NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

[Mikesingh]

Ok guys, so what's happening here? Look carefully. A couple of intriguing images - out of  many - that would set you thinking as to what the heck's going on in NASA and the Moon landings? Now these two images have sown the seeds of suspicion whether what we've been handed out are actual images of the Moon or not! Did you for a moment imagine there could be duplicate rocks on the surface of the Moon? YES! Duplicate rocks!

Or can these be brushed aside as just glitches or due to bad 'stitching' of the images? I've shaded certain areas in brown/yellow that are duplicates. If this is the quality of images being dished out by NASA, then it sucks!





Some 'experts' have commented on this finding and said that these 'duplicates' seen in the images are due to 'stitching' together of images for making a panorama. But then 'stitches' are straight along the vertical/horizontal axes, right along the edges of the photographs where they are joined together. Right?

Now have a look at the image where I have marked the areas by a yellow line where presumably they have been stitched together.

They zig-zag ALL OVER THE IMAGE! Not along the vertical/horizontal edges of the photographs. Now why has it been done so? Is it shoddy art work by those dudes at NASA, cutting up the images randomly and THEN stitching them together? Strange!  Check out the yellow lines. The images would have needed to be joined here to have produced the duplicates. As I said the images seem to have been cut up randomly before joining them together. Why?

So obviously these are not due to stitching together of images to form a panorama. Is there something more than meets the eye here? Is it a NASA cover-up?



Here's more...






Cheers! 

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2007e045385&zoom=True
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2004e20304&zoom=True

[Darren1976]

I do believe the Americans have been to the moon, but in conjuction with under cover op's, with the alliance between them and the E.T.'s that they have been working with. But as for the first moon landing... well I just dont know. Evidence seems to be mounting that it was a fake, just to get one up on the Ruskies in the space race, and also if they beat them to the moon, then they would obviously have no interest in getting there in a hurry themselves. Then the Americans could take it at their leasure, strolling there without the need to rush in to it. So thats the reason I think they could of faked it...

[Mikesingh]

Yeah Darren! I do believe we have been to the Moon and back but most of what we're being shown is tripe (for public consumption only).  The real images are probably somewhere deep down in an underground vault!

That really sucks! And what about the Moon itself? NASA has sent two probes to figure out the many gravitational anomalies out there! MASCONS and the like! The Moon probably has 2/3rd grav of Earth and not 1/6th as we're led to believe! But that's for another thread. 

Cheers! 

[Darren1976]

Well.... I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong, like I was in this case, they really did land on the moon!!!! here's the evidence of the first moon landing...
                                   

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Dood]

Yeah Darren! I do believe we have been to the Moon and back but most of what we're being shown is tripe (for public consumption only). The real images are probably somewhere deep down in an underground vault!

That really sucks! And what about the Moon itself? NASA has sent two probes to figure out the many gravitational anomalies out there! MASCONS and the like! The Moon probably has 2/3rd grav of Earth and not 1/6th as we're led to believe! But that's for another thread. 

Cheers! 

I fully agree with you Mike!
Funny how the 'Older Probes' seem to show 'more evidence' then the newer High Tech ones.
IF that is not a big Red Flag then nothing is... 

[Darren1976]

I fully agree with you Mike!
Funny how the 'Older Probes' seem to show 'more evidence' then the newer High Tech ones.
IF that is not a big Red Flag then nothing is... 

Thats because you didnt have the software or other tech' to snatch and filter stuff out, it was basically a case of "you get what you see".

[Dood]

Noted Darren...


What I was mostly referring to was when 'they' showed the 'new' Face of Mars back in 1998 and it was total dung.
From what I read that was filtered so much you could not 'see anything' worth while...


The older probes of the Moon for example you can easily see the smudges where things were covered up.
With today's camera tech they can simply Photoshop (or whatever fancy program they use) or simply not show us anything at all....


I seriously believe 'they' are afraid to show us what is truly 'Out There'.
I mean afraid as in fear.
Because once the general populace actually gets wind of (intelligent) life other then what is on Earth in the cosmos then 'they' will lose their grip on humanity...

[Darren1976]

Noted Darren...


What I was mostly referring to was when 'they' showed the 'new' Face of Mars back in 1998 and it was total dung.
From what I read that was filtered so much you could not 'see anything' worth while...

Funny you should say that, I was actually discussing this yesterday with mike further back on a "face in mars rock" thread and he agreed with me when I said that over the years there have so many dust devils and stuff strewing across Mars that stuff thats been exposed on Mars (1976 Face on Mars, Cydonia region, then re-imaged like you mentioned) will get covered back up again, and stuff covered would get exposed constantly, so it stands to reason that the face on Mars would seem slightly changed after a decade or two being covered in flotsam and jetsam. In fact I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that the dust devils get up to 150 mph up there...

[Pimander]

Or can these be brushed aside as just glitches or due to bad 'stitching' of the images? I've shaded certain areas in brown/yellow that are duplicates. If this is the quality of images being dished out by NASA, then it sucks!

There are plenty more examples of this technique on some of the earliest Moon shots released.  If they are hard to find on the web, some of the older Moon/Astronomy books in the library still have the older images.  There is also a video on YouTube somewhere with similar examples discussed but I forget what its called at the minute.

ETA:  There are probably a number of examples in the Living Moon files but I'm not in the mood to hunt them down - that's you job Mike.

[Mikesingh]

The older probes of the Moon for example you can easily see the smudges where things were covered up.
With today's camera tech they can simply Photoshop (or whatever fancy program they use) or simply not show us anything at all....

Exactly! Like one of my favorite photographs where I found what looks like a tower! Here's the 'uncensored' Moon Image taken by the Lunar Orbiter almost half a century ago! According to Space Imaging expert Keith Laney, in a response to the images I posted on his web site, he says:

"Those particular LO images are from Prof. Robinson's collection, he's had them online for years and years. They are uncensored. I have found scores of anomalies on them, pretty devastating too.

But try and sell it to anyone other than us!"

Here's the image of that 'tower' that floored Keith too.....



Cheers! 

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I would like to get the source file. Do you have a filename?

[Dood]

Thank you very much Mike for sharing that photo of that Tower.


I never have seen that one before.  Maybe I saw the 'smudged photo' of it...


Hard to say that this is a naturally evolved anomaly... 
Where exactly is this Tower located on the Moon?
Far Side or the Earth Side?


EDIT: Also forgive my ignorance but, do you have a link to these more revealing photographs please?

[Pimander]

According to Space Imaging expert Keith Laney, in a response to the images I posted on his web site, he says:

"Those particular LO images are from Prof. Robinson's collection, he's had them online for years and years. They are uncensored. I have found scores of anomalies on them, pretty devastating too.

But try and sell it to anyone other than us!"

I would like to get the source file. Do you have a filename?

I think information about this collection Laney talks about would definitely be useful to you.

http://keithlaney.net/

[Mikesingh]

I would like to get the source file. Do you have a filename?

Yep! In a minute. Meanwhile, take a look at another 'spire'....



Source on top left.

Cheers!

[Mikesingh]

Thank you very much Mike for sharing that photo of that Tower.

I never have seen that one before.  Maybe I saw the 'smudged photo' of it...

EDIT: Also forgive my ignorance but, do you have a link to these more revealing photographs please?

Here you are, marked with a yellow square.....(Image details on top).



Zoomed.....



Cheers!