Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by easynow

 

BTW....Aldrin has already, many MANY times (and verified by other sources) confirmed that they were seeingthe panels fromt the Service Module.

and which other sources verified said bs claims?

FOUR panels, that encased the LM during launch. They 'peeled' away, like flower petals. The docking maneuver of the CM, with the LM, occured only a few hours after TLI burn, once Apollo was committed to the Lunar trajectory.

A couple of hours after TLI, the CSM broke free of the third stage....then maneuvered to dock with the LM, which was stored aft.

After docking, the combined spacecraft continued on, as planned....the last stage was then signalled from Mission Control to burn....some of the stages were sent to permanant Solar orbits, some were intended to impact the Moon. I have to check each mission parameters. Little sense in having the SR-IV stage impact the Moon unless thre were sensors already in place, like after the Apollo 11 landing, and subsequent.

so you're claiming that said sighting occurred just after the docking and extraction on day one i.e. around 5 hours, 11 minutes into the mission???? parroting buzz's bs???

PAO: This is Apollo Control at 60 hours, 37 minutes. We said goodbye - goodnight to the crew about 10 minutes ago. We expect that they will be settling down for their rest period shortly. At the present time, Apollo 11 is 184,600 nautical miles [341,800 km] from Earth. The spacecraft velocity is presently 3,023 feet per second [921 m/s].

060:45:38 Armstrong: Houston, Apollo 11.

060:45:41 Duke: Go ahead, 11. Over.

060:45:46 Armstrong: Do you have any idea where the S-IVB is with respect to us?

[The crew have noticed an unexplained flashing object out of the window, which appears to be catching the sunlight as it tumbles. Neil is wondering whether it is the abandoned third stage of the Saturn launch vehicle.]

060:45:50 Duke: Stand by.

[Long comm break.]

PAO: This is Apollo Control at 60 hours, 47 minutes. We just got a call from the spacecraft requesting that we give them the position of the S-IVB in respect to the spacecraft and we're currently coming up with that bit of information, so we'll stand by.

060:49:02 Duke: Apollo 11, Houston. The S-IVB's about 6,000 nautical miles from you now. Over. [Pause.]

060:49:14 Armstrong: Okay. Thank you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


yeah right....


hmmmm....... how about the s4b?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Really....most of us can read about the reality of the Space Program....not a good idea to try to fool anyone.

EXACTLY

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by depthoffield
To me, the correct orientation (to human understanding) and direction of sunlight is this:

schizophrenic or shamanic?

www.sciencedaily.com...

So, this UFO:

sorry but my question was in regards to your claims i.e. "(to human understanding)".......


after all maybe it was an 'identified' object i.e. a pigeon......



STS077-389-12






[edit on 21/4/10 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

NASA admitted they modified the image (by cloning) so that's not in question.

Did NASA make this admission Before or After someone caught them using the clone tool?

After an ATS member asked them what's up with the cloned image, they replaced the image with the one Easynow reposted in this thread, and admitted the photo was doctored but the answer wasn't too clear on why it was doctored, whoever wrote the reply didn't seem too sure about the reason. The scratch sounded like a guess:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by jra
I guess you all can blame me for the image getting changed. I sent an email asking about why the image was retouched and I got a reply saying this:

Thanks for letting us know about the problem with that image.

We checked with the folks in the photo lab here, and they believe that the negative for that image probably has a large scratch in that area. The cloning pattern that you mentioned is a remnant from an earlier version of the print using a method that is no longer in use today.

The photo lab has provided us with a “cleaner” version of the photo that isn’t as yellow and doesn’t have the cloning pattern. We will replace the photo as soon as possible.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


would appreciate if you could kindly post the link to said reference... or quote the data in case it was mailed....




edited to add.....

ok.... i c it now..... nice explanation

but how can one verify that i.e. the post by jra.....


edited again to add.....

just got a response from them.......

Thanks for your inquiry. We checked with the Photo Lab and it was confirmed that no images have ever been edited! Hope this information will meet your needs.

[edit on 21/4/10 by mcrom901]

reply to post by mcrom901


So for nearly Forty Years nasa was content to lie to us by omission about a manipulated image... until they were caught out for it.

*Or is it not lying by omission when NASA does it? Is it still deception and false presentation when this group does it?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by easynow

 

How can anyone unless on drugs think that shows anything that they claim!

so.... weapons of mass destruction decides for others about the credibility of various sources based on the war on drugs....

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by mcrom901

 

So for nearly Forty Years nasa was content to lie to us by omission about a manipulated image... until they were caught out for it.

*Or is it not lying by omission when NASA does it? Is it still deception and false presentation when this group does it?

but by definition they did not lie......

