My Questions:

Q: How long do you think it would take for the dust to collect on it like it's shown?

Q: Do you think there'd be some scaring to the pristine moon dust after tossing it that far? (note that the footprints aren't very close)

Q: Did he toss the darker one (above on the photo) too?

Thought... it's possible that these parts are from one of the earlier craft that would've visited the area. Many unmanned probes were sent to the Moon... often to the very areas that we had manned missions (this goes for the Russians as well)... Many probes didn't make it (crashed on the surface)...

I highly doubt it was our astronauts and I'll bet that NASA would tell you that it was parts from earlier probe missions...

All valid points. However, to answer your questions:

1)could the dust be so thick as to be disturbed when the object was dropped causing what seems to be years worth of dust to fall back on it(reaching, I know)?

2)it looks to me like the first object(as copied in my last reply) was only a foot-length away from the closest footprint(maybe a foot and a half). Therefore, it being dropped straight down would be possible.

3)I'll have to admit. I haven't studied the second object too carefully.

The idea of it being from earlier missions also sounds probable. I DO like the thought of it being an ET belt buckle though.

After looking at the second object, it's hard for me to tell where it lies in relation to the first object. Also, the resolution on the second object is poor.

I agree. Considering so many odd things on the suface in so many places... And these astronauts were highly trained observers... Odds are that they weren't taking photos of just nothing... Even if it was unconsiously...

I had to copy up a layer or two and then adjust the contrast levels..

Using 'multiply' on the above layers... Standard operating procedure on 'thin' negatives/scans of prints

I wonder why these objects would escape the normal "tampering"? Especially the first object. Which can be clearly seen.....and at such close proximity to where one of the astronauts had been standing. Strange indeed.

There were approximately 20,000 Hasselblad photos taken during the missions to the moon...

Might be the same reason we don't see some things because we aren't seeing all the details of the original --- the assumption is that in order for an airbrush artist to work over an image, it would have to be printed large (small poster or bigger?) and then worked on --- then a new picture taken of that one --- of which that negative would be considered the 'original'...

This way the resolution of the airbrush (pretty good when used by a gifted airbrush artist) effects on a large scale image that would then be shrunk back down to a negative would conceal many inaccuracies.

This is precisely a technique used with Photoshop... blow it up, make the changes, crunch it back down, sharpen it up a little and ship it... no-one knows the difference.

I've been professionally using Photoshop since before it had layers or history and I'm still amazed at some of these cats out there - their skills and techniques are out of this world!

Oh... and on the topic of Photoshop, I doubt anyone even had so much as a crystal ball guess that 30 years later, the power of digital editing would be in the hands of mere mortals.

On the topic of the assumption that all (or the super vast majority) of things have been airbrushed out / burned or dodged out, etc. etc....

Consider this (I may have posted something along this line earlier):

::: Form Follows Function :::

The housing around a giant damn generator has a shape due to it's function - which might be temperature control, shielding, cost, etc. etc. Before generators, we had no need for the housing around a generator, so therefore it had no form - in our minds or in reality.

Let's say that Aliens or Humans are on the Moon and they have a need for X ... the form of X will take on a shape appropriate to the function of X. Well.. if we (us mere mortals stuck here on Earth) have no 'function' on the 'Moon' (e.g. housing appropriate to the climate, solar energy generation, you name it) then when we look at the Moon, our only frame of reference is our own expertise and our experiences (historically speaking) of the 'forms' around us...

I don't mean to talk in circles here... but in other words, we don't know what X would look like on the Moon if we never had a need for an X here. Example: Solar wind radiation antenna. What if the shape of that is a collection of small spheres, of any color, but of a specific size and material - and they are placed at a wavelength distance apart from each other, say... a grid of these a half mile apart?

Nothing like it here, so when you and I are looking at the Moon (photos of the Moon), I doubt we'd pick up on this very large structure (construct) --- especially given the fact that we never do see a 1:1 resolution image of the original negatives from the medium format Hasselblads.

