Alien Anomalies

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

RE: In Search of "Truth's protective layer"?

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

I have just had a look with a farly powerful magnifying glass at the image shown above. Without zooming in, I am amazed at the quality of the detail showing. This kind of quality cannot be realized using digital zoom in the graphic program I use.

If you have a magnifying glass, have a look and you will see things that I believe not even NASA or any of the other scientific or educational institutions know about. If they do know, they have been keeping very quiet about it.

goggog · Teaching the truth

Timewarp пишет:

goggog, что ваша изменения изображения рассказать нам?

I think that imposing

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

As the image above was resized by Photobucket, here is a crop of the centre section.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Here is some of the detail showing up in the negative version of AS17-134-20513.

I believe this evidence confirms there is an active tiny species living on the moon and from observing the large number of faces, the species has a human-like appearance.

I wonder what the astrobiologists around the world will make of this?

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

goggog, what does your alteration of the image tell us?

goggog · Teaching the truth

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

TW, thanks for the info.

Slight correction to previous post, the reference should read AS17-134-20513.

Here is a cleaned up and enhanced section of image AS17-147-22523HR.

Take note of the detail on the hills in the background.

thewatcher · Veteran Member

OOPs forgot the vid

thewatcher · Veteran Member

2 Birds 1 stone Apollo 17

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

RE: In Search of "Truth's protective layer"?

thewatcher · Veteran Member

fruitnut1 wrote:

In fact I was not the discoverer of the anomaly at hand mainly the case of the vanishing rover in the Apollo 17 mission. see Jack White's Apollo Studies

However I have been able to confirm it by extensively studying the Valley of Taurus-Littrow imagery available. Here is the LEM vanishing from the left.

-- Frutty

Fruit, can u not understand that the second image was taken behind the LEM and to the left? Common man this is pretty basic.. qmatoo explained it clesarly too . No matter how many times u flip the image it wont change whats going on lolol. It only emphasises the point. This is really odd. walk behind the LM and stroll to the left and take the picture. Hell, the rover is pointing in the direction where it would be driven on start up, behind and to the left of the LM,

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

In fact I was not the discoverer of the anomaly at hand mainly the case of the vanishing rover in the Apollo 17 mission. see Jack White's Apollo Studies

However I have been able to confirm it by extensively studying the Valley of Taurus-Littrow imagery available. Here is the LEM vanishing from the left.

V-2HQEQO52dEvQPNIbLqSKjB6gzJ5seSj_rt0806m1nudJXCz3eN5q9cdi1TCydU5noiux67Nh7J690Sz02oJJVawg=s512

-- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

The white arrows at point B are smaller, closer together and therefor consistent with the picture being taken from further away. This is why the lunar module comes into view. Why can't you see that?

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Frutty wrote,

<< Just wanted to make sure you are acquainted with earth landscapes that show the features you pointed at previously >>

Yes, there are many places on this planet where anthropological shapes can be seen. If one looks closely at the image you posted of the Havasupai cemetery these facial formations can be seen carved into the rock faces. Clearly the indians would not have carved these features, but it is possible that a species from another world could have made them. I notice that some of the heads display the unusual cranial protrusion which has been established as a feature only found in martian artwork.

Frutty, do you have a reference for the cemetery image?

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Here is an examination of the slopes in the background as shown in the context image. Please look closely at the second and third images as the detail cannot be seen clearly in the first image. The image is a positive and the color saturation has been reduced.

The image reference is AS17-134-20429HR

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Hi! "watcher of the truth", watch this truth. smile

In his Report "Moon Fakery-3" Mr J.P. Skipper analyzed a fake montage of an astronaut riding the Rover on the Apollo mission At Hand, mainly Apollo 17. His poignant report opens up with this image, which contains point B, D and E, which have been disussed extensively below.

