Photos of Alien With Astronaut on Moon

[geneftw]

http://www.lunararcheology.org/station2_taurus.html <br /><br />btw...more than 97% of ALL Apollo images are NOT available on-line and remain hidden from easy public viewing. See:<br /><br />http://www.keithlaney.net/project_free_the_apollo_images.htm

 

[telfrow]

It's been done, gene. <br /><br />See This thread.<br /><br />Poster apollomissions is, IIRC, the author or administrator of the site. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[telfrow]

And, BTW, you need to re-read the Laney article. 97% of the images have not been converted to a digital format. (From the site: <i>"Of the 27084 total mission photographs, fewer than 650 are digitized faithfully."</i><br /><br />Every shot from every film cassette is available for public viewing. See The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal or Lunar and Planetary Institute. <br /><br />Pretty easy to find. (A quick "Google" will do it.) Readily available for public view. Nothing is "hidden." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[geneftw]

"It's been done, gene. <br /><br />See This thread. "<br /><br /><br />Well, I'll be!!<br />The most convincing thing I saw in the article was the boot prints. It's past time for me to go to bed, so I just skimmed quickly through the posts 'till I found a response to that photo. I don't agree with y'alls explanation of that being a partial boot print. It looks like a full print to me.<br />Anyway, when I get time I'll read that thread, so I don't guess there's any need for you respond to me any further on this matter at this time...<br /><br />As far as ALL Apollo pics goes: I don't know. I didn't see umpteen jillion thousand (or whatever) photos. I'll look more tomorrow or some time.

 

[apollomissions]

Gene – Telfrow says it’s been done. <br /><br />From my perspective this is true and it’s not true. The referenced thread is meant to be ongoing. One cannot rush a presentation like this, or apply too much pressure as for many people it will require time to acclimate. Some will, some won’t, and some already have.<br /><br />I have discussed the Apollo imagery situation with Keith Laney on a number of occasions and we seem to be in agreement on certain aspects of this most complicated affair.<br /><br />Telfrow has stated – “Every shot from every film cassette is available for public viewing. See The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal or Lunar and Planetary Institute.”<br /><br />As I recall the ALSJ contains most, if not all of the 70mm Hasselblad frames taken on the lunar surface as well as some of the orbital images from the Hasselblad magazines. A majority of the 70mm frames as presented in the ALSJ are purported to be direct scans from the original film at medium resolution. Many are in fact scans of printed photographs which have been subject to alteration/censorship. Most of the purported high resolution or HR images appear as having been subject to an even higher degree of censorship than the medium resolution images. <br /><br />LPI does have a comprehensive thumbnail index of the 70mm photography as well as the Fairchild Metric Mapping frames from 15, 16, and 17. Unfortunately they were produced by stop frame shots of printed photographs (using a camcorder) and are of an extremely inferior quality. (LPI may be in the process of upgrading these images. I haven’t checked there lately)<br /><br />As far as NASA website availability of the Panoramic or Metric images is concerned. It is nonexistent in any real terms. Nor to my knowledge is there any 35mm Nikon or 16mm movie film available.<br /><br />Telfrow – in case you haven’t seen it, you might want to look at the link to Station 2 provided by Gene at the top of the post as it has been revised in the last month or so.<br /><br />

 

[tomnackid]

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen here!

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Many are in fact scans of printed photographs which have been subject to alteration/censorship. </font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"more than 97% of ALL Apollo images are NOT available on-line and remain hidden from easy public viewing."<br /><br />Does not surprise me. There are more than 17000 hand held still images, 15000 fixed frame orbital camera image and hours of cinematography and video. Apart from the video footage, the images are in either positive or negative transparencies. There are without exaggeration miles of photos. Digitally scanning all these and putting it on line is a non-trivial task. But it is being done.<br /><br />However, the photos are not "hidden away" any more than books are hidden away in a library. They are accessible in Houston for anyone who wants to view them, whether for scientific, historical, or artistic purposes. Lots of people do.<br /><br />Despite the claims of a few there is no evidence of tampering, censorship of the images in any way. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[apollomissions]

tomnackid – “This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen here!”<br /><br />am – There is nothing at all stupid about this topic. It involves some very complicated issues. At the top of the list is- understanding how the public was insulated from the shock of the discoveries made during the early space program. You are apparently unaware that such a scenario did occur. <br />

 

[telfrow]

As "conspiracies" go, it's a fairly lousy one. <br /><br />You still have access to all the surface photos, and the "doctoring" is so badly done that you're able to use those same photos to find aliens, alien footprints, charge-flag-UFOs, etc., etc.,....<i>ad nauseam</i> <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[apollomissions]

Telfrow- I read your comments. <br /><br />Fair warning is given.<br /><br />About a year ago one commenter voiced his dismay in reference to the statement made at the following page: http://www.lunararcheology.org<br /><br />At that time the poster seemed a bit agitated.<br /><br />If you have a spare moment you might want to give it a glance.<br /><br />Regards, am<br />

 

[geneftw]

The stupisest thing I see here at SDC (and I see it frequently) is people vehemently disagreeing with an issue, yet being unable to articulate any reasons for their opposition.