Add my (and many others') theory that 'they' picked up and left ages ago... and now it's all dirty, dusty, and pounced on for 500,000 years...

I gave up on trying to find factories, hangers, runways, etc... by the shape and form that I'm used to seeing them or that sci-fi writers and directors have envisioned for us (air locks, death stars, starships, etc.)...

I have been training my eyes to see that which does not look like the Moon's terrain around it. Then I sort through those for anything geometric that isn't on the scale of geology (remember, NO Mother Nature on the Moon to speak of)...

Hmmmm...kinda wonder why these astronauts would take a picture of just their footprints like that...maybe to catch the anomaly that is in the picture?

Hello dcman,

If you've been reading the conversation on this subject currently running in the "Did we land on the moon?" thread, you already know the answer to your question here. For those who haven't seen the other thread, though, I thought I'd post a quick explanation of the photo in question. Please check out the other thread, though, for a more detailed analysis of this photo.

This is an Apollo 17 photograph, and it shows a partial boot print left by astronaut Jack Schmitt. The pattern in the soil is the exact shape and size of the tread on the bottom of an Apollo lunar overboot. Even better, a gentleman named Dave Greer solidly confirmed this in a thread over at the Education Forum after he did a bit of really nice research and found a photograph of Jack actually in the process of making the print:

AS17-145-22158 (cropped)



And here's the print he left behind, along with some of his other boot prints. You can easily see the similarity in the tread pattern:

AS17-145-22169 (cropped)


The next frame on the roll shows an even better image of the boot print:

AS17-145-22170 (cropped)


If anyone reading this still has questions about this photo, I'd highly recommend reading through the Education Form thread I linked above. Mr. Greer has done an exceedingly good job of presenting all of the photo evidence to prove that this is indeed just a boot print.

I'd also like to point out that this example really shows why it is important for researchers to provide source data, like official image numbers, when publishing their work. Without the image number for this boot print photo, we'd have no way to know exactly what we are looking at and would not be able to verify the claim or solve the riddle. With the image number, though, we know exactly when and where this photo was taken. Other researchers can then examine the original photo on their own and can also check for other images or other data that may have been taken in the same area at a different time. That's the way science works. Anything less is not "research" and should be approached with caution.

Hello LunarSightings,

Are you claiming that this is another print similar to the boot print we've been discussing? If so, I'm afraid you're mistaken. You've used a low-resolution photograph and have seriously over-enhanced it. You're not seeing anything in that second image except overprocessed noise.

Here's a better shot of the same rock, cropped from a high-resolution version of AS17-145-22170:



The area where you see a pattern is just a shallow depression in the soil.


Edited to repair broken image link

Well, in a sense, you're basically correct. This picture (AS17-145-22169) is part of a 25 shot, 360-deg panoramic sequence taken by astronaut Gene Cernan at Geology Station 5 during the second EVA of Apollo 17. Here's an assembled version of the photos showing just about the full 360 degree view at that station (link).

The Apollo astronauts took a lot of photos like these to document the areas in which they were working. We flew these missions to study the moon, and getting a lot of good high-resolution photos of the surface is very important science work. We're doing exactly the same thing with our rovers on Mars right now. Even a plain old boot print in the soil can be an important little mini-experiment. I guarantee you that there are scientists interested in photos like this one because the prints can tell them useful things like how deep the dusty top layer of soil is, how well the soil sticks together when compressed, what color the deeper underlying soil is, etc.

If you or others here want to find out more about any of these Apollo photos, please take a look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. If you navigate down to the image library for each of the missions, you'll find high-resolution scans of just about every photo taken on the moon along with detailed descriptions of each shot and links back to the full mission voice transcripts. It's an amazingly cool resource.

