Photos of Alien With Astronaut on Moon

[apollomissions]

Leovinus states- “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.” <br /><br />am - Leo do you believe this was an authentic photo? If you do believe it was an authentic NASA photograph then you might consider seeking the advice of loved ones or even getting medical attention. I’m starting to worry about you. <br /><br />Take care, am<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Very interesting thread.... <i><b>very</b></i> interesting, indeed.

 

[Leovinus]

No need to worry. You just have to visit this link. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[apollomissions]

Leo states – “No need to worry. You just have to visit this link.”<br /><br />am -Thank god you’re ok. I’m so relieved. I was seriously considering lighting virtual candles and holding a prayer vigil for you.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">“I love the idea of a school in which people come to get educated and stay in the state in which they’re educated.”<br /><br />President George W. Bush – Waco Texas; August 13, 2002<font color="yellow"><br /></font></font>

 

[JonClarke]

"The big problem rational people (no offense intended--meaning people who don't have belifes)"<br /><br />The issue is not beliefs, everyone has those (even you!), but whether those beliefs are well-founded.<br /><br />Belief that Apollo astronauts visited the Moon is well founded. Belief that they met aliens in any shape or form is not.<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>

 

[provider3]

I carefully went through the material at the link and in my opinion the guy standing next to the boulder in that picture does not look like one of our guys. Not even close. The shoulder size seems too wide. The helmet is wrong. The camera isn’t the right camera. The littler boot prints don’t match up either. WOW!

 

[geneftw]

I didn't really want to because it rings so very, very true, but it wasn't exactly "civil and pleasant", was it?

 

[geneftw]

Tomnackid, <br />Now THAT'S the kind of post I like to see. Thanks.<br /><br />I disagree with your first sentence. The fact that somebody "believes" does not make an argument moot by any means. Thomas Edison "believed" he could make a light bulb. Albert Eienstein "believed" there may be something to that relativity thing. It's still a theory, but it's not moot. I "believe" someone may be messin' with my car. That ain't moot! I'd better go 'n' see.<br /><br />Jon raised the point about the substantiality of evidence ("Belief that Apollo astronauts visited the Moon is well founded. Belief that they met aliens in any shape or form is not."). Where do you draw the line where "substantial enough" begins? I personally do not feel that the evidence for aliens on the moon (Apollo 17) is very strong, but there is enough to give it a looksee. I was ready to pass it all of until I saw that photo that showed both boots in the same spot. Then I looked at the rest of it a little closer.<br /><br />You mentioned about the light and shadow and dips and bumps and stuff. One image comes to mind: The one where the alien(?) is standing next to a three foot boulder. Is he standing in a dip? Nope. look at the thighs.<br /><br />BTW: I was recently fooled by a sand dune in a Martian crater, and I'm not ashamed or too stuborn to admit it. I may be wrong about this Apollo thing, but right now, it seems to be worth a look. There are some alominies...er... amonilies...uhm...weird things that I'm absolutely convinced of.<br /><br />As far as UFO evidence: forget it, man! That's a whole 'nuther thread! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">You mentioned about the light and shadow and dips and bumps and stuff. One image comes to mind: The one where the alien(?) is standing next to a three foot boulder. Is he standing in a dip? Nope. look at the thighs.</font><br /><br />Gene:<br /><br />He was in a "dip." See AS17-138-21032 , AS17-138-210033 and AS 17-138-21039. You can find them on this page . An uncropped version of AS-138-21039 showing the slope and the "fall off" can be found here.<br /><br />Also see 20117199 and 20117201 here. <br /><br /> <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">I carefully went through the material at the link and in my opinion the guy standing next to the boulder in that picture does not look like one of our guys. Not even close.</font><br /><br />See this thread. <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]

Could be, could be. But I'm not convinced of that. He appears to be standing close enough to that boulder so that he's not in that dip.<br /><br />There's still those boots, though. That does not look like a partial print.<br /><br />For me, the strongest point FOR is that boot print, and the strongest point AGAINST is, "Why would these photos be released if...?"<br /><br />Are the suits different? It's hard to tell, but the one on the alien(?) does not look as bulky.<br />http://www.nasm.si.edu/GALLERIES/ATTM/la.a17.1.html<br /><br />

 

[telfrow]

There's a rather lengthy discussion of the effects of the camera lens used, the distance from the photographer, etc., near the end of the other thread.<br /><br />As for the boot prints, look at the "neighbor" print. There is debris in the middle of the boot treads, and what appears to be a rock or rocks near the "toe." The boot did not make complete contact with the lunar surface. <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]

Here's a crop of the "neighbor" print that shows the debris and the rocks or rocks near the toe. <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]

An explanation for the smaller boot print as seen at Station Five has already been given. This is why at the beginning of the thread I had asked you to review the revised web page Gene has linked to. Your explanation doesn’t wash. The below text is copied from the website.<br /><br />“A few tenuous explanations have been proposed to explain the appearance of the non-U.S. boot print as seen in the Station 5 image (above) including: the astronaut tripping or stumbling, or that the print might be from equipment carried by Apollo 17 astronauts.<br /> <br />The radius and width of the neighbor imprint on the side closest the U.S. imprint (As seen in the Station 5 photo foreground -above) is considerably smaller than that of the U.S. print. Even if the astronaut had complete mobility to rotate the boot in any direction while conscientiously attempting to produce what is being seen in the photo there is no way that a reduction in width, and a reduction in radius could be achieved and still produce the lateral uninterrupted ridge pattern.<br /><br />A review of the equipment carried by the Apollo 17 astronauts on theirs EVA’s, and at the ALSEP/ Landing Site as well, done by this writer, failed to produce any tool or device of a similar size or shape which could have produced the imprints in question. And, to date we have not heard any proposal of what that equipment or object might be. “<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "…Forward, the Light Brigade!<br />Was there a man dismayed? <br />Not though the soldier knew <br />Someone had blundered…”<br /><br />Lord Alfred Tennyson<font color="yellow"> <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /></font></font>