When compared with the image of the LEM for that mission, it points again to the strange and yet to be solved

CASE OF THE VANISHING LEM (PART II)

-- Frutty

thewatcher · Veteran Member

fruitnut1 wrote:
Watcher. As you say only by the camera angle moving around the landing site would points B, D and E still be visible. However the rotation of the camera can be discarded because the shadows cast by both the astronaut as well as the LEM, have the same direction (see animation below).
This fact (that both objects, the astronaut and the LEM are casting a shadow exactly in the same direction) can only be explained by a linear approach of the camera, which in the image showing the LEM makes impossible for points B, D and E to have been captured.

-- Frutty

Im getting a bit lost on what u gys are saying.. Theres a header stating Vanishing LM??? 2 different shots of same location pointing at same mountain range in the background! No anomalies in that as I have explained.

Not only do the mountains etc move around but the LM itself comes and goes as well. Below are three images by way of examples: namely AS17-134-20448, 134-20416 and 134-20513.

The background moves slightly. Due to diff posistion of astronaught / photographer. Difierent locations give rise to diferent focal points. Narrow field of view is cutting otheR subjects in location. A Wider angle would ease ur fears smile

Fruit says
Watcher. As you say only by the camera angle moving around the landing site would points B, D and E still be visible.

Nope.. Not just the angle whats also critical is the position/location of the photorapher. Image below shows full panoramic..

You can see the LM in the distance. So my point states shots of LM etc are shot towards same background but diff locations as shown in you cycling of images.

soT6WbfHadjGqYrkRVeMMRATf4xyp5D-nwYyxLVxgliG6EPM9YK9wYaCuNxEXOYsWkk4jhmyMBP124R40-kEj44uhQ=s512

I see you trying (fruitlessly, excuse the pun) to match up ground structures in both locations. This isnt really the most convincing way as youre cycling and cross fading. This for humans allows us to associate 2 un-aligned un-related objects from 2 diff locations , giving an animation effect. Its impossible to use this method without exact angles or little or no movement of objects on ground when images are switched. Your images cross fades but incompletes the cycle allowing structures from both images to be seen in final sequence, lasting a second or so. This is gives the illusion of similar positioned structures in same location in 2 shots.

Also I'd read up on multiple vanishing points in perspective to understand shadow behaviour. It will help in future investigations. Its important!

Cheers

TheWatcher of TRUTH

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

When considering orientation of the Apollo images we have to be careful. I say this as it would appear that we are dealing with images that were captured in two different locations. It would have been far better if NASA had kept quite about the images captured on the film set, then we would only have the virgin photographic material to contend with.

A major task is to try and determine which of the images were captured where. There is only one real way to achieve this and that is to examine the texture and features on the terrain. There is no way that the texture of the material used on a film set could ever match the texture of the terrain on the moon.

Frutty,
Please can you supply a reference for the image of the Havasupai Indian Reserve Cemetery?

thewatcher · Veteran Member

goggog wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:

The vanishing LM

Not only do the mountains etc move around but the LM itself comes and goes as well. Below are three images by way of examples: namely AS17-134-20448, 134-20416 and 134-20513.

AS17-134-20448 top, 20416 and 20513

Originals
AS17-134-20448.jpg

AS17-134-20513.

AS17-134-20416.jpg
source :
Аполлон-17 библиотеки изображений

My post was in response to this entry.
Cheers

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Though I perfectly understand the point you try to make you are avoiding my point yet watcher.

I will try to be more explicit:

In the first picture an astronaut with a little scale model of the LEM is playing judiciously, while the “real” LEM shows far right of the aforementioned astronaut, very very far behind. Right?

Ok.

In the second picture the aforementioned “real” Lem is shot in First Plane, casting the shadow in “exactly” the same direction as the frolicking astronaut right?

So between the playing astronaut shot and the LEM shot a LINEAR ZOOM should have been made. No matter if the mountains in the background are on the other side of the moon, it’s physically impossible for points B, D and E to have still been captured.

-- Frutty

thewatcher · Veteran Member

It's quite simple once u let go of. Ur pre-conceived ideas.
This a very simple but effective example..

