alien presence on moon???

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">Let's see, Japanese send a probe on the moon (SELENE), then suddenly Japanese parliament members start to discuss about UFO's. <br /></font><br /><br />I have seen the alien...and he is strawman

 

[aphh]

* rock, or an alien mothership designed to look like a rock<br /><br />Somebody already pointed out that the "Apollo 20" footage has been made to mimic accurately the real actual location of that rock.<br /><br />Who would bother to spend significant resources to produce an accurate video? A viral marketer, ofcourse.<br /><br />Advertising, what?

 

[lsbd]

huh? you completely lost me there.

 

[aphh]

* I have seen the alien...and he is strawman <br /><br />Like I said, a more scientific approach would be more productive. The jokes just shy people away.<br /><br />I saw a UFO last summer, it was not a life-changing event, but a UFO nonetheless. <br /><br />We should investigate this phenomena also when we investigate other things.

 

[aphh]

* huh? you completely lost me there.<br /><br />There is a video of a "Apollo 20" mission on YouTube, that covers that spesific rock.<br /><br />Somebody took the time to investigate the video, and compared it to that actual NASA image of the rock. The video has been made to accurately mimic the location of the rock on the moon.<br /><br />It could be students with a bit too much time on their hands, or it could be made to advertise something.

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">It could be students with a bit too much time on their hands, or it could be made to advertise something. </font><br /><br />or it could be some "alien conspiracy", "govt cover-up" nutjob trying to "prove" the govt/NASA is hiding something.

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">The jokes just shy people away. <br /></font><br /><br />and the ridiculous "conspiracy theories" and finding alien motherships in every rock on the moon, detracts from actual evidence of real UFOs.

 

[aphh]

* nutjob trying to "prove" the govt/NASA is hiding something.<br /><br />Clearly this nutjob has access to resources, because the footage also mimics accurately the behavior of the Vidicon tube of the video cameras onboard Apollos in the 70ies.<br /><br />I wouldn't claim that the video still is not a hoax, but it is an elaborate one. Why? By who?

 

[brandbll]

I see it now, and this explains a lot! That looks exactly like that old experimental Soviet craft from the late 60s. It was the submarine spaceship they built named, подводн-корабль 1. It was a space ship that when it landed in the water it would convert into a submarine. The program was kept pretty tight lipped because it was a military project, and supposedly the craft was only launched twice. Speculation goes that on the second launch the подводн-корабль 1 had a significant power failure and the ship and all 80 of it's crew disappeared. After running some simulations with some different power-loss situations i can see that your "mothership" could actually be the lost подводн-корабль 1. This is incredible news. I'll e-mail my old professor at the university with your findings and see what he thinks. In the mean time you should start writing a report on how you discovered this, who knows how far this thing will go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* and the ridiculous "conspiracy theories" and finding alien<br />* motherships in every rock on the moon, detracts from<br />* actual evidence of real UFOs.<br /><br />Photographic evidence is something, that should be investigated, not dismissed instantly.<br /><br />Picture 2159 has an anomaly, other pictures from the same orbit show signs of patchwork done.<br /><br />This is not just a claim, but you saw the evidence backing the claim. The evidence is not conclusive, however, but this is what we have and not claim we have. <br /><br />We should not turn this into feces slinging here, where we are supposed to be a bit more investigative than perhaps on some other sites.

 

[lsbd]

apparently you have never heard of the nerdy, geek squad, living in his mommy's basement nutjob, the guy who has spent years looking at the lod NASA appollo footage. the guy who is a video geekatroid with the skills to mimic the old style film techniques. the guy who believe in aliens on the moon because he must.<br /><br />that is the kind of guy who does these hoaxes and he gets his jollies by scamming as many gullible people as possible into believing it.<br /><br />as I said....sometimes, a rock is just a rock.<br /><br />Occam's Razor.

