NASA's Anomalies above the Moon - UFOs captured on film during the Apollo Program

The film that starts at 1.35 showing the orb which descends towards the moon is awesome and reminds me of the film taken from the space shuttle showing several orbs passing by the shuttle before creating a shape just above the earths atmosphere, recorded by Martin Stubbs and released to the media in UFO Magazines Smoking Gun videos.

Looks more like normal debris/ice/particles to me, believing them to be alien spacecraft is quite a stretch.

Originally posted by Turiddu
Looks more like normal debris/ice/particles to me...

as it always does with you...

do you have ANY finds you can post here to prove me wrong with what i just said about you?


I bet you don't

reply to post by Turiddu


You sir are correct! Nothing but debree and ice particles. Nice little kinky music, slow shots, and you get your're little video posted on a website like this and people saying 'hey this could be legit." Next.

those are some big dust/ice particles, and that one that changes course, didnt know ice or dust can do that in space.
true a few can be credited to ice/dust but how do explain others, and that pole like thing sticking out of the ground? on the moon? ideas?

Originally posted by MwAk3n
those are some big dust/ice particles, and that one that changes course, didnt know ice or dust can do that in space.

Uh, just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it can't happen -- especially in a field which you admit knowing nothing about.

You guys are throwing up such a blizzard of 'false positives' that any genuinely important sightings have been lost in the noise. Your claims based on junk, photo anomalies, ordinary if unearthly events, and just plain confusion have discredited anyone else trying to make any claim of similar source, no matter how well documented.

And it's possible that this is exactly what somebody wants.

reply to post by JimOberg

Uh, just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it can't happen -- especially in a field which you admit knowing nothing about.

Uh Jim incase you forgot you've never been to the Moon so one can imagine there's plenty of things you know nothing about. if by chance you do happen to have an explanation for the A12 object why not go ahead and give us the details or is debunking by proclamation the only thing you know ?

any genuinely important sightings have been lost in the noise.

same old line time after time but you won't ever go on record and say which cases are important

why is that ? perhaps maybe it's because you are unable to recognize the signal ?

Your claims based on junk, photo anomalies, ordinary if unearthly events, and just plain confusion have discredited anyone else trying to make any claim of similar source, no matter how well documented.

not true at all, if someone has credible evidence it will stand on it's own despite any other discussions whatever the case may be.

And it's possible that this is exactly what somebody wants.

it's also possible "somebody" doesn't want anyone discussing this subject

Nice video.
Even if it's debris: It's worth showing. The most importand fact is that they are not fake. there is a difference.
Even if it's debris: We can learn from it, recognise and memorize it so the next time you see it, you will know what it is.
You will know what a drop of water can do on a window, filmed out of focus. Or specs of dust.
Learn what a weather balloon looks like, or venus.
So when you get lucky to see a real one...You'll know and won't be fooled.

reply to post by Morrel



you keep repeating ... it's debri it's debri ... but yet you can't identify ANY of it as such

so what can we learn from that i wonder ? hmmmm...

So when you get lucky to see a real one

what does a "real one" look like ? do you know ? have you seen a real one ?

Professor J. Allen Hynek - photographs UFO from Airplane


en.wikipedia.org...

Allen was aboard an airliner when he suddenly noticed a white object at his altitude, seemingly flying at the same speed as the plane. He made sure it wasnt a reflection and he convinced himself it must be some faraway cloud with an unusual shape. He pulled out his camera to see how fast he could snap pictures. In all he took two pairs of stereoscopic photographs and gave it no more thought.

Picture of UFO taken by J. Allen Hynek

The photographs themselves appeared in a book authored by Hynek and Vallee in 1975, The Edge of Reality. They may or may not be of a flying saucer, but they are certainly not clouds. The importance of stereoscopic photographs cannot be overemphasized. Such a camera is of outstanding evidentiary value. Hynek, in effect, had captured a possible Holy Grail on film.

Full Image



keyholepublishing.com...
dbarkertv.com...
www.cohenufo.org...

Some of this forum dont even believe they went to the moon, others believe they went and were warned off by aliens, some think they went and saw UFO's, some think they went and dont believe they saw UFOs.

I believe we went, I dont beleive we saw Aliens but I can believe these are UFO's and were spotted and obviously filmed.

The fact these things dont act aggressive, intelligent, interested or anything but are just there caught on film is enough for me to say that sure its intersting, but its nothing extraterrestrial or intelligent, UFO's yes, ET and interesting to maybe be a coverup or find, i dont think so.

When will we ever get an answer to these videos!?

My guess is it's one of the following...

1.swampgas
2.chinese lanterns
3.weatherbaloon
4.Nibiru
5.Annunaki
6.HAARP
7.LHC
8.NWO
9.reptilians
10. (11:11)
11.freemason
12.iceparticles
13.debris
14.satellite

Untill we are certain ill just call it a UFO

reply to post by easynow


I followed the link provided by JimOberg, that's why I called it debris. Anyway, if it's some metallic object that's being filmed, there are not a lot of options right? It's debris or an other object that is worth an investigation

so what can we learn from that i wonder ? hmmmm...

What you can learn is recognise things that can be explained, thus, saving you time to investigate more interesting data.

