Astounding Moon Footage! Did NASA Want You To See This?

reply to post by Ectoterrestrial


the horizon is not fixed it is moving downwards,and this cannot happen with a zoom,only forward motion.

if it were a reflection,would the object be so dark?



[edit on 27-11-2007 by welivefortheson]

reply to post by spikedmilk


I think that these photos could give us a possible explanation
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The reflections are almost all "cutted" in their appearance: the same effect of AS-12-48-7101 and AS-12-48-7102
Maybe a reflection of some part of the Surveyor, (in AS-12-48-7102 you can notice that the lenght is the same of a part of its arm) maybe not. It's a reflection, no clue of what. JMO


[edit on 27/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by internos


whoh,whats that thing in the distance of the first three pics internos?,the lander?,buggy?!

reply to post by welivefortheson

It should be the lunar module, you can see it better here
www.phys.ncku.edu.tw...

edit to add: yes, it is: the caption of AS12-49-7248 reads: " LM on horizon".


[edit on 27/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by internos


So, I think understand what might be goin on there. We're seeing a reflection being "interrupted" by another reflection from the various pieces of the surveyor equipment resulting in the broken effect. That makes sense right?
nice pics btw

reply to post by mikesingh



Hey mike and thanks for all your great posts. I had seen this video before and at first I thought it was amazing until I noticed the clear enlargment of the earth in the background over that short time period (as someone mentioned earlier as well) and thought that looked just a tad much. Then again I cant say for sure since I don't know (and am too lazy to research) the supposed distance from the earth, speed of the camera, etc.

My gut is however telling me it is a zoom. Someone also mentioned the horizon and that it moves. That can simply be explained by the zoom as well since the zoom might not be aimed to the dead center or the underlying image could slightly rotate to give more a moving effect.

I had not seen the other picture you posted however but in difference to a lot of other pictures from the moon that are really weird I'm not feeling this one since that "tower" doesn't produce even the hint of a shadow, which it should since it seems very much lit up. This is why my best guess for this one is that it's a scratch, just like the "other tower" in this picture.

My personal theory on the whole moon scenario is that they stumbled upon something pretty neat up there. This in turn lead to not a whole lot of genuine "on the moon"-photos which explains the many weird effects like the flare, lightning, etc. Ie, yeah we did land on the moon but not all (in fact not many I'd think) of the photos we're looking at are the real deal. Sounds crazy maybe but thats just my take of it after looking at oh some many pictures.

The by far weirdest moon picture I have seen so far is this one, some kind of postcard that to my best understanding isnt available any more (was it ever?). Has anybody got some more info on this postcard, John Lear, anyone.. ? What is the source of it. There are two of them, in the other one you can just adjust the levels slightly and some weird structure appears. The one with the structure I know Hoagland also showed at a conference I was at here in Sweden back in like 1996.

The cool thing about this one is that you don't have to really do anything with the picture to see the strangeness except but to zoom. For some extra clarity I adjusted the picture. Now one could argue since the photo is overall so obviously adjusted (hello pitch black space without grain) this might have been added as well. Personally I don't think so, the levels of adjusting to make this thing fit so perfectly in the image I think was above and beyond back in the days. My only conclusion it's either shot here on earth or some fx labs added it within 1990ish and now. But I'm guessing someone who is used to digging could find out exactly how old this is and where it is from?

Warning. Image is 4.4mb, high res jpg ( here is a low res, cropped version with some jpg compression )



[edit on 28-11-2007 by lasse]

Originally posted by Osiris1953
C'mon jedimiller.... please cut the B.S. out. Go lock yourself in your room and spoon with a lifesize Boba Fett doll.

Wow. Someone has been following me around. how do you know all of this? I find your dark humor..very funny. And so on. but see, attacking my credibility wont help anymore than dirt on a camera lens. I know that flaming another user is against the TOS but I won't report you. I forgive you for being angry at me. Still doesn't change the fact that I believe it's a fabric moving with the camera film inside the case. And I don't have a lifesize boba fett doll but if I did, id sure lock myself in my room with him.

reply to post by looofo


looofo! Man, you're a genius! Wow! What the devil are we looking at here? Grrrreeeeaaaatttttt find!! A star for you! Here's the tower / UFO zoomed.....



As discussed, it doesn't seem to be anchored to the surface. More of a mobile object? If it's not a UFO or the 'kangaroo' building, then looks like NASA's Moon Base Delta had sent up a weather balloon!! Lol

Cheers! And keep them coming!



[edit on 28-11-2007 by mikesingh]

reply to post by lasse


Hey lasse! Nice post. Well, you are probably right that the second image could be a scratch, but as for me, the jury is still out on this one! Darn! If this is what NASA dishes out with their billion dollar probes and million dollar cameras, then something sucks!!

reply to post by Ectoterrestrial


Ecto, I agree that it does look like the NOVA frames have been zoomed. But I think we're missing the wood for the trees here! The point is not about 'motion' per se, but the 'smoke' (or whatever that is!) emanating from an object on the surface which can clearly be seen. Take the individual frames and there's no denying that there is something out there.