Lying by omission

One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.

en.wikipedia.org...

only conspiracy theorists lie.......

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by depthoffield
is maybe in fact just a false one:

Originally posted by depthoffield
To me, the correct orientation (to human understanding) and direction of sunlight is this:



because in this light direction, the craters looks naturally like what they are: craters. (If we asume the oposite direction of light, we have no craters, but only strange elongated cliffs casting shadows...which goes to absurd "conclusion": no craters on the moon?)

Hi DOF, I don't think I've ever disagreed with any of your analyses before, you do excellent work. And I'm not sure I disagree with this one, however I can see craters whether the direction of the sunlight is shining up or down (consistent, or inconsistent with the UFO shadow).

What you call elongated cliffs, I think could in fact be raised areas of impact ejecta as shown in gray here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fdc16dee59f9.gif[/atsimg]

So I'm not sure you're wrong, but you haven't convinced me they can't still be craters if the moon pigeon and its shadow show the correct orientation of the sun.

The top of the shadow just to the right of your rightmost arrow looks like it could be showing the sunlight coming from the opposite direction you indicate, that is, consistent with the moon pigeon shadow.

Hi, Arbitrageur

well, look at this drawing:



what i said, regarding the direction of light, is at image no: 1

So you can realise:
the left part of the A rim (A-left) is a bit more bright than the horizontal adjacent terrain
the right part of A rim (A-right) is in shadow, together with most of the inside part of the crater
the left part of B rim (B-left) is brightest, because light hit more close to perpendicular the rim.
the right part of B rim (B-right) could be a bit in shadow

now look again at the moon landscape (moonscape?), and you can see most of the craters just doing all of this things.



on the image no: 2 , i drawed a situation where B rim is tottally in shadow... in this situation in fact the length of the shadow is much more extended beyound the crater size ... not the case here.


on the image no: 3, is the situation were we have only singular rims (or domes) casting shadow.
the left part of C rim (C-left) is brightest.
the rigfht part is only shadow.
no other detail.

Therefore, in our landscape, in this situation, we must have only domes and NO craters, in order to accept the direction of light consistent with the "UFO" and it's "shadow"..Armap said the same.



If we take in consideration the much more normal situation with a landscape with craters, then, the real direction of the light is what i said.... which put the "UFO with shadow" to the "image artifact" category.

Ok?




[edit on 21/4/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 21/4/10 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

edited to add.....

ok.... i c it now..... nice explanation

but how can one verify that i.e. the post by jra.....

edited again to add.....

just got a response from them.......

Thanks for your inquiry. We checked with the Photo Lab and it was confirmed that no images have ever been edited! Hope this information will meet your needs.

I'd normally be skeptical of a claim like the one jra made, however, I witnessed the image being changed, (I think Armap did also, and certainly some others in that thread did) and jra's post soon followed the change, so if it's a fabrication, it's a darn good one. I don't think it is.

I would suggest you reply to NASA's reply with something like this:

"Dear Sir or Madam,

Thanks for your reply, but could you please re-check your records? This is the photo that was edited using a cloning technique. The cloning is visible in the thumbnail showing an edited version of the photo appeared on this NASA site:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f1df59b0d3e.png[/atsimg]


The edited photo was being discussed on a message board and a member of the message board stated that they e-mailed NASA about the edited photo, and the photo was replaced with an unedited photo. Here are the before and after photos downloaded from the NASA link:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3beebee6255.png[/atsimg]

Perhaps you can check your records and see why this photo was edited on the date shown.

While these photos have been edited to show the change NASA made, the original edited photo can be provided to refresh your memory if you so desire.

Please advse."

It's well documented, I saw them change it on the date shown, so if they deny it, they are liars (or just keep lousy records of changes, or both).

Originally posted by depthoffield
If we take in consideration the much more normal situation with a landscape with craters, then, the real direction of the light is what i said.... which put the "UFO with shadow" to the "image artifact" category.
Ok?

I understand your arguments and I can see that as one possible perspective. I can also see another perspective. I just don't know for sure yet.

If I knew the coordinates, I'd look up other imagery of that terrain to understand it better and then I could decide more definitively. But I don't know the coordinates.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I don't get it.

"So what?", I would say to Exuberant and easy now, et al.

That one Apollo 11 image, and it is "hiding" what, exactly???

Are some of the NASA 'deniers" resorting to grasping at straws, now?


As to the panels that covered the LM, on the S4B...the Astronauts had a limited view, out their windows. The spacecraft was rotated, during transit, the "rotisseri effect" to even out the Sun's heating.

