but the anomaly is still there. Another angle to add to the collection though. Even if the video isn't real, that is like no other rock you will find anywhere else on the moon.

Fake or not its created a 12 page thread so far. Some are still undecided. I have been a long time lurker here and decided to join and participate in the discussions. Here's my first post that should be worth your time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am still undecided, without a doubt we know very little about what our Govt does, what they know, how they operate. Before Oct/2004 I would have called this fake (see thread link above). Either this guy has a lot of time on his hands or its real.

I have no doubt that we have a base currently on the moon. No doubt what so ever.

Hi, i'm a lurker that came out of hiding on this one as well. I'm gonna illustrate what I'm about to say in hopes it helps lend to what i think to somehow be a real video. Granted the guy who posted has some cheesy stuff that seems a hoax, but so far i haven't heard any true "break down" on why this particular thread’s video is a hoax.

but first: www.neilslade.com...

The above link "debunking" the video makes me want to cry when I see details not properly thought out and used as "hoax proof" when in fact the details described prove the opposite. i'm going to use this guys points to illustrate the authentic feel of the video:

the detail and accuracy of the landscape is amazing. I think we all agree upon that.

In the beginning of the video, the optics are shallow focused to gain a larger view of the landscape. This is why you see so much of the glass board. At 11 seconds in, there is a large shake in the camera. Sort of like someone settling a piece in, bumping the camera, who knows.. when the camera was jostled, the glass and numbers noticeably moved. This makes perfect optic sense. With a wide angle view, the aperture size is generally larger number which actually means a smaller hole of light by the camera end.

At 19 seconds, there is another shake. this seems not as large and the numbers still move in a fashion that makes perfect optic sense.

When they zoom in to the ship, they then change to a 1.8 aperture. This makes sense for the use of a telephoto lens.
what adds to the authenticity of this video is the use of the word magazin. This implies the different apertures were stored in a magazine rack of other apertures. The camera used was multi-purpose which means many parts anapertures are stored in magazines..
Once they switch apertures and start zooming in, the lens gets brighter and darker as it telescopes out for zoom. This looks to be a genuine focal issue as the different aperture is reset ato the proper distance from the outside lens. during lens transition and aperture settling, more and less light is let in as the lenses settle.


Once zoomed in to the ship, there is a much more severe camera shake. This makes optic sense as well because to zoom like that, they had to make the lens distance form the aperture more like a pirates telescope. A tiny bit of movement makes a big difference being zoomed that far away. What's important here is the fact that once they are zoomed in, the 50 written on the inside of the ship is still visible.. From an optical point of view, this does make sense in a telephot lens setup. It's a bit fuzzy of course -- extreme telephoto doesn't get rid of foreground subjects by "focusing through" like other lenses do with the use of depth of field control .

Back to the point: while zoomed on the ship nose and the camera is shaking, the foreground 50 that's written on glass doesn't shake. This make perfect optic sense.
Why?
Take a string and tie it to the camera and than pull it to the ships nose in a straght line. Then shake the string by the ship in the same increments the camera was shaking. The point on this imaginary line where the '50" written on the glass is will be SMALL. But it Is actually visible. in the video. look close.. The 50 is moving from left to right ... barely.. This makes optical sense. a hoaxer would just have to be an absolute maniac to reproduce.

Other notes that lend to authenticity..
Channel flutter. someone mentioned it was "cheesy" earlier. The RBG channels "flutter according to the direction of the sunlight. A "normal" mixing program channel flutter doesn't normally take into consideration of the sun.. only the effect of a channel flutter.

The lens flare on the camera changes with a volumetric highlight that shows the shape of the lens. I've never seen a scripted, cgi lens flare with consideration of sun direction and vulemtric highlighting to illustrate lens shape.

too cunning for a hoax
B

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Bspiracy]