Actually, my post was in reply to posts like Turiddu's , who seems to think it's a waste of time to look at these images.
In reply to your question:
I've seen lots of UFO's = Flying stuff I can't Identify.
But I've never seen a spaceship.
Something is an UFO untill you can identify it, if you identify it as an alien craft, it's no longer an UFO

Originally posted by Morrel
I've seen lots of UFO's = Flying stuff I can't Identify.
But I've never seen a spaceship.

What if I tell you I have seen a space ship? No proof though!

If you see one, how would you prove it? Photograph it and it will be 'debunked'. Film it and you know what the reaction is likely to be I imagine. You could take a lie detector test but if you pass Jim would say you were probably mistaken or a delusional fool....

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

Originally posted by Morrel
reply to post by easynow

 

I followed the link provided by JimOberg, that's why I called it debris. Anyway, if it's some metallic object that's being filmed, there are not a lot of options right? It's debris or an other object that is worth an investigation

so what can we learn from that i wonder ? hmmmm...

What you can learn is recognise things that can be explained, thus, saving you time to investigate more interesting data.

Actually, my post was in reply to posts like Turiddu's , who seems to think it's a waste of time to look at these images.

Thanks for reading my link to that 1970 NASA study.

The moral of the story is that they thought, at least, it was NOT a waste of time to examine such images -- but it had nothing to do with any possibility of ETI contact. They were concerned then -- as now -- as to what clues such images could provide about space vehicle performance and malfunctions.

Here's another interesting Apollo picture that shows Buzz Aldrin posing for the camera and a possible UFO can be seen above the lunar surface. The anomaly does not appear in the newer versions of the same image.



Apollo 11 UFO Moon Picture - Lewis Space Center Archives # C-1989-4028

This first picture is from NASA's Lewis Space Center Archives, as you can see by the official labeling around the border (the image was cropped for presentation by NASA). note the fact that the Lewis archives use a DIFFERENT cataloging code number - listing this as frame # C-1989-4028 as opposed to the proper Apollo mission-magazine-frame# catalog designator of AS11-40-5875. This means that if you search for the Apollo frame# on Google looking for this specific frame, you wont find this official NASA/Lewis archive version, as it is labeled with an entirely different catalog code.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Cropped Image


Full Image


Larger Image Here - img405.imageshack.us...





Same Picture with UFO-Anomaly Missing

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) AS11-40-5875HR

link - www.hq.nasa.gov...




Same Picture with UFO-Anomaly Missing

Lunar Planetary Institute (LPI) AS11-40-5875

link - www.lpi.usra.edu...

Originally posted by easynow
Here's another interesting Apollo picture that shows Buzz Aldrin posing for the camera and a possible UFO can be seen above the lunar surface. The anomaly does not appear in the newer versions of the same image.

Easy, the C-1989 designation and format looks to me to be associated with a lithographic reproduction for PAO distribution -- millions of these lithos of tens of thousands of scenes were mailed out to kids and congresspeople and others over the decades from NASA centers all over.

The apparent explanation is some sort of production error in that process, not an original image somehow miraculously retouched on all other more-first-generation archives.

reply to post by JimOberg


Well of course that's certainly a possibility Jim but at this point i don't have enough information to make a decision so for now that one will remain a mystery. However it's obvious to me the ALSJ & the LPI versions have been altered because the sky portion in the images has been given a "hard black out" and i'm sure it's because NASA prefers to have pretty pictures without anomalies in them. A good example of that is the removal of the "Seahorse UFO" in the A11 image on page 1 www.abovetopsecret.com...


Also i think it's a bit absurd to believe nothing strange was ever captured in any of the thousands of pictures and images from the Apollo missions especially since the Transient Lunar Phenomena in fact exists.

LUNAR FLARE



Made by Dr. Leon Stuart, Nov. 15, 1953 at 01:00 UT. Lasted 8 to 10 sec. Also observed visually. Star images rather steady, no extraneous lights. Exposure: 1/2 sec. on E.K. 103aF3 plate. 8 inch f/8 reflector.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

"During the Apollo 16 Mission, astronaut Ken Mattingly observed strange bright flashes on the surface of the Moon as he orbited the Moon in the Lunar Orbiter. The "flashes" emanated from the surface of the Moon not lit by the Sun but by "Earth-shine". Mattingly was heard to remark "I'll be damned" before he reported his observation to Mission Control. Mattingly was given instructions to report immediately any similar events as he passed through the next orbit and preparations were made to investigate and explain the phenomenon. Sure enough as he passed over the same area of the Moon he observed two bright flashes coming from the surface but despite the fact that scientific instruments had monitored the event, no explanation was forthcoming.
However, NASA footage taken during the Apollo Missions does illustrate that "Unknown Objects" were not only seen but were captured on film. In one instance a bright flash is seen on the Moon's surface just as an unidentified object approaches from the left and passes over. In another instance a large, seemingly circular UFO positioned close to the Moon was caught on film."

source - www.thewhyfiles.net...

Here's another similar looking anomaly in AS11-37-5456

Enhancement Credit LunaCognita

www.lpi.usra.edu...





And a possible UFO caught in this Apollo 10 DAC video


Apollo 10 - UFO on the Lunar Surface

More Apollo UFOs above the Moon

I don't think I've heard O'Berg's explanation for that boomerang thingy-ma-bob. I'd be interested in some possibilities since that is definitely a weird one....