I think it's perfectly valid for the crew to ask Mission Control about the items they spotted, to ascertain WHAT they were, and whether they were jettisioned incorrectly, and threrefore posed a hazard.

Really, some ATS'ers are poking through minutae here...they seem almost desperate. When there is usually a very prosiac explanation, when viewed in context. (*)

(*)'context' means, research OTHER than online, too.....

reply to post by mcrom901


Haha, nice one.

Hey, how about I post another potential prosaic mundanity (UFO) for us to look at.

This one appears to be above the lunar surface with it's shadow beneath it on the lunar surface near the rim of a small crater:

Edit:

In the same image I also found this strange thing protruding out over a craters edge. It caught my eye:

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I don't get it.

"So what?", I would say to Exuberant and easy now, et al.

That one Apollo 11 image, and it is "hiding" what, exactly???

After all the claims that NASA didn't edit images, somebody finally found one that was really edited, and anyone who looks at it can see that it was cloned, and quite poorly I might add.

jra claims that NASA claims that it was a scratch repair, but the image without the cloning shows what they were "hiding", some rocks.

Why they would hide rocks is beyond me, so maybe they weren't really hiding anything, and it really was a scratch repair, but this was a DAC image so there had to be adjacent images they could use that didn't need repair. And if it was a scratch repair, how did they manage to replace it with an unscratched image so quickly? So the NASA explanation provided by jra is less than completely satisfying.

Exactly why NASA edited that image, is unknown to me. Somebody at NASA knew at some point but who knows if the individual that edited the photo is still employed there or not?

great find, there is a usual practique among officials to sensorship out the background in space photos, so you dont see any weird object

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I would suggest you reply to NASA's reply with something like this:

thanks.... but i never wrote to them in the first place.... with that quote i was just jokingly pointing out a potential example....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
jra claims that NASA claims that it was a scratch repair, but the image without the cloning shows what they were "hiding", some rocks.

and what about the colour change

The photo lab has provided us with a “cleaner” version of the photo that isn’t as yellow

hmmmm...... what is the colour of the astronauts??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As to the panels that covered the LM, on the S4B...the Astronauts had a limited view, out their windows. The spacecraft was rotated, during transit, the "rotisseri effect" to even out the Sun's heating.

rotisserie effect @ 3 revolutions per hour = "limited view"



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I think it's perfectly valid for the crew to ask Mission Control about the items they spotted, to ascertain WHAT they were, and whether they were jettisioned incorrectly, and threrefore posed a hazard.

reply to post by mcrom901

hmmmm...... what is the colour of the astronauts??

The outer layer of the EVA suits is white.

Why ask?

Is there some lack of understanding about film, and light 'temperature', in terms of photographic color reproduction?

I mean, this is pretty basic stuff, for people who comprehend such things.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by mcrom901

 

Haha, nice one.

Hey, how about I post another potential prosaic mundanity (UFO) for us to look at.

This one appears to be above the lunar surface with it's shadow beneath it on the lunar surface near the rim of a small crater:

cheers buddy... thanks for posting those images

but does it matter whether prozac is the source of such mundanities?

In the same image I also found this strange thing protruding out over a craters edge. It caught my eye:

oh, i'm familiar with that one..... the tlp occurred just after the editing...

[edit on 21/4/10 by mcrom901]

reply to post by weedwhacker

easy....come on....

THAT YouTube video?

Clever editing, and spin to get the reaction one wishes.

Come on!

ATS members are NOT that gullible, give us some credit, or else, you are just insulting us.

so weedwack you flip out if i add Catherine Coleman's UFO audio clip to a video but when absolute 100% proof of NASA editing their images is posted all you have to say is...

"So what?", I would say to Exuberant and easy now, et al.

ROTFLMAO !

BTW....Aldrin has already, many MANY times (and verified by other sources) confirmed that they were seeingthe panels fromt the Service Module.

verified by other sources ?

i think your just making that up

you shouldn't post false information

reply to post by easynow


yeah....see the title of the video...

...so weedwack you flip out if i add Catherine Coleman's UFO audio clip to a video...

Posting (or as you have seemed to admit, now....ALTERING) audio, and posting that in a video that is labeled as regarding the Apollo 11 "UFO" sighting?

Yes, I call you on that. I would think any reasonable person would, as well.

It is a mis-representation, and is bogus. It is disingenuous. You know it, I know it, and most who aren't gullible enough to fall for it, know it.

The exclamation of the female SHUTTLE Astronaut? OK, let's discuss that, IN CONTEXT....but NOT as related to Apollo 11.



[edit on 21 April 2010 by weedwhacker]