Pericynthion,

Thanks a lot for the link to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, it is very interesting. However, also a bit surprising when browsing around. I was reading through the stowage list (yeah, I was bored) for the CM/LM for Apollo 13 and on page 11 I find the following items:

B 0101. 6 SEB40100134-201 SHEATH, MACHETE 1
B 0101. 7 SEB40100004-202 MACHETE 1

Does anybody know if they really did bring a Machete?! I can understand a knife to cut something, however, a machete seems a tad big to wield around. Or did I miss something

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hi Badeskov,

Glad you're enjoying the ALSJ. It's definitely a good place to visit if you have a few hours free for some light reading. I can't think of any other large-scale project in human history that's documented in such minute detail and so easily accessible to the general public.

This may be a good question for the mods to move to MID's Apollo thread in the Space and Astronomy section. He'll definitely have all the answers. In the meantime, I can tell you what little I know about it. Yep, they really did have a machete. I don't know many details other than that it was part of the survival kit carried onboard the command module. If there was an emergency, it was possible that the command module could come down on land somewhere, so the crews were trained in both desert survival and jungle survival.

Here's a picture of Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell using the knife during training at the Panama Jungle Survival School:



I also found this link to some images of the Apollo 11 survival kit on display at the National Air and Space Museum.

Regards,

Pericynthion

That's all any of these "anomaly" images are anyway.

Hi Pericynthion.

Thanks a lot for your prompt answer. Indeed, that link is a treasure trove of good information and I would most ceratinly agree with you: it probably is the most well documented project in human history and I doubt even Skunkworks or the Manhattan project was documented to the same extent. But it was also one of the most complex hitherto undertaken by mankind.

The Machete being part of their survival kit of course makes sense if they for unknown reasons end up in dense vegetation somewhere in the Amazon Delta instead of in their intended landing zone. It was just when I read it that item just stuck out like a sore thumb among all the other items But giving it some thought after you mentioned it, they should necessarily take something like that along!

Oh, and I have no doubt that MID could have come up with the same answer, and probably along with it a good measure of relevant anecdotes But I figured that you posted your link here so I'd pose it here as well

Best,
Badeskov

Can you offer the source of your high-rez version please?

The ALSJ version of 22169 is only 3 inches wide (at 300dpi) -- that's the one I was working with..
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22169.jpg

The LPI version in high-rez of 22169 is, as usual, non-existent:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/f...?AS17-145-22169

Nor is 22170 that you supplied:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/f...?AS17-145-22170

And Keith's website doesn't have those two either...

They have apparently both been ordered:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/byfilename.html

So.. the question is, why would you have (personally?) such an awesome, high-resolution version of 22170? It's a rather unremarkable photo except as part of the series of the panorama:
http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-17.html

ADDITIONAL COMMENT ADDED AFTER POST: I don't want access to the high rez versions, I am just curious about where/how it came to be.

Here in lies the problem.

Where did the rock go?



Using just the image above, prove that I took that rock out. You can't. Well, only the most talented could get close enough to offering that it was PROBABLY tampered with, but with these resolutions, saved as JPEGs, there's a 99.9999999999999% chance that no one can say, for certain, without seeing the original that there was once a rock there. Especially if there are no other photos of the area... especially of different angles. The fact is, give me half a day, three different angles, and I'll still make it disappear.

Here's the original - BUT!!!! - it doesn't exist... so you can't use it in your analysis of the the one above.



There was a day that photo lab developing specialists could easily (I know from experience) modify an image using an enlarger and the good old burn and dodge techniques - not to mention 'dupe' machines and the ability to mask in from another, similar photograph.

The only modification possible from burning or dodging would be to either 1)make the rock appear darker to blacked out(burning-assuming the printing is being done from a negative) or 2)make the rock lighter to non-existent(holding-also assuming the print is from a negative). Neither of these methods would give you what is seen in the top photo. I printed in a darkroom at a photo lab for over 5 years using these very techniques. Not trying to star a fight or anything. Just offering my two cents.

Perfect! That's what I'm looking for! So, as people read along (now in it's 12th page) some need to know what CAN or COULD be accomplished BEFORE they believe that photos have been modified (conspiracy believers) or that the photos have not/couldn't/no reason to modify them (conspiracy disbelievers).

