[Exposed] Apollo image Indicative of Lunar Structures?

reply to post by stanlee

No.
Glass is a solid. It is a myth that it is a liquid. The reason old planes of glass are uneven is because the early manufacturing process made them that way.

[...W]hy are the panes of antique window glass thicker on the bottom than the top? There really are observable variations in thickness, although there seem to have been no statistical studies that document the frequency and magnitudes of such variations. This author believes that the correct explanation lies in the process by which window panes were manufactured at that time: the Crown glass process.

dwb4.unl.edu...

But there still are no glass domes on the Moon.

Originally posted by Phage

But there still are no glass domes on the Moon.

The same could be said for Lunar Modules.

You can't even prove conclusively that the Apollo missions landed on the moon... But then, neither can NASA

Even the image Sir Patrick Moore used to present as proof of the landings has been debunked as being a surface feature.

And so much for Kaguya or Chang-e 1 or Chandrayaan - they have no images of anything from the Apollo missions...

Maybe they aren't domes on the moon. Perhaps the anomalies in the OP were created by features of the studio in which some of the mission was filmed, such as a few small holes in the tarp/roof covering the stage:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4eae7b832a12.jpg[/atsimg]
(This could have been easily taken out of the image - but the individuals working on this project appear to have a penchant for perpetrating corrigible acts of ineptitude - as we have seen from the picture of pictures, fiducial overlays and other easily correctable anomalies; they just don't give a darn....)


*This thread has already proven that NASA has added fiducial markers after-the-fact and has lied about the nature of the images they present to the public(as is evidenced by my last post).









[edit on 16-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Here is an excellent couple of videos which highlights some of the more obvious studio shots that were attributed to the Apollo Missions.

It is done by a young fellow named Jarrah White, who I will be inviting to ATS shortly:

reply to post by Exuberant1



thanks for posting this, i took a closer look at it and found even more oddities. i marked em red - could this be some kind of lifeform? it also seems that nasa did some brushing on this picture since there are black spots wich dont fit the background, i marked some of them aswell.

here you go: (big one 2,9mb)
img403.imageshack.us...

reply to post by s.one.z


Thanks for the pic.

I think that is the one Hoagland used in his presentation.

There are many with those blue objects in the sky, most are taken during EVA. The ones you presented cannot be attributed to 'something on the camera', as some of our debunkers would have you think.




[edit on 16-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

first off, i aint no specialist in these matters, and not enough time NOW to 'research'.
Anyhow, here's some things to ponder

The moon does actually have a slight atmosphere, strange, ehe? In 'daylight' that, along with the reflective surface would keep out a lot of, or nearly all, stars.

In Exuberant1's pics of the apparent glass dome (lol) could the 'cracks' just be a little bit of a stars light trying ever so hard to get through? Or do stars rarely appear on the film taken by the astronauts cameras?

Note, like: what I said could be stars also appears in the shadow under the moon lander/probe/wateva. Reflection through the camera?
Okay, before posting I looked at a couple other pics, those blue flecks appear everywhere! There's either a lot of stars being picked up, or something wrong with their cameras resolution or what have you. There's, something on the wing!! little blue flecks everywhere omg!

There no god damn dome! these dudes really went to the moon, its the most logical answer really. their cameras weren't there to get starrynights. if their exposure had been too great, all pics of the moon would be white and featureless coz of the excess light, but, then you'd have a few stars. there are no stars coz their exposure is short and it's too bright(light-pollution), keeping star-light at bay, just as on earth.

If the moon has a magnetosphere (which I'm sure it should, albeit a weak one) could the strange blue streaks be an auroura as we see near the poles here on Earth?

also, in Exuberant1's pics of the "fiducials" it seemed obvious to me that they were shadows cast onto the inside of the camera's lensing. If you notice, logically, the light source is RIGHT in front or DIRECTLY above the cameras focal point, then look at the shadows of these fiducials. Where the light is more direct the aberration of fiducials on the lens is more noticable; you can see the curvature of the lens if you follow the curve in the shadows of the fiducials. Also, where there is no direct light the fiducials show no shadow!

note: Where there is no direct light for the camera the fiducials are just fine
note: fiducials is a weird word...

lastly, in referance to the black and white pic on the first page, if there ever were ET's on the moon, could that long stucture be a tether? Depending on the size of the object, I could be very wrong.

cheeaz!! happy conspiring

While the image in the OP might not be conclusive proof of glass structures on the moon - we do have many lunar images which do contain obvious structural form:

A tower perhaps...
[ats][/ats]


From this image:



Looks at all those tunnels!