 

[tomnackid]

Well, I thought the stupidity was self evident, but here goes...<br /><br />So the thesis here is that Apollo astronauts went to the moon and cavorted with alien astronauts wearing spacesuits almost, but not quite exactly, identical to Apollo spacesuits. And furthermore everyone involved with Apollo has kept this secret for the past 30+ years, except that someone at NASA accidentally released a photo of one of the alien astronauts peeking out from behind a boulder. And we "know" he is an alien because the shadows on his spacesuit look different from the shadows on another Apollo space suit. Oh and that he "has" to be only--what was it? a meter? two meters? tall because someone measured the angles in the photo and got that result. <br /><br />Is that pretty much it? Yes, now that I see it written out like that it all makes perfect sense...NOT!<br /><br />This lame "conspiracy" makes the "Apollo Was a Hoax" crowd look almost downright sober and respectable! You can post any crazy ideas you like here, but I can respond by pointing out how crazy they are.

 

[Leovinus]

BTW, I saw a picture of an alien riding a space shuttle during liftoff. Curiously enough, he/she/it was wearing a suit that looked like but was not quite the same as an orange NASA flight suit that our astronauts wear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Don't forget they were wearing boots with a tread almost, <i>but not quite</i>, identical to the ones worn by Apollo astronauts. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Fair warning is given.</font><br /><br />Fair warning? What the heck does that mean? Someone going to egg my car because I don't see aliens and conspiracies behind every rock? (Bad pun intended)<br /><br />I read it. I've looked at your site. And I haven't changed my mind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[apollomissions]

The response of <b>tomnackid </b>(as seen above on this page) is a good example of many people who wish that their voice be heard in the public forums but do not possess the requisite skills. Often, such individuals are poorly educated, display inferior social behavior, and have little to no self awareness of their deficiency(s).<br /><br />The referenced link presents a number of discrepancies between the appearance of the unknown individual and that of a U.S. astronaut. Those discrepancies include but are not limited to the helmet area in general, the upper helmet area, the camera on Schmitt as opposed to the unknown device, and the boot print data. <br /><br />Mr. Kid avoids addressing any of these issues.<br /><br />In lieu of an analysis Mr. kid invents nonexistent data then <i> rants </i> and <i> mocks </i> incorporating words such as <i> conspiracy </i> and <i> hoax </i> intended to evoke a slide reaction.<br /><br />Mr. Kid presents as an unknowledgeable poster mimicking an almost clone like, empty blog as is commonplace in some of the less discriminating boards.<br /> <br />And, as such, I find his comments irrelevant.<br /><br />am<br />

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Appollomissions -</b><br /><br /><i>"The response of tomnackid (as seen above on this page) is a good example of many people who wish that their voice be heard in the public forums but do not possess the requisite skills. Often, such individuals are poorly educated, display inferior social behavior, and have little to no self awareness of their deficiency(s)."</i><br /><br />Instead of one of your usual personal attacks on any member who's viewpoint isn't in lockstep with your own; why can't you just post some real evidence to support your "Little Green Men" hypothesis.<br /><br />The rest of your post is mere hysterical ramblings and vague generalizations which do nothing to support a viewpoint that space aliens were ever on the moon. <br /><br />Can you provide any evidence whatsoever to convince me that this is something more than a ridiculous religious belief that only exists inside your head?

 

[CalliArcale]

Frankly, I find your post to be condescending and a very good example of what you're complaining about. In fact, your post is barely on the side of what's allowable here. It definitely exploits the logical fallacy known as an "ad hominem" argument -- that is, in lieu of attacking the argument, you are attacking the person (ironically, while complaining about the other side doing precisely that).<br /><br />Word of advice: that's probably not a good way of endearing yourself to other people, and it definitely weakens your side. Most readers tend to conclude that if the poster must resort to insults, it is evidence of a lack of better arguments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I looked at the images and it looks like the top of the PLSS pack to me. The right side cropped out so that the shape could not be fully observed. If there were an alien behind the astronaut (I'm assuming thats what its supposed to be) Where did the PLSS pack go?<br /><br />The reason so many images supposedly have not been <br />seen is that the public at large lost interest in human space flight after Apollo. An enormous amount of human spaceflight history is available for public research, much of it at NASA sites.<br /><br />If one does not believe the public lost interest, ask yourself how many movies, TV shows with sci fi and UFO themed space subjects are available (Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, Close Encounters...etc), and how many about the actual human spaceflight program are there.<br /><br />Appears the actual human spaceflight story is not as dramatic as aliens who happen to be on the moon with our boys! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[geneftw]

