Alien Artifacts On The Moon? Images from Russian Luna Probes!

OK.......THIS HAS BEEN CLARIFIED:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6bc257f3ea10.jpg[/atsimg]-----IMAGE ON LEFT = LUNA IMAGE #2-----------IMAGE ON RIGHT = LUNA IMAGE #5

OP IMAGE = #2

(#5 = simply another take of same. ) Awesome at least 2 versions of object. Could be beneficial to analysis. Clearly demonstrates effects of light, shadow and angle.

Sorry..........Carry On With Bagel Holder discussion.......KK



[edit on 3-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 3-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by mikesingh


THe first picture is definately remnants fron the Soviet Luna missions.

It's a piece of aparatus from a mission called Luna 21, which carried the Soviet lunar rover called lunokhod 2. The mission took place in January 1973.

It soft landed the lunar surface and took photographs and TV pictures untill communications were lost.

Luna 21 link to picture.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The cone shaped artifact is probably from another of the Luna series, it looks like a quadrant panel from Luna 9 or Luna 13.

Most of these early missions impacted the surface. And a fair number of them in and around the same locations.

Luna 9 link:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Luna 13 link:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

As for the other pictures, my guess would be debris from a USSR mission in the 60's or 70's, either from the Luna or later Zond series.

spikey.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by spikey]

removed from the station are two cells ejected as the station opens up

certain details of the station discarded during landing can be seen on the photographs

Pdf file:
ntrs.nasa.gov...

In addition, parts of the station which were discarded in landing may be seen In theareful investigation of the photograph willong time.

www.faqs.org...

























Junk falling off Junk it seems...















[edit on 4-4-2009 by easynow]

Mike,I was wondering about the pictures from the panorama 2 or 3 on down with the 'tank' looking objects.Were those taken by the lander from close range or the mothership in orbit?As far as the antenna looking thing goes I'd say that is probably what it is,an antenna.I am more interested in the other pictures,like the 'tank',and what looks like a crashed "A-Wing",as well the Luna 9 picture,do you know if that was taken by the orbiter or lander as well?

Luna-12 entered orbit on October 25, 1966, carrying two phototelevision cameras of the same variety as Zond-3. This was the first Soviet craft to take close up pictures from orbit, but only a few images have ever been published

mentallandscape.com



[edit on 4/3/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by mikesingh

 

THe first picture is definately remnants fron the Soviet Luna missions.

It's a piece of aparatus from a mission called Luna 21, which carried the Soviet lunar rover called lunokhod 2. The mission took place in January 1973.

It soft landed the lunar surface and took photographs and TV pictures untill communications were lost.

Luna 21 link to picture.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Luna 13
Launched December 21, 1966
Landed on Moon December 24, 1966 at 18:01:00 UT
Latitude 18.87 N, 297.95 E - Oceanus Procellarum

Luna 21/Lunokhod 2
Launched January 8, 1973
Landed on Moon January 15, 1973 at 23:35:00 UT
Latitude 25.85 N, Longitude 30.45 E - LeMonnier Crater
Lunar Rover - Lunokhod 2

How could luna 13 to take shots from luna 21 in 1964?

I just finished reading Ingo Swann's book "penetration" and it discussed the moon both in terms of his remote viewing project, and in terms of evidence. Very strong evidence, overwhelmingly strong evidence that makes the silence or lack of information on the moon so transparently corrupt.
www.scribd.com...

The book has so many pieces of evidence and names many, probably hard to find books on the subjects put out by very educated and knowledgable people, some of which became hard to locate as soon as they were in print....but Maurice Chatelain's book that few probably have heard of, entitled "Our Ancestors Came From Outer Space" published in 1978 in France which spoke of what the astronauts and Armstrong had observed, but his credentials were rather amazing.

page 106/151 For Maurice Chatelain had been placed in charge of designing and building the Apollo communication and data-processing system for NASA....He had received eleven patents , including an automic radar landing system used in the Ranger and the Surveyor Moon flights.

No wonder with his credentials the most typical counterance when questioned was "no comment".

I hightly recommend this book.

Don't believe those discarded wheels are ours.