What are they doing here?



The tunnels and structures have been colourized:




Could this be a Gigantic Machine in AS8-12-2209?



Look at it in the Hi Res Version!




:coolImages Found by Mikesingh and Sherpa)

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

this is for anyone who claims that there is nothing more than craters and rocks on out neighbour planet:

The Greatest Story Ever Denied II: Moon Rising

www.youtube.com... the other parts can be found on youtube aswell

[edit on 16-7-2009 by s.one.z]

something very fishy seems to be going on with our moon I agree.

"Buzz" Aldrin and Neil Armstrong both have said they signs of past and 'current' life on the moon when they were there, so I think that should have at least 'some' significance as to if an ET could've made those phenomena?

Unless of course they're lying, and if so, damn did they wait a long time to change the story.

reply to post by Exuberant1

*This thread has already proven that NASA has added fiducial markers after-the-fact and has lied about the nature of the images they present to the public(as is evidenced by my last post).

I would have to disagree with this. This in fact has been disputed by Phage and Armap.

As far as the oddities, I have seen this before on photos and negatives that were made into digital images. It is something that appears to happen in the transfer process from original to digital. When the photos or negatives are scanned in they are against a glass that has light shining on it, this light is usually blue or white. If the glass is not clean it does get dust particles on it. And if the negative or picture is partially curled it would not rest completely against the glass which would cause a streak across during the scanning process. Now the scanners that are used are not your typical desktop scanners, they are specially designed for photo scanning and specially designed for negative scanning.

Another thing to take into consideration is that film after being developed still has the chemicals used in the developing process still on them, and where properly stored pictures and negatives can last quite a long time, they still do deteriorate over time. This process usually starts with tiny imperfections on the pictures and negatives, which would usually go unnoticed, but if a picture or negative was scrutinized over, which is what we do here on ATS with pictures, these imperfections will be noticed.

Even the best well trained original to digital photo archivists run in to these scenarios, it is hard not to, and in the second scenario, there is not much a archivist can do, he can try to “touch up” the images, which does happen in some cases I am sure, but other than that, these photos and negative are a victim of time, you may have some that time did not touch but I would suspect there are less time untouched ones than there are ones that time has been destroying slowly.

I cannot grantee that the anomalies on the photos were created by the above processes, however I do not believe it can be ruled out either.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
It is a image of an image being projected onto a screen; some of the projected image can even be seen on the wall behind this screen.....

If that is true (and I do not have any way of knowing it) then the sky isn't red either, because the red area spreads to the whole width of the photo.

The full size image will be available here for some time, the stupid ATS Media Portal does not allow large images, so I cannot use it, again.

Here is the ImageShack version, "optimized for the Web", as they say (apparently the image was not changed).

reply to post by Exuberant1

It is done by a young fellow named Jarrah White...

NOOOOO!!!! I've seen his baloney on the UTubes...

Wait, on second thought, yes! Have him come on in to ATS! It will be an enjoyable show, well worth the price of admission.

I'll make popcorn.....

www.thesun.co.uk...

what is the structure behind the main structure in the picture, above the astronaut, weird huh

if any body cant see it as it is very vague
where the yellow arm thing comes out, at the joint of it and a little to the right there is two lights and a shadowed figure/structure

reply to post by WhatsHappening


The 'yellow arm thing' is the landing strut, covered n the gold reflective foil. What you see above 'Buzz' Aldrin is the other part of the landing gear strut...

See this picture:

reply to post by weedwhacker


Here's a challenge for all, if you come across this question:

(And, no, sorry Phage, internos, ArMaP, Chadwickus you aren't eligible. I'd like to see some think it through, with logic...)

Here's the question: As you peruse the various Apollo EVA photos you will notice a certain characteristic regarding the direction of the Sun, and the direction the Lunar Lander is facing. Can anyone see what I'm talking about? And, why I'm pointing it out??

That original photo looks like damage to the film. Not light pollution or anything but moisture damage to the negative before the film was developed.

Exuberant1

I forgot to ask you for it before, do you have an ID for the photo in the OP, the one with the blue streak?