The fact that (other) photos can and have been modified, through various techniques, is 'a given' although those techniques aren't always known.

It's high time someone shows or describes in detail what can/could be done given time, materials, talent, and if necessary the money. That way these two sides (believers vs. non-believers) can stop spending their time debating beliefs and look at the images without prejudice.

Please continue... did you ever have any assignments where two or more photos were used in a lab setting to make a final print?

These pictures created quite a stir for some time:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...AS15/M/1037.jpg

http://keithlaney.net/ApolloOrbitalimages/...6-118-18957.jpg

http://www.keithlaney.net/Apollo-digs/Apollo-digs1.htm

A closer look at the object as seen from a sectional enlargement reveals that what we are seeing in the center is in fact
very similar to the tiered angular structure shown on the first set of images.



This object is not as highly elevated, or on a "platform" like the one shown on AS8-13-2225, and of course this one sits in a crater which is larger by 9 km. Nevertheless, the similarity of these features is remarkable. Most strikingly similar about it are the tiered layers. The object's shadow is cast over a depression and reveals its general shape on the surface behind it, much as the object in Magelhaens A's shadow does the same over the depression in front of it. As with the first structural anomaly, I applied bicubic and bilinear sectional enlargement to bring us in a bit closer for a more detailed look.

I estimate it also to be nearly four by three km. square at the base and close to two km. tall. Damage has been acquired over time on this one also, evident by the couple small impacts around it. The similarities of this structure to the one in Magelhaens A, which include overall estimated size as well as the geometric items lying nearby, strike me as being more than merely fascinating. I see an emerging pattern. I cannot help but to be observantly speculative and state that these do seem to resemble some degree stepped pyramid based complexes with associated surface structures, very much like many of the ancient monumental structures here on Earth.


http://www.keithlaney.net/ThreeArtificialS...Structures.html


...curious

While I agree that these "structures" DO look peculiar, I have to wonder" Why would such supremely intelligent beings build such places in an area where there are so many impact craters? Did they just not notice the ones present as they started building? Saw them but didn't think about it happening again? Maybe the moon once had an atmosphere like Earth's and the smaller objects burned up upon entry thereby saving them? It just doesn't make sense to build such "cities" in an area obviously under constant bombardment from above. ESPECIALLY in the center of one of the biggest craters in the area.

For me, I think I would need more concrete proof than this picture. Curious it is though. Perhaps JAXA will provide soem answers.

This one is very strange; it kind of reminds me of a crop circle like formation.

http://www.keithlaney.net/ApolloOrbitalima...s12-51-7485.jpg

I was digging around for Russian photos of the Moon and found an interesting crater with interesting shapes that appear clustered.

This is the small version:



Large version with arrows (1.6 MB)

Link to the 'original'... from Don P. Mitchell Homepage - Venus, Soviet Space History, Computer Graphics, Science, Etc.

It's another one of those high resolution JPEGs... so, scientifically speaking, this conversation goes no further with those of you that require uncompressed film grain resolutions - so don't bother.

Even so... the clustering of the objects is interesting. It's easy to imagine a mining operation or something along those lines.

Thanks for posting.

This one borrowed from ATS and the Soviets


Soviets Found Something ....

Hi guys

Recently I found a site with high-res Soviet moon images on. (to check them out go to this thread: Soviet Moon Images )

After finally getting some time to look through them myself I came across a strange object in a photo taken by Lunokhod-1. I have marked it in red but it pretty much stands out for itself:

Cropped Image

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Luna17_Horz12.jpg

I believe that there are extra-terrestrial life forms, but I don't believe they are inhabiting our moon. Because if they were, why wouldn't they come to earth and communicate with us? Obviously, if they can travel through space, they would have the intelligence and curiosity to come and meet us.

well, many theorys say, that they Are communicating with us now. and have visited us before.