Imagine ur driving on a long straight road with distant mountains on either side. Ur traveling at a constant 60. Now turn ur head to the right and admire those distant mountains. Every few yards a sign post whizzes by. Say a hundred yards apart. Now you guys are working with stills. So, I take ashot of a sign post with mountains in background. At the next post, a hundred yards down the road, I take another shot. Now using our god given common sense, have the mountains, many miles away, moved? Not really. If I just kept driving all the objects in the fore ground, posts, signs, homes, bins etch, would be passing quite rapidly but those good old mountains would be still in my vision. They move slowly. The distances in ur images to the mountains are considerable

TheWatcher

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Awesome Goggog.

I think F is the same “morphed” crater too, though I have no way of proving it.

Watcher. As you say only by the camera angle moving around the landing site would points B, D and E still be visible. However the rotation of the camera can be discarded because the shadows cast by both the astronaut as well as the LEM, have the same direction (see animation below).

This fact (that both objects, the astronaut and the LEM are casting a shadow exactly in the same direction) can only be explained by a linear approach of the camera, which in the image showing the LEM makes impossible for points B, D and E to have been captured.

soT6WbfHadjGqYrkRVeMMRATf4xyp5D-nwYyxLVxgliG6EPM9YK9wYaCuNxEXOYsWkk4jhmyMBP124R40-kEj44uhQ=s512

-- Frutty

goggog · Teaching the truth

thewatcher wrote:

Hmmm .. Check the distance from LM to base of those distance mountains. You guys afe completely forgetting how very distant objects work in respect to the viewer. You forget that objects in foreground move further than distant objects. In fact object miles away barely move. There are many anomalies with regards our moon but alas this is a red-herring! One can move around the landing site and still background will only move very slightly!

TheWatcher

As think: in the top picture the mountain is further, or in the bottom picture

thewatcher · Veteran Member

Hmmm .. Check the distance from LM to base of those distance mountains. You guys afe completely forgetting how very distant objects work in respect to the viewer. You forget that objects in foreground move further than distant objects. In fact object miles away barely move. There are many anomalies with regards our moon but alas this is a red-herring! One can move around the landing site and still background will only move very slightly!

TheWatcher

goggog · Teaching the truth

goggog · Teaching the truth

fruitnut1 wrote:

The vanishing LM

Not only do the mountains etc move around but the LM itself comes and goes as well. Below are three images by way of examples: namely AS17-134-20448, 134-20416 and 134-20513.

AS17-134-20448 top, 20416 and 20513

Originals
AS17-134-20448.jpg

AS17-134-20513.

AS17-134-20416.jpg

source :
Аполлон-17 библиотеки изображений

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Alright alright Timewarp I I hear you I hear you lol smile

Just wanted to make sure you are acquainted with earth landscapes that show the features you pointed at previously

Take it easy

-- Frutty

P.S> No nasa.gov references please, not for me at least.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Frutty wrote,

<< Timewarp you already know I seriously doubt that mankind has ever set step on the moon as they would have been fried alive bi the radiation beyond The Van Allen belts. >>

Frutty, I have read your comments. You have to understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether or not man stepped foot on the moon.

Without disclosing my association with the space industry, I can assure you that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did complete their mission to the moon. Also, the industrial technology was well developed in 1969 to achieve this.

It is also well known that the President at the time commissioned Stanley Kubrick to film a parallel version of the lander on the moon and 'astronuats' stepping foot on a film set but these astronauts were agents of the CIA. This has been well documented and information can be gathered from many sources.

It's very true the van Allen belts pose a serious problem to astronauts and other space travellers, but not that serious as can viewed at the link below.

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Timewarp you already know I seriously doubt that mankind has ever set step on the moon as they would have been fried alive bi the radiation beyond The Van Allen belts.

But just to show you those features you show are common in the Arizon deserts , I would like to attach an image taken on near the Arizona Canyon so you can notice the similarities.

