THEY WALKED ON THE MOON,HERE IS THE PROOF!!

[altair4]

check this out!!

goto Google,type in : Apollo image atlas,Apollo15

this will come up with: Apollo Image Atlas,70mm Hassleblad Image Catalog

this will take you to the Lunar and Planetary Institute website

now go to: Magazine PP (AS15-90-12179 to AS15-90-12328)

now look at these images:AS15-90-12250(bright dot),AS15-90-12251(bright dot),AS15-90-12254(bright dot,RHC),AS15-90-12256(2 dots),AS15-90-12259(bright dot),AS15-90-12262(bright dot)AS15-90-12264(bright dot),AS15-90-12265(bright dot)AS15-90-12266(4 bright dots)

these images are not lens flare and have been spotted elsewhere,they are UFO phenomena and have been spotted elsewhere on earth(including myself!!,something I won't forget))...they obviously had some friends along the way!!!!!!!!!!!

WELL DONE APOLLO!!!!!!!!

Paul Leeks(New Zealand)

[JayUtah]

these images are not lens flare...

Agreed.

...and have been spotted elsewhere

Such as?

...they are UFO phenomena

So a white speck in a highly-compressed scan done 20 years ago in great haste and with poor equipment can only be either a lens flare or a "UFO phenomenon?" You can't think of any other process or artifact or occurrence that would result in a white speck in a JPEG?

As a control, I located a white speck in the sky of -12245, which you did not report, and consulted better scans of the same photograph, which did not reproduce the speck. Can you explain why some scans show white specks and others do not? Have you checked any other sources besides LPI's 20-year-old thumbnail scans?

[Ginnie]

Compare with higher resolutions scans:

history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-90-12254HR.jpg

history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-90-12265.jpg

history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-90-12266.jpg

The dots are gone!

I didn't bother to search for all of them. But they sure are a lot clearer than the LPI ones.
I find that just by Googling the AS # I in the IMAGE search 'm given good responses. You can also select the LARGER IMAGES option in Google to get the best scan.

Once, again - a post that shows that more research reveals more information. There is a tiny dot on the 2254 image. Hmmm... ;D

This is spotted in the upper left corner of as15-96-12256HR:

I think its the space child from 2001, though its kind of blurry.

[Data Cable]

ginniegatrit said:

I think its the space child from 2001

In which case I won't ask what the smaller blob to the lower right of it is.

[PhantomWolf]

Why can you tell a nut by the number of exclaimation points? I guess it goes to prove that Rusty isn't the only one down this way, perhaps we can export them to Oz....

[JayUtah]

In which case I won't ask what the smaller blob to the lower right of it is.

The constellation Foeces?

[reynoldbot]

it looks more like evidence of bird crap on the moon.

[tedward]

For me its a lot more than poor copy of an image, back to UFO's later. Its the whole package. I watched the first orbit and landing and as much as I could whether recorded or live after. I still tune in to the shuttle launches as my work and time allows and follow the station when it passes overhead. Watching the shuttle catching up is great. As a kid I was going to be an Astronaut and go to the moon. Firmly of the belief it happened.

Then in later years I started to get an inkling of people not believing it happened. First instance of the "oh no they didn't" argument and I was sort of stumped. Still believed it was capable and aware of the radiation issues etc but needed backup. My science and encyclopedia books I used to get for christmas as a child didn't cover it all. Some were just eye candy anyway. So long story short, after a bit of research all the pieces were back in place. Sites like this provide excellent and informed information on the various aspects on the subject. Also books, which I prefer to the net, provide a superb source of information.

So, no one piece of info, although I might argue rocks over pictures, its the whole package as I said earlier.

With the internet as many peoples friend and in many cases the sole source of info, I am very skeptical of their claims. Pictures are great and I love perusing the libraries and think they are superb as an indication of proof but many find "anomalies" without understanding the reasons. I still have to get my head around claims to try to understand what some of the claims are. Not an expert on imaging but an amateur I should add. I like photography and have a telescope. They fit together and I get many poor shots with anomalies in if you wanted to look at it that way. Personally I think the anomalies are messed up shots seeing as I was there when they were made, some would find a UFO or some such oddity. I also need more practice but its digital so no film wasted.

UFO. Whilst I do firmly believe they exist but only as the term UFO is meant to be. Not little purple blokes in cigar shaped whatevers. One of the reasons I doubt claims is distance. Its a heck of a long way to anywhere in this arm we occupy let alone the rest of the galaxy. That means time and effort and resources to get anywhere. Now, unless there are technologies that have been pinched from Cap'n Kirks time, its a very long and expensive undertaking to go and say "HI" to your neighbors that happen to live in a swamp and no one will believe them. Acceleration and deceleration limit what you can achieve depending on your physiology. You spend all that effort and generations to get there and only manage to crash. Makes you wonder. And what if you got there only to find all the red buttons are worn out? When you set off you were getting radio transmissions from them but they stopped when you were nearly there and its a radioactive tip. Wasted trip if it takes all that effort and time.

Try radio instead? But then you need to get something intelligible to the target. Maybe alien semaphore by holding a large sheet infront of whatever sun you orbit.

I would also like to know why UFO's appear now? Why not yesteryear? How about 65 million years ago? Maybe it was a virus from a sneeze from an alien that wiped out the large leathery things?

[BertL]

altair4 said:

these images are not lens flare and have been spotted elsewhere,they are UFO phenomena and have been spotted elsewhere on earth(including myself!!,something I won't forget))...they obviously had some friends along the way!!!!!!!!!!!

How exactly does the claim "there are UFOs in the photographs", hypothetically assuming it is true, prove astronauts walked on the moon?

[echnaton]

You know, I can see faking those 3000 or so moon photos, but to fake a blob like that? It looks similar to all the UFO photos I've ever seen. ;D

[Ginnie]

echnaton said:

You know, I can see faking those 3000 or so moon photos, but to fake a blob like that? It looks similar to all the UFO photos I've ever seen. ;D

One things I was surprised to find though was the difference in quality between pictures at the Lunar Surface Journal compared to the Lunar and Planetary Institute. I'll know where to go first for Apollo pictures in the future...I like how LPI organizes them better though.
As to the blob - I don't want to guess what it is. I hope it's not coming from the 'space child' ! ;D

[JayUtah]

LPI images are meant to be comprehensive, quickly accessible thumbnails. They are unsuitable for any content-based photographic interpretation. They were made mostly as a convenient catalogue reference for those who wanted to order a photographic copy, which would then be the actual basis for research. They were scanned hastily back in the 1980s using equipment not entirely suited to the task. Later scans are meant to depict the content of the photos as accurately as attainable under the circumstances. The high-resolution photographs at ALSJ and other archives are suitable for some interpretational activities.

[Trinitrotoluene]

I'd go one step further and say the only place to use is eol.jsc.nasa.gov/. The scans there are a lot higher in resolution than ALSJ and have had no post processing work done on them. www.landingapollo.com/apollo.php is the fastest way to find an Apollo image (my site).