Now the point which some had brought out that the 'object' is nothing but dust or a burn on the lens, needs to be sorted out. These arguments are untenable as far as I'm concerned, as the object remains in the same place in reference to the surface. If it was a speck of dust on the lens, it would have moved along in successive frames in reference to the lens and not remained rooted on the surface of the Moon.

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh

MIke, about this one:

Do you know the direction of the shot (for example E-W)?
If we are able to determine it, i can make some searches in all the craters in that specific direction; without knowing it, it will be too complicated. Any idea ?

These internal features should be an excellent reference point, imho.
LO images of Copernicus



[edit on 28/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Internos, you may find what you're looking for in this thread of mine in John's forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike,
I think i've found it

but opinions are needed before proceeding
What do you think about?

[edit on 28/11/2007 by internos]

Originally posted by Rhain
reply to post by jedimiller

 

IMO the burn or camera flaw would follow the camera shot not the moon. The dark image stays stead fast to the moon, the camera is moving over it. I don't see what lead you to your conclusion.

Maybe the false sense of expertise he derived from his "numerous" photographic courses. Anyway, I never listen to people who feel the need to qualify their opinion by first stating their level of education in the matter. What a blatant attempt to inflate your opinion by first throwing in your papers. This is Argumentum ad verecundiam 101 and im going for a cigarette, byaaah!

Originally posted by mortalengine
Anyway, I never listen to people who feel the need to qualify their opinion by first stating their level of education in the matter.

That's ok. I just said it because it was the hardest class I ever took. opening the film in the dark room was hard, then going into the dark room and trying to expose the film on paper and trying not to overexpose and destroy the image. all the chemicals and hard work. Making the prints, large size prints. it was a hard long class. does that qualify me to absurd claims? perhaps.

This looks shooped. I can tell from the pixels and having done quite a few shoops in my time.





4chan always has an answer.

Originally posted by jedimiller
I've examined the footage. having taking numerous photography courses I can safely come to the conclusion that it's a dirty lens. perhaps a hair or fabric got into the developing and made it out to look that way. could also be a burn in the film, but it's a micro defect. Cameras and film get beaten up in space and function funny in space. hope this helps.

Clearly your favourite word is "numerous" and it doesnt take a scientist to
see that the object in question is casting a shadow that moves as the object moves. Does a burn or a hair on a lens cast a realistic shadow that moves with it ?
Besides, you would think the cameras would be protected from getting "beaten up" in space, otherwise why put them up there if theyre jsut going to get scratches all over and leave NASA with photos that could either be a) a hula girl, or b) a burn. Tough one...what will it be...

besides... if there's a hair on it - where did it come from ? outer space ?

Originally posted by mortalengine

besides... if there's a hair on it - where did it come from ? outer space ?

you missed the point. the film is inside a reel, inside a case so it wont get damaged with light. the film is not placed in the reel in space..it's taken up packed in and rolled up in the camera before they take off. It's like a 35 mm camera. do you load your camera on location or before you go shooting?

Also, the film is developed on earth. not in space. and yes, if ther is any small object on the film it will appear as it is moving, because the film is moving very, very fast. At numerous speeds. this would cause the fur/hair to move with the shoot.

reply to post by internos


Bingo! You got it! So what's next? But that 'Kangaroo' pic is much beyond the crater, on the horizon, and the sun seems to be at the 4 O'Clock position. The vertical photograph you've shown has the sun at about the 9 O'Clock position.

So what gives?





[edit on 28-11-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by spikedmilk
reply to post by internos

 

So, I think understand what might be goin on there. We're seeing a reflection being "interrupted" by another reflection from the various pieces of the surveyor equipment resulting in the broken effect. That makes sense right?
nice pics btw

Is this what we're believing then ? ...pity we couldnt have come up with something slightly more realistic...

Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by mortalengine

besides... if there's a hair on it - where did it come from ? outer space ?

you missed the point. the film is inside a reel, inside a case so it wont get damaged with light. the film is not placed in the reel in space..it's taken up packed in and rolled up in the camera before they take off. It's like a 35 mm camera. do you load your camera on location or before you go shooting?

Also, the film is developed on earth. not in space. and yes, if ther is any small object on the film it will appear as it is moving, because the film is moving very, very fast. At numerous speeds. this would cause the fur/hair to move with the shoot.

And you think they would compromise the only footage they have of that mission by letting a bunch of trained orangutangs develop the reels in the darkroom ? Clearly... because they only wasted a few million dollar of your tax payers money only to take some photos and let the guy with dreds loose in there.

No I'm quite certain they take the utmost care when developing these films. If a glass factory can avoid getting hair and dust into their product, lets hope NASA can avoid getting dust or hair stuck in their film. Otherwise we should worry about the amount of cash they absorb from the tax, whilst providing us with such mediocre photo development service.