MILITARY ON MOON!

Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:35 am » by **Seahawk100**

[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/audKaWn34OI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/audKaWn34OI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:04 pm » by **Timewarp**

Take a look at these moon photos from nasa.Tell me what you see?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20925HR.jpg

If you click to enlarge the second photo, in the shadow you will see some green plant life

Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:01 am » by **Simplyput**

timewarp wrote:Take a look at these moon photos from nasa.Tell me what you see?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20925HR.jpg

If you click to enlarge the second photo, in the shadow you will see some green plant life

Green plant life? in the shadows? where?

Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:05 am » by **Simplyput**

bettyboolean wrote:any newly developed photograph is wet like a painting, human contact, mechanical defects in automated equipment all these things can cause smudges. Considering the 1000s of images NASA has to process its not suprising some of them are smudged.

now you could argue someone has deliberately smudged the photograph to obscure something but there is no airbrushing on this image.

but on another note, surely the simplest way to supress data contained on an image is simply to withold the image?

p.s. looking closely above the prominent smudge on the crater you can see 2 other patches that have been smudged which would suggest another print has been placed on top of this one before it has properly dried

the 'smudge' that was so hastily identified by Betty earlier on in this thread has linear dimensions. Very distinct liner dimensions. And there is absolutely no smear effect. There also clearly appears to be something of substance behind the so called 'smudge'. I'm not usually quick to believe things that have no supporting evidence, but I've seen smearing and smudging before. The photo in question (see below) is neither of these. 100% imo.

Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:38 am » by **Seahawk100**

simplyput wrote:
bettyboolean wrote:any newly developed photograph is wet like a painting, human contact, mechanical defects in automated equipment all these things can cause smudges. Considering the 1000s of images NASA has to process its not suprising some of them are smudged.

now you could argue someone has deliberately smudged the photograph to obscure something but there is no airbrushing on this image.

but on another note, surely the simplest way to supress data contained on an image is simply to withold the image?

p.s. looking closely above the prominent smudge on the crater you can see 2 other patches that have been smudged which would suggest another print has been placed on top of this one before it has properly dried

the 'smudge' that was so hastily identified by Betty earlier on in this thread has linear dimensions. Very distinct liner dimensions. And there is absolutely no smear effect. There also clearly appears to be something of substance behind the so called 'smudge'. I'm not usually quick to believe things that have no supporting evidence, but I've seen smearing and smudging before. The photo in question (see below) is neither of these. 100% imo.

Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:29 pm » by **Timewarp**

simplyput wrote:
timewarp wrote:Take a look at these moon photos from nasa.Tell me what you see?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20925HR.jpg

If you click to enlarge the second photo, in the shadow you will see some green plant life

Green plant life? in the shadows? where?

If you look at 1.48 sec into video you will see it.