Luna-12 entered orbit on October 25, 1966, carrying two phototelevision cameras of the same variety as Zond-3. This was the first Soviet craft to take close up pictures from orbit, but only a few images have ever been published

LOL,forgot to say why I quoted this!I wonder why few have been published not only of that but of others.Not saying they are hiding anything but it makes you wonder,especially with all the circumstantial evidence around the "moon theories".

[edit on 4/3/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Sorry if this has already been addressed but has anyone asked NASA about these images?I know you said they couldn't be left over debris from the Apollo missions,but maybe from probes?As we all know there is PLENTY of speculations on secret human and alien moon bases.Maybe this is evidence of these bases(I mean if they have been there as long as we hear then there is bound to be some junk left around).Great find as ussual Mike,star and flag from me.I would really like to hear a explanation from NASA,or at least another countries space agency.

I just did. I emailed Dr. David Williams, listed on NASA's Luna 13 page
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
asking if he can identify the object. If he answers, I'll post it.

Originally posted by MR BOB

Originally posted by Terces Pot Evoba
resembles the high gain antennae from the Russian rover Lunokhod 1

I do think this poster is right.

from wikipedia:
'The final location of Lunokhod 1 is uncertain by a few kilometers since lunar laser ranging experiments have failed to detect a return signal from it since the 1970s'

It is possible the antenna has broken off. and this is a peice of it?

The OP pic:

Lunokhod 1:

another photo of lunokhod 1, note the notches at the base of the antenna and the original pic:

BOB, I have already mentioned that lunokhod 1 and 2 were hundreds of miles away from where Luna 13 landed.

Secondly, both these craft are completely different in design. What you have shown above is pics of the Lunokhod. Here are pics of the Luna 13. I don’t see anything that resembles something ejected from it that even remotely resembles the object in contention.







I don't know why we keep harping on this issue when it's clear as day that there is no commonality between the two!

Cheers!


www.astronautix.com...
upload.wikimedia.org...
upload.wikimedia.org...

reply to post by kinda kurious


Hey, KK! Heck man, I wish you had gone through this thread because then you would have found the answer to your question!

Have a look-see at this post of mine a few pages back...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Was this what you were lookin' for?

Cheers!

Originally posted by jkrog08
Sorry if this has already been addressed but has anyone asked NASA about these images?

Hi jk! NASA? They know very little about the then Soviet missions as they were pretty much kept under wraps. Cold war and all that. Even today, little is known about them.

You'll be surprised if I told you that the drawings, blue prints and construction manuals of the Lunar Landers were destroyed!! Why and by whom? My guess is as good as yours! Imagine they don't even know as of today how the Moon Buggies' wheels were constructed!! NASA and Goodyear are now trying to replicate the buggy by referring to available photographs and scale models!! Now that's a story that requires another thread!!

Sucks doesn't it? NASA! Never A Straight Answer! This sucks even more!! :bnghd:

Now if they don't even know how their own Moon Buggies were constructed, what the dickens will they know about Soviet era equipment? Nix!

Cheers! Have a nice day!

reply to post by mikesingh


Exactly thanks! My brain ain't what it used to be since my stroke.

That is some heady stuff, I will re-review and save link this time .

I can sleep now. Thanks

Kind regards.......KK

Have we not had the photos from the Indian probe that went up there last year yet?
If it wasn't them then the Japanese had a probe go up didn't they?
Seems all these probes are going to the moon lately and have done in the past but all we get is fuzzy photo's or none at all. Maybe the Indian probe took pictures but thet were told NOT to release them as they prove there are structures on the moon.

Originally posted by arizonascott
reply to post by mikesingh

 

The 4th image, I hate to say it looks like a tank. Even the wheel object nearbye looks like a triple track section of the wheel assembly. Crazy

Nice find!

I wish some independent source (like MIT grads or similar) would put together an independent mission and send a small rover of some type to take images not affected by NASA and their annoying airbrush retards. Maybe Virgin Galactic and Richard Branson could help them out on a rocket design and a little funding, keep the rover light and just get this thing done for the sake of truth.

But then again, Branson most likely is on board with silence.