 

[aphh]

* as I said....sometimes, a rock is just a rock. <br /><br />I am not a UFO theorist, you have the image 2159, it is a actual NASA image.<br /><br />What is the anomaly in the image and why does it not appear in the other three pictures from the same orbit?<br /><br />If it is a rock formation, why did they photoshop it away from the other images?<br /><br />We are not all basement ufologists here.

 

[yevaud]

I don't believe LSBD is calling you such - merely trying to sound you out on what you do and do not believe in this regard.<br /><br />We *do* get our fair share of the "woo-woo" crowd here, after all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">What is the anomaly in the image and why does it not appear in the other three pictures from the same orbit? <br /><br />If it is a rock formation, why did they photoshop it away from the other images? <br /></font><br /><br />let's see, something appears in one of four images from the same orbit. hmmm defect maybe?<br /><br />if it is an alien mothership, why did they NOT photoshop it away from ALL the images? why leave one? did they just leave that one "unaltered" <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> image to taunt the ufologists?<br /><br />you see, the burden of proof lies with the ufologist. and, unfortunately for them, most of us require more convincing evidence than some old, grainy, photoshopped images. Sorry charlie, but that's just the way it works.<br />

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">We *do* get our fair share of the "woo-woo" crowd here, after all. </font><br /><br />"apollomission" anyone? after reading page after page of how every rock on the moon is an alien vehicle and how aliens took pictures of the astronauts on the moon...one can see why I would be "skeptical" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[bearack]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>as I said....sometimes, a rock is just a rock.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I dunno if it's a rock or other anomaly, it just seems really out of place there. The Apollo 20 fly over though, seems a little hoaxy. There were letters smeared over the lens like a plastic overlay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

Thanks, <br /><br />but what I want to point out, that I am not a UFO theorist, but only interested in the anomaly in the image 2159, and also the fact that it does not appear in the other three images (that to me look photoshopped).<br /><br />The only explanation would be film or scanning artifact, but the features and blending in with the light and shadows do not suggest that immediately. There is clear anti-aliasing (actual blending in), which does not readily suggest imaging device artifact. <br /><br />So what is the anomaly in the image 2159?

 

[yevaud]

<i>So what is the anomaly in the image 2159?</i><br /><br />Sorry, not involved in this discussion. Merely popping in for a moment as a part of my Moderator functions. Not a lot of time for involved debates lately. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* you see, the burden of proof lies with the ufologist. and,<br />* unfortunately for them, most of us require more convincing<br />* evidence than some old, grainy, photoshopped images.<br />* Sorry charlie, but that's just the way it works. <br /><br />This is not a photoshop by me, but a actual NASA image: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS17/M/2159.jpg<br /><br />I can live with that, and also leave image anomaly in image 2159 at that for now. It was fun to offer such clear and pretty well-defined anomaly in the ORIGINAL material for you to evaluate, though.

 

[lsbd]

I still haven't seen anything in any of the images you linked..other than the very first one. could you maybe photoshop a box around what it is I am supposed to be seeing?

 

[aphh]

http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/struktuuri.jpg<br /><br />Pixel coordinates for the ORIGINAL image are X=791, Y=423. Hope it helps.

 

[brandbll]

Perhaps all of the crew from the подводн-корабль 1 weren't killed in the crash it had with the moon and were able to restart the ship. Where it would have moved next, who knows. The ship wasn't made to go to the moon, so the mere fact that it made it there apparently in one piece is amazing; let alone being able to take off again(if that is indeed the case. After all this is all speculation since we don't have physicaly proof that the object in your picture is indeed подводн-корабль 1) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* proof that the object in your picture is indeed<br />* подводн-корабль 1)<br /><br />[sarcasm]I think you just convinced me.[/sarcasm] <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />

 

[lsbd]

I still say it's a rock. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[aphh]

* I still say it's a rock.<br /><br />Then why did they photoshop it away from the rest of the three images from the same orbit?<br /><br />We will not find it out in this thread, I'm afraid. <br /><br />But the more I look at it, the more the light and shadows blend in correctly. What if the UFO nuts finally found something conclusive? I did not find that anomaly, I was given instructions how to locate it.