 

[telfrow]

I reviewed it. I just don't agree with it.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">...the astronaut tripping or stumbling, or that the print might be from equipment carried by Apollo 17 astronauts.</font><br /><br />That's not what my previous posts content, is it, AM?<br /> <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]

"...there is no way that a reduction in width, and a reduction in radius could be achieved and still produce the lateral uninterrupted ridge pattern. "<br />-----------------------------------------------<br />It always amazes me that people who are not involved in aerospace or probably even any kind of science or engineering--or who in all likelihood have never examined a spacesuit first hand or talked to an actual astronaut can make sweeping claims about what equipment and men can or can't do in space!<br /><br />The reduction in width can simply be explained by perspective. As a scientific illustrator and photographer I can say without reservation that the narrower footprint is more horizontal with respect to the film plane whereas the wider print is seen more straight on because it is on a very slight slope facing the camera. Also the reduction is length is beacuse--as others have pointed out--the entire sole of the boot is not always in contact with the surface. This can be because of rocks or hard soil. It can also be due to the astronauts use of the so called "kangaroo hop". Because of our earthly preconceptions we look at the astronauts in full gear and think "My god they must weight a ton! Every boot print must sink deep into the soil." In reality on the lunar surface the astronauts were light enough to skip around on the toes of their boots. Look at the videos. Jack Schmitt was especially enamored of hopping and jumping--so much so he fell!<br /><br />The measurements in the photos are totally useless (I used to work for a company that did graphics for courtroom use--those mesuremtns wouldn't stand up to 2 seconds of cros examination!) They would only be valid id the surface were a flat plain (which it obviously is not) and if you knew the angle that the camera was held with respect to that imaginary plain and what size film and what focal length lens was being used (which I assume IS know but wasn't specified.) Also the fact that it is a crop from a larger imag

 

[maxtheknife]

Tomnackid <font color="yellow"><br />The reduction in width can simply be explained by perspective.</font><br /><br />Uh, no. It can't. And spare me your expertise. I have lots of technical and pratical real life experience myself. For one, I own a machine shop. For two, I own a business in the microfilm industry. Lots of experience with photography. Perspective aint no different 'up there' than it is 'down here'.<br /><br />A similar point, complete with illustration, was made about a similar perspective issue quite recently in this thread. http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&Number=424186&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

 

[maxtheknife]

No matter how you slice it, the evidence is quite intriguing and worthy of further inquiry. <br /><br />To blow it off as 'stupid' would be scientifically irresponsible.

 

[Leovinus]

Then can you show me this alien in any other of the 1000s of Apollo photos returned. Or are you thinking that he just popped his head out for a single shot and then went back to his home planet? I'm not sure why you think this requires further study -- just ask the guys who were there. After they stop laughing at you, you *might* get an answer from them before they show you the door. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>No matter how you slice it, the evidence is quite intriguing and worthy of further inquiry.</i><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />A couple of poor photographs and two lousy footprints?<br /><br /><i>To blow it off as 'stupid' would be scientifically irresponsible.</i><br /><br />No, to waste resources on an investigation would be stupid and irresponsible. <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

No, but I can say with certainty that the small size of the footprint in question is not a matter of perspective.

 

[maxtheknife]

That's fine, Yevaud. You've wasted enough of your own time. You're free to leave. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Typical. Asking a long-term user to "leave" a public forum, because his commentary might be "inconvenient" for you.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Piece of work, you are... <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>

 

[tomnackid]

"Uh, no. It can't. And spare me your expertise. I have lots of technical and pratical real life experience myself. For one, I own a machine shop. For two, I own a business in the microfilm industry. Lots of experience with photography. Perspective aint no different 'up there' than it is 'down here'."<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Uh no.....<br /><br />1) I never said that perspective is different on the moon (except for aerial perspective of course.) You put those words into my mouth as a straw man argument. If anything I was arguing that photographic perspective works the SAME on the moon as anywhere else. 2 footprints near each other can appear to be different widths if one in on a slope facing the camera while the other is more horizontal. Its obvious the ground in the photo is very uneven. <br /><br />2) I'm not sure how owning a machine shop or making microfilms (on a copy stand with measured distances and perfect perpendiculars) makes you and expert in interpreting outdoor photography--especially on the moon. I'm not saying you aren't, but to simply dismiss me as being less qualified than yourself because my views don't agree with yours is very immature and doesn't speak well for your confidence in your "evidence".<br /><br />This whole "controversy" (to give it more credit than it actually deserves) revolves around this: Do you think that the evidence presented justifies the assumption that miniature aliens wering spacesuits almost, but not quite exactly like Apollo suits (Where are they from? How did they get here?) Conspired with NASA (How many people were involved? Hundreds at the very least. More likely thousands.) to meet and hang out with Apollo astronauts on the moon. And that NASA after keeping this secret for over 30 years accidentally let some photos slip out actually showing these aliens. All based on some photos of footprints on rocky ground and an astronaut partly in shadow.<br /><br />

 

[dragon04]

If it's not a photoshopped picture, maybe it was a gag by one of the astronauts.<br /><br />IIRC, Mike Collins told Neil Armstrong that he had no cojones if he didn't point off camera and "Shout MY GOD, what the Hell is THAT?!?!" and then start to scream and fall silent.<br /><br />The one thing that interested me about the picture the most was that the faceshields on both our and our "friend's" helmets are the same color. Is that like a universal fashion thing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>