Funny HOW everyone else is a liar or they fake things but when guys talk about anything its the TRUTH even when we see people on here making statements like" I am in touch with them" or " they are in contact with me" or "its this class of ship" etc etc.
A lot of people on here seem to live in their own little LA LA LAND
that anyone who doesn't agree with is WRONG even when all you guys have is some misinformed judgement on some not very hi-res pictures.

Answer this.

If any of that JUNK in the picture was not REPEAT not from the probes WOULD the pictures have been released for us to see in the first place.If you think about your total distrust about any pictures /info from official sources if it wasn't from the probes they wouldn't have released the images!!! YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

What will happen when images from LRO start to come back with a res of 0.5mtr / pixel and all you alien buildings and bases turn out to be rocks and shadows no doubt those will be faked according to you lot.

Even if you were taken to the Moon and shown it to see with your own eyes you would still say its faked because it would destroy the fantasy world you all enjoy being in!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11c7264f75e7.jpg[/atsimg]

This is from Luna 9 but I think it is not out of line to assume the workings of the petals are similar. Notice that the mechanism that held it together was round and a central part where they all joined may well match that part.

I believe they used an explosive device to open these things like the explosive bolts used on American craft. That part would fit the bill for that and it would be reasonable to assume it would be blown clear of the craft and with the lessened gravity it probably would not make much of a mark where it hit other than getting some dust on it which it has.

Far more logical than a part from an alien device or craft considering the proximity to the lander.

Each of the three tips of the petals that are the right shape for this and the fourth would be the outer casing. The part on the ground would be the device that blew it open and in the process threw itself free of the craft. In fact that design would make sense as they would not want a part getting into the works.

Worth considering in my mind. Look to the top right arrow I added. The interior shape could well match the exterior of that piece. Be honest now.

What looks like corrosion or wear could be from the explosive if I'm right. Yes?

[edit on 4/4/2009 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 4/4/2009 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by Blaine91555

Well, I dunno what you claim that the piece shown below



is the same as this...



Doesn't seem to be so!

Cheers!

reply to post by Blaine91555


I have to agree with Mikesingh, it looks nothing like the object in question. Im scouring the net trying to find something that could fit the bill but i'm coming up with nothing so far.

Lets be really realistic about this what are the chances of

a) Alien artifacts being on the Moon (close to nil)
b) The probe landing close by to the artifacts if they exist (close to nil)
c) Parts of the probe looking like WHAT you claim are Alien artifacts.
(CLOSE TO NIL)

The Chances of this are SO close to nil it answers the question they are parts of the probe!!!

Also some of you if you bothered to check the resolution of the Indian probe/Chinese probe cameras the are not going to show things like this in pictures

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Lets be really realistic about this what are the chances of

a) Alien artifacts being on the Moon (close to nil)

According to whom? Just because none have been found yet doesn't mean they do not exist

b) The probe landing close by to the artifacts if they exist (close to nil)

If alien artifacts existed on the moon, perhaps due to colonisation or whatnot, then I would think chances are pretty high that a lander could land within viewing distance of one

c) Parts of the probe looking like WHAT you claim are Alien artifacts.
(CLOSE TO NIL)

This is your only point that is fairly true. The 'object' we are looking at definately does not nook like anything found on any of the landers thus far.

The Chances of this are SO close to nil it answers the question they are parts of the probe!!!

Not in the slightest

Also some of you if you bothered to check the resolution of the Indian probe/Chinese probe cameras the are not going to show things like this in pictures

This makes no sense at all

[edit on 4/4/2009 by Kryties]

Originally posted by mystiq

"page 106/151 For Maurice Chatelain had been placed in charge of designing and building the Apollo communication and data-processing system for NASA...."

No wonder with his credentials the most typical counterance when questioned was "no comment".

I highly recommend this book.

Actually, mystiq, I'm betting you just imagined the 'most typical counterance' to questioning Maurice Chatelain. You just dreamed it up, because it never happened -- unless, maybe, you can cite a single checkable source?

The only properly-researched response to Chatelain's story is to point out that these alleged credentials are bogus. He never worked for NASA. Briefly he was at North American Aviation, in Downey, California, during the Gemini program, but was fired before the Apollo program even began.

This employment record is all confirmable from the personnel offices of the organizations involved. I've done that. You can too. Embrace reality! Eschew confabulation!

Come on back to Earth.