Havasupai Indian Reservation Cemetary Grand Canyon.jpg

Havasupai Indian Reservation Cemetery Grand Canyon

-Frutty

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Here are two images of the image shown at the start of this thread. They are in the negave as the surface detail cannot be analyzed clearly in the positive.

The first image is a wide context view with rectanle inserted. The second image shows the area contained within the rectangle.

Analyzing the detail closeup, it would appear that a race of 'little people' is in existence on the moon. In another thread on this forum, I produced information and images that led me to believe that a tiny species is living on Mars. Many have probably dismissed this theory as they would want to hear such information from the NASA scientists. Of course, this will not happen unless it is confirmed from independent freelance sources to force the issue, but nevertheless, I live in hope that others will research what I have found.

Could there be a possible link here between Mars and the Moon?

It is obvious that the image shown below was captured during the Apollo mission as NASA nor any flim producer would be able to produce the intricate structural detail and anthropomorphic shapes that can be observed in the images.

Image reference: Apollo AS17-134-20513

Context view showing lower area of main image.

Surface detail within the rectangle. (Note the structures and facial features)

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

I have included this image, which incidentally is the same as the previous image, but the color saturation level has been increased by 400%.

Notice the change in chromaticity values across the image - not linear at all as one would expect when viewing the original download.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Excellent enhancement Timewarp. Though you know i don;t believe mankind has ever gone past beyond the Van Halern Belts, as they would have been fried alive by the radiation, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

If the foreground you enhanced, is not some immitation of the soil on Barrington Crater (which is very very very similar), but authentic terrain on the moon, you have proven there's no sand on The Moon and the regolith story is another scam.

Note: On the other hand we have not deviated from the main subject. all that has been posted has to do with the images at hand.

-- Frutty.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

The first set of images I posted in the thread demonstrated that the terrain in the foreground consists of many tiny structures and anthropological shapes which can only be observed in a negative image.

As the subject of this thread seems to have been diverted somewhat to the discussion relating to the validity of images, I have to agree with Frutty that there is definitely something unusual about some of these lunar shots. In saying that, I also believe that man was quite capable of getting to the moon at the time as the technology was developed and available for the missions to be executed.

To see if there is any differences in the terrain, I decided to conduct a light-reflective test. Some adjustments to the overall image were made using Paintshop Pro v6.0, a summary of which can be posted if required.

The image chosen for the experiment was AS17-134-20509.

I have placed a series of stars where the quality of the surface texture differs and the amount of reflected light also changes. This indicates to me that either the image is a composite taken from two image sources or it was produced on a film set with a backdrop that had different light-reflective characteristics to that of the foreground.

We know that some of the Hasselblad images were produced on a film set, but this was done just in case the mission failed - which it didn't. There were also other reasons why a film set was employed which need not be discussed here.

So, why has NASA released sets of images that would seem to be genuine as well as some that would definitely appear to be fake? The lunar missions were successful. Therefore, the only images we should be seeing are copies of the orignals that were captured during the various missions.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Who moved the mountain?

Looking at some of the 'LM and flag' images photographed near the end of one of the Apollo 17 EVAs, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) states:

AS17-134-20508-13 170:26:44 "This is one of several pictures that Jack took of the LM and flag on his way back from the ALSEP site for close-out at the end of EVA-3. The East Massif provides a backdrop."

As we examined these photos more closely (AS17-134-20511, 20512, and 20513) we noticed, to our utter amazement, that the US flag appeared to have been relocated between pictures.

Then, no doubt as part of an illusion to produce a convincing perspective change consistent with three different camera positions, the mountain backdrop moves even more drastically from shot to shot.

However, the LM stays in virtually the same orientation in all three pictures, as does a row of 10 or so little rocks located between the LM's feet and left of frame. In reality, such a minimal orientation change of the LM would require the distant mountain to change far less than the LM itself – not more.

134-205111-13

AS17-134-20511, 20512 & 20513 EVA-3 at the LM & flag
Who moved the mountain, flag and foreground rocks – but not the LM?