Here is a pretty good directory with evidence that image tampering is done on images released from NASA:

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidenc...g-directory.htm

Some more on color tampering:
http://www.libertythink.com/totalinformation/BlueMars.htm

And an even better one, with evidence so clear from NASAs mistake of putting the same image at different servers with different colors:
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm

And a cool pic of Mars North Pole:

Golf Ball on Mars?



Source: http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/fullres/divided/m15012/m1501228a.jpg

Can anyone tell me how big that orb like structure is?
Specs: http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m15012/m1501228.html

The fact is our goverment does not want to realese any photos from the dark side. I fully believe there are struckures there they will not share with the public. It is such an insult to us to be told they have (no) eviedence of this.

That photo was probably taken at Augusta National of Tiger Woods 5th hole 2nd shot where he landed in the sand trap. Now, is Tiger Woods a Martian?

The structures appear to be abnormal, non-Euclidian, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours.
Great cities of titan blocks and sky-flung monoliths, all dripping with green ooze and sinister with latent horror.
My god...man, my dear god....it's Cyclopedian!

For the skeptics in this forum and resident debunkers please fix your attention to the following book written by non other than Ingo Swann once described as
the greatest natural psychic this side of the western Hemisphere who has worked for pretty much every top secret govt agency you can think of including the CIA, NSA and DIA!

In his 1998 book Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy, Swann describes his work with individuals in the U.S. government who study extraterrestrials, his remote viewing of a secret E.T. base on the dark side of the moon.

The book is out of print and can set you back upto $3,000.00 to get a new copy but there is a bootleg version online which does not have Swann's Remote Viewing sketches of what
he described on the far side of the moon.

http://www.4shared.com/file/24727411/74975...epathy.html?s=1

URV

That was a joke, right?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Regular impact crater.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited to remove image in quoted text.

What?! There has been plenty of pictures from "the dark side" of the moon, which is not dark at all. And, surprise, there are no hidden structures. NASA has had photographic missions there, ESA has had photographic missions there, the Soviet space program had probes there and JAXA (the Japanese Space Agency) has a photographic mission there. Can you tull us who exactly is hiding facts from you?! And especially images of artificial structures?!

By all means of respect, but there is nothing on the lunar surface that is remotely artificial to the best of our knowledge. It is a dream and while intriguing, it remains just that - a fantasy. Rather, why not marvel at the lunar surface which in itself is truly alien and quite spectacular as it is without having to invent ancient alian structures.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Do you see me laughing ?
Read the book before assuming everything that does not conform to YOUR view on certain things is a joke. You will earn more respect that way from your peers here in this forum.

Do you know who Ingo Swann is ?
Have you ever read any of his books?


URV

No, Badeskov was right, this is a joke. cus' i'm laughing.

Do you always laugh at stuff you know nothing about ?
Either debate the post or move on quickly to a commedian thread and allow
others who have something intelligent to say about Ingo's book to comment.

Ive Got no time for lame debunkers.

URV

And i have no time for johnny one star lightweight fantasists.

lol in otherwords youve got nothing to say or add to the debate as i suspected.
come on be a man, admit you know NOTHING about that post or Ingo Swann or bothered to read the book.
when you do have something intelligent to add i will be hear waiting to debate you in an adult intelligent manner.

URV

Well, this particular thread is not specifically about any one book (Mr Swann's or any other). If you want to debate this book, please start another thread.

Also, and this applies to everyone, let's please keep the discussion polite/civil.

ok, I'll come back here when I can actually find something intelligent to say about Ingo Swann.

No, I have never read any of his books, but since we have plenty of images basically from all over the moon and scientists working with them aren't actually screaming out loud about alien (or other) structures there, I think I will pass on the book. In my honest opinion, a huge bunch of scientists saying nothing is there or a lone psychic (yes, I do not buy int psychics either) saying otherwise, well, it should be obvious who I would be inclined to believe.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I guess that means goodbye for good in this thread, then

Cheers,
Badeskov

Yep still lookin' To quote somebody famous.......''I could be gone for some time''