Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

reply to post by ArMaP

Did you altered that video?

If you did, is this going to become a new trend, lying to try to show that other people have lied?

considering that another ATS member could have posted something he knew was a lie, something that is a reason for being banned from ATS.

with what you posted recently ^^, i think it's kinda obvious what's up

at least it's obvious to me anyways.


NASA Moon Bomb - Ranger Probe Impact



[edit on 21-4-2010 by easynow]

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by mcrom901
sarcastic mirroring of a few edits back and forth would sound more correct.... in which case i never said anything about nasa..... anyhow, you left out translating the emoticon in your question

That may be the idea, but you can see that the result was that people believed in you and Arbitrageur lost some time because of your "sarcasm", but I'm sure he will forgive you.

Edit: I forgot to say that I hate misunderstandings, that's why I always try to clear doubts like this one. I also suggest that you should make your sarcasm more visible as such, to avoid more cases like this one.

Yes thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding Armap.

And mcrom901, I did see the laughing emoticon but I thought that meant you were laughing at NASA's reply, not that it was a sarcasm indicator. One of the problems on ATS is that sarcasm is often taken seriously so I've noticed some people have used sarcasm tags like [sarcasm] this is sarcasm[/sarcasm] just to avoid any confusion

Anyway I have no anger about it, but I did completely misunderstand and thought what you posted was true, I'll think twice before assuming that in the future.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by easynow
with what you posted recently ^^, i think it's kinda obvious what's up

at least it's obvious to me anyways.

And you're probably wrong once again, as you have been every time you assume something about what I am thinking.

When I want to say something I say it, the Portuguese are not a subtle people.

Keep searching for UFOs and leave the mind-reading for those that know how to do it, me not included, obviously.

In a classic, nice shot, why wouldn't NASA clean it up for magazines, etc? It's not a crime to clean up photos.

I am constantly amazed at how monumentally stupid people think the folks at NASA are. They blur out images, but miss spots, and it's terribly noticeable. They release some photos with "ufos" and towers and all sorts of stuff, only to edit them later.. "Oops.. our bad!"

Imo, if they did not want us to see something in an image, we would not see it. If a photo had alien technology on it, it would NEVER see the light of day.. EVER. To think it would be released badly edited imo, is laughable.

Originally posted by fleabit
If a photo had alien technology on it, it would NEVER see the light of day.. EVER.

Maybe....

But consider that the worst thing that is going to happen is someone like me will get ahold of it and post it on the internet along with a couple lines of speculative commentary.

The world economy will still be tanking, 36 million Americans will still be on foodstamps, Arabs will be still hit with air strikes, and the anomaly on the internet won't make a lick of difference.

reply to post by Exuberant1

I agree, but I think they (whatever "they" may be) could only be sure that they were safe after making a test to see people's reactions.

If this is what really happened, I wonder what that test may have been.

another interesting example of NASA modifying images found by "chellow"

Apollo 17 Taurus-Littrow modified image?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ad64dda1237.jpg[/atsimg]


see the additional enhancements and replacements here...
easynowsufoblog.blogspot.com...


does this evidence lend more credence to the idea that the picture posted in the Op of this thread was cleaned up and the anomaly was removed ?

yes i think so

reply to post by easynow


I don't think so, a photo with so many marks on it (they look like the result of bad handling or processing) shouldn't be used as an example, that photo was really needing a replacement, but they could have replaced it with something better, like the photo from the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth available here (just click on "request" to get a bigger photo).

PS: the original photo is still available on the priceless Internet Archive, here.

PPS: Nice find.

Not much to add because you and I both know how well informed you are on this subject, I do not believe we have to wait for much longer before the truth starts spilling over. Thankyou for providing such a great thread.

reply to post by ArMaP

they could have replaced it with something better

maybe, maybe not,
can you prove that's what happened ? i doubt it




reply to post by franspeakfree

thanks franspeakfree, i think the truth is already obvious because the people in charge are doing everything they can to avoid putting humans back on the Lunar surface. some people will say they don't want to go back because we've already been there but i think it's because NASA would be caught in too many lies. i'll leave it at that , thanks again

Originally posted by easynow
maybe, maybe not,
can you prove that's what happened ? i doubt it

I know that English is not my natural language, but I thought that the sentence "they could have replaced it with something better" didn't implied that something happened, so how I prove that something did?

And what?

I was only saying that the photo on the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth is better than the one they have now on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

reply to post by easynow


Hey Easy,

So the official sites pulled their images once you posted that latest material on your blog?



...then you are being watched. The blog is anyways.




[edit on 26-4-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by ArMaP


sorry ArMaP, i thought you were implying something did happen.

thanks for the links






reply to post by Exuberant1


not that Apollo 17 image, they pulled that one after "chellow" posted it here on ATS. the one that got pulled shortly after it was posted on my blog was the Moon hoax article...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

guess they didn't want that one paraded around huh ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/20c11b33b1d8.jpg[/atsimg]

the full size image (2880x3600) can be downloaded here (6mb)
www.sendspace.com...

the "sendspace" file in the opening post had the 2880x3600 image but has expired so i uploaded the picture to "imageshack" for anyone who would like to see a larger version. ( "imageshack" would only accept 2580x3225 )



here is the link - img405.imageshack.us...








i also found a possible UFO in this Apollo 12 image. ( # AS12-48-7101)





larger image - i27.servimg.com...




link to original - history.nasa.gov...

134:05:59 Bean: Hey, we got a nice brown Surveyor here, Houston. Even the tanks which were...Well, (if I) raise the visor and it's not so brown, but it's tan. The glass (a mirror/radiator used to keep the TV cool) is still on the top. Not a bit of it is fractured.

134:06:12 Conrad: Yeah.

134:06:13 Bean: Amazing. Okay. (The formerly blue Surveyor) shovel is a gray. Take the Surveyor scene here. I don't want to kick any of this dirt up because I'd like to get a picture of compacting of the dirt there.

134:06:24 Conrad: Yeah.

134:06:25 Bean: It's going to be a tough shot.

134:06:27 Conrad: That's "photo TV sector: f/8, 15, and three". Now I have (reading) "photo scoop imprints: f/8, 5, two in stereo".

134:06:37 Bean: Okay. Wait. I'm not finished yet. (Pause)

[Al takes AS12-48- 7101 to 7104, starting at the scoop and working back along the scoop arm to the area of the Surveyor TV camera. Dave Byrne has assembled a portrait of the scoop arm.]

134:06:47 Bean: Boy, that color chart has sure changed colors these days.

134:06:49 Conrad: Okay.

134:06:50 Bean: Let me get a quick shot of it. About eight feet and I'll shoot it.

source - history.nasa.gov...

a funny story on the Apollo 11 Moonwalk video,


i posted this video segment from the NASA Press Briefing on youtube a couple weeks ago and the original hour long video that was on the NASA youtube channel was deleted. i wonder why ?




link to the deleted video that was on the NASA channel www.youtube.com...


why would they delete that video ?

Is it possible that these pictures were modified to show a UFO? just a thought

reply to post by d00d557


I think you already know the answer to your question.

Amiright?

Edit: I Starred your post Broski.