Moving the backdrops and some foreground detail was all that was necessary to complete the ‘perspective change’ illusion that went with the ‘different’ viewpoints. Whistle-blowing photo laboratory technicians would have had ample opportunity to selectively move items around from shot to shot, and if key officials checked the images prior to their release they obviously didn't notice, because the eye sees what the brain wants it to see.

-- Frutty (Thanks to Aulis - Thinking different)

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

qmantoo wrote:

I believe it is possible that the middle one is taken from the position of the lunar module and it is closer to the backdrop than the other two. See what you think. I think this mainly because of the hill on the right is larger and onle some of the right side of it is showing. This leads me to think that we are seeing this from a closer perspective. Possible?

How much evidence is enough evidence? confuse

The case of the missing LEM
The case of the missing LEM

Editor's Comment: Once again, it is likely that there was a finite number of backdrops available to the photographic team to produce a large number of photographs and that NASA failed to anticipate such meticulous analysis of the imagery. See The skeleton in NASA's spacesuit and Exposing Apollo.

-- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

I believe it is possible that the middle one is taken from the position of the lunar module and it is closer to the backdrop than the other two. See what you think. I think this mainly because of the hill on the right is larger and onle some of the right side of it is showing. This leads me to think that we are seeing this from a closer perspective. Possible?

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

The vanishing LM

Not only do the mountains etc move around but the LM itself comes and goes as well. Below are three images by way of examples: namely AS17-134-20448, 134-20416 and 134-20513.

AS17-134-20448 top, 20416 and 20513

Although the top two images have adjusted lighting on the mountain backdrop, and the 'valley floor' surface detail is dressed differently, it is recognizable as the same location.

What specific evidence is there that these pictures have the same backdrop? As we have pointed out elsewhere the perspective of the background is the same in each case, and two features in particular are clearly visible, those marked ‘A’ and ‘B’.

The LM in the top image, taken with the rover (LRV) antenna in foreground, results in a larger LM relative to the backdrop than in the lower picture, as the LRV is nearer to the LM. However, in the middle picture, there is no sign of the LM at all.

"But surely none of these physical differences could have occurred in reality on the Moon – even if they were actually there?" you may ask. No, of course not. So what really happened in the taking of these photographs? No one will ever know for sure. But it is clear, as we have stated before, that the same locations and the same backdrops enjoyed multiple re-use.

These locations were also the settings used as an arena for the astronauts in the recorded TV coverage.

To produce the differences in the photos discussed so far, the ‘valley floor’ would need to be dressed: LRV tracks laid down and/or removed, the LM added and/or taken away, the mountain backdrops moved between the various set ups.

So imagine two scenes, one with and one without the LM, but utilising the same backdrop in both instances – albeit in the upper example with different lighting – in the hope that it would go unnoticed. Or depending on the intention, in the hope that it would one day be noticed.

Well, it did go unnoticed for about twenty years.

llustration of how a moveable mountain backdrop would appear in a studio set
when viewed from the side – the flat area in front representing the studio floor
-- Frutty (Thanks to Aulis - Thinking different)

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

To see what protective layer he meant refer back to what you yourself helped to prove, maybe unknowingly.

Here is the adequate thread The Apollo Hoax

- Frutty

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Ever since hearing the speech made at the White house by the astronaut, Neil Armstrong, for the 25th Anniversary of Apollo 11 on the 20th July 1994, I was somewhat intriqued by something he said that seemed unusual.

He said, "....... There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief."

This part of the speech, I believe, was a cryptic pointer to something profound.

Why does truth have to have protective layers? Does truth have to have protection because it would not be in the public interest to know or, knowledge of the truth may be contrary to the beliefs of certain groups?

The image reference is AS17-134-20513HR. (Apollo 17 Mission)

Is it possible that what can be observed in the images may be what Armstrong was referring to when he said, "......truths' protective layers"?

Look very closely and you will see observe a sight that may possibly be the reason why NASA has not returned a manned mission to the moon.

Three of the four images are in the negative as the surface features can only be observed and identified when shown in this form.