When I first saw this article on another message board, I responded:<br />"The "different suits" don't impress me. I can't tell the difference. <br />The "unknown device" doesn't mean anything at all to me. There are a lot of devices I've never seen.<br />The "different boot prints" don't impress me either. You would expect all NASA space suits to be identicle, but different boot tread really isn't very alarming.<br /><br />Ho hum..Yawn....<br /><br />OOH!! Wait a minute!<br />There's a picture that shows the two different boots in the same frame, and those boots are drastically different in size!!!<br /><br />One possible explanation: <br />A Cub Scout came along for a merit badge.<br />or<br />The astronaut's baby sitter cancelled at the last minute."<br /><br />This was after a cursory view of the article, but to me, that picture that shows that one boot is twice as big as the other is the best (but not the only) evidence. I'm really not interested in debating this thing. The evidence is given in the article. It's not a very long article, so I don't see any need to quote it. You either believe it or you don't, or you simply choose, for whatever reason, to deny it. <br /><br />I've learned something over time that's been illustrated once again by Cali's and Harmonicaman's posts:<br />Here at SDC, if you believe in stuff that the mainstream won't acknowledge, it's OK to flame and insult others, but if you do believe in that out-of-mainstream stuff, you're considered out of line if you confront those who insult you.<br /><br />

 

[geneftw]

I got wun mor thang ta say:<br /> (This post gives...uhm....vague and circumstantial(?) supporting evidence (I guess), and addresses that goofy and offensive practice of name-calling.)<br /><br />I absolutely do believe in UFOs (craft from elsewhere). It is my belief that most people who do not are ignorant (NOT a derogatory term). Those who are not ignorant simply find them hard to believe in (which, in my opinion, is a sign of ignorance in matters of things such as statistical probabilities, elements in the universe, etc.), so simply choose not to. Then there are a few who either believe they exist or KNOW they do, but have reason to say they don't.<br /> <br />If you do not necessarily believe they exist, but concede that they might, then you have to also concede that it is possible that they might have walked with us on the moon, that they might have made something out of Iapetus, that they might have built stuff on the moon and on Mars, that they might make crop circles, that they might abduct people, etc.<br /><br />If a person (such as me) runs across evidence (As stated in another thread, do not confuse evidence with proof.) of such things, he cannot be considered to be stupid. Whether that person is correct or incorrect, he is not stoopid simply because you do not agree with him. When I was young, I thought people who believed in God were stupid, but now I have enough sense to realize that although they are incorrect (my opinion), they are by no means stupid for holding that belief. <br /><br />So, please: Show a little respect for people. It's up to US POSTERS to keep these boards civil and pleasant.

 

[telfrow]

Thanks for removing the last line of that post, gene. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

The fact that you say you "believe" makes your whole argument moot in the first place and reduces it to a religious argument of "us" against "them". <br /><br />I have nothing against the idea of alien beings traveling the universe--hell I was a SF fan probably long before you were born I bet! I have no a priori believe for or against alien spacecraft--I just have yet to see any credible evidence. The big problem rational people (no offense intended--meaning people who don't have belifes) have with ufo-ology is that any evidence sits atop a huge tower of unfounded assumptions. Pull any one out and the whole tower collapses. <br /><br />Take the "aliens with the Apollo astronauts" scenario presented here. Not only do you have to assume that aliens exist and can travel to earth (a big assumption in the first place), but you have to believe that they have been keeping their existence a secret all this time, except to certain government agencies (and apparently only US agencies). You also have to assume that they run around on the moon in suits that look almost exactly like Apollo suits except for a few details (Even Russian and Chinese suits look markedly different from US suits--hell even US shuttle suits are immediately distinguishable from Apollo era suits!) Also, that everyone in NASA involved in the moon landings has been able to keep this secret for more than 30 years, except that somehow they were incompetent enough to let actual pictures of aliens cavorting with Apollo astronauts leak out. This is just a tiny sample of the assumptions that have to be true for this scenario to be real.<br /><br />Against this is the assumption that light, shadow and perspective on a world with no atmosphere and that is 1/6th the size of Earth can play tricks on your eyes. Especially if you are not used to analyzing photographs and make silly assumptions like the surface of the moon is completely flat and devoid of humps and dips (which the measurements that "prove" that the "alien" i

 

[apollomissions]

Calli- I read your comments as well as those of harmonicaman. I think it best to wait a few days before I reply.<br /><br />am<br />