Some of the strangest little things you’ll ever see are being found on the ground in Apollo photos. None of it is dust, rocks or even boot prints. I have only enlarged the images, the only enhancements I do are to the brightness and contrast unless otherwise stated. The main images are linked to the high res originals at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Once you see the anomalies/artifacts in the enlargements, you can also see them in the original photos with no help from an enlargement. All I did was make them easier to see.
Only a fraction of the images I need to post are posted at the site, and what is already there is a lot to absorb in one sitting. Most of the images require study because all Apollo photos are blurred and when you enlarge the photo, the blur stays with it, but with a little study you can see right through the blur well enough to know that, what you are looking at is not dust and rocks. So please bookmark the site and keep checking back. I will be updating it regulary with new anomalies found by enlarging the ground in Apollo photos.
I hope it will make some of you question NASA instead of attacking the messenger (me).
Well, if you’re serious, I have to say that I don’t have the faintest idea what I’m supposed to be looking at. I’ve got the “Tower on a Mound” picture open in another window, and I don’t get it. It just looks like an extreme closeup to me. I see the little box, and I see the closeup of the moon’s surface, but I don’t see a “tower on a mound”. You mean the little cylindrical thingie there, in the lower left-hand corner? I don’t personally know what that little thingie is, but I bet that in about 15 minutes someone will come along who does.
So what’s your point? That the moon landings were a hoax because you can blow up pix of the moon’s surface and see weird things in them? Sorry, doesn’t work for me. I can blow up a picture of a dust mite and see weird things, but it doesn’t make me believe that Pasteur’s germ theory is all a big leg-pull on the part of the Feds.
Yes, you are correct, none of it is dust, rocks, or boot prints. What it is: silver halide crystals set in an emulsion on an acrylic substrate, processed in a chemical bath, dried, then copied onto a duplicate negative, printed on photo paper, rephotographed and passed around through unknown hands an unknown number of times, projected onto a printing plate, printed in a magazine (or wherever you found them) with a moire pattern, scanned at 72DPI, enlarged so much you can see the pixels, and then “enhanced” in the most amateurish fashion I’ve ever seen. Note: “airbrushing” is NOT “enhancement,” it is alteration and blatant forgery.
Allow me to point out a few things to you:
Every “anomaly” in Apollo photographs mysteriously disappears when the original negatives are examined.
If you throw down a pile of gravel and dirt and then photograph it and show it to people, they will see patterns. It is a natural part of human mental activity. You see a pyramid, I see a little ducky and a fluffy bunny.
The SDMB has debunked idiotic Apollo photograph “analyses” like yours on many occasions. Excuse us if we are more than tired of these stupidities and decline to debunk your site slide by slide. We are here to reduce ignorance, not promote it as you are doing. But some people are incorrigible, so it is futile to argue with them, they are irredeemably stupid.
BTW, welcome to the SDMB. Now go away. Come back only if NASA lets you examine the originals.
In retrospect, I apologize to the SDMB users and mods for going a bit over the top, and flaming in GQ. I am sure that people will understand my frustration at seeing someone come in and bomb the SDMB with blatant ignorance with their very first post, particularly this subject which I have debunked at length, from my particular expertise (in photography, that is). This does not excuse my flaming (mild as it was), so I apologize.
Duck Duck Goose wrote, re. “The Tower on the Mound”:
No no no no – that the moon landings discovered secret miniature alien spaceships on the moon, and that NASA is covering up these discoveries!
After all, that little inch-high cylindrical thing sitting on the moon dust couldn’t possibly have been, say, a piece of the astronaut’s equipment that he’d set aside and discarded!
And no, it couldn’t possibly be a speck of dust on the negative. Go look at his originals like: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-109-17804.jpg
In particular, look at the black specks in the upper left corner, and the white specks in the sky (no, they’re not stars). This means the image was photographically duplicated from the original negatives at least twice, once from a dusty negative (an “interneg”) and once from a dusty positive print. These prints are worthless for analysis, unless you’re a kook.
In retro-retrospect, maybe I should have flamed this idiot a little harder, but I’m trying to be polite lately.
The stagehand almost set his beer can on the little aliens’ spaceship! Good thing he missed it or the Men in Black would have something else to hide at area 51.
Pay no attention to Chas E. He obviously forgot to put on his tinfoil hat this morning and is clearly under the effect of the orbital mind control lasers.
To each thing there is a season: a time to flame; a time to hold your tongue. I shall defend all who err on the side of politeness, yet methinks this may have been the time to flame, and flame hot.
To the OP: what, exactly, are you trying to prove? Your site seems to simultaneously claim that the moon landing is a hoax, and that aliens are visiting us.
I think it’s a parody of the moon hoax fools. Has to be, nobody clutches at straws and flaws these small. Reads like a parody, walks like a parody, quacks like a parody.
I hope it’s a parody.
I have a photo taken of me when I was a guest on a radio show, and Jesus Christ himself is on a wall in the background. Looks just like him, beard, hair and all. Damnedest thing you ever saw. Of course it’s an optical illusion of shadows in the carpeting on the wall, but it’s freaky.
Then please blow up a picture of the ground and see if you can come up with anything close to what is on the “supposed” ground in Apollo photos. Otherwise you don’t have an argument, and I suggest you study the images (not just one). You can’t explain countless anomalies away, and they are countless and they aren’t dust mites. They aren’t rocks, dust and boot prints either.
These are serious anomalous discrepancies found on the ground and rocks in official Apollo photos. This is not a joke, nor will it ever be a joke.
