• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Anomaly or noise?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

boomerang

boomerang

Paranormal Adept
Just ran across these pics and analysis but don't know what to make of it. Skipper's reasoning seems sound at first glance. Should there be tracks near the Rover's tires, and dust on the landing pads? One would think so--but there may be more to the story.

Mars & Moon Truth When the Dust Settles

ADD: Oh sh**-- just realized I misspelled "Anomaly" in the thread title and can't fix it. Oh well...
 
pixelsmith said:
NASA faked many photos.
Click to expand...

I still find it easier to believe Apollo went to the moon than not. Still, some things on record from that era don't quite add up.

As a related topic, the profound and permanent personal changes experienced by Apollo astronauts deserve more study. It's as if many of these guys went to the moon as hard nosed test pilots and returned as mystics.

I really need to read "The Overview Effect" .
 
yup something doesn't add up. i think we may have some genuine astronauts and then a few astroNOTs.
 
Unfortunately, in this digital age it's nearly impossible to tell if an image has been tampered with. Tracks could be erased. Tracks could be added. Dust and soil could be "photoshopped" in or out. A mothership from the planet Zondor could be hovering over the Superbowl, or not, etc., etc.

I tend to think that we did indeed land on the Moon. The real question is, why haven't we been back?
 
pixelsmith said:
i think they went too. another question is why did they fake so many photos?
Click to expand...

Pixel,

Let's say you were tasked with managing the group of technicians producing "fake" images for the program. I can't believe you would allow those types of errors to appear in the finished product. I am not talking about anything more elaborate than a review in a quality control cycle. It seems like the contents of these "fake photos" would have to be well thought out and defined up front and would have to meet a set of requirements so that they would fit into the overall timeline. Does it make sense that NASA would spend so much time and money as they obviously did on the Apollo moon project and then produce substandard fakes? It seems unlikely. Is it possible that some of these may be composites made as "publicity photos" or for some internal purpose?
 
trainedobserver said:
Pixel,

Let's say you were tasked with managing the group of technicians producing "fake" images for the program. I can't believe you would allow those types of errors to appear in the finished product. I am not talking about anything more elaborate than a review in a quality control cycle. It seems like the contents of these "fake photos" would have to be well thought out and defined up front and would have to meet a set of requirements so that they would fit into the overall timeline. Does it make sense that NASA would spend so much time and money as they obviously did on the Apollo moon project and then produce substandard fakes? It seems unlikely. Is it possible that some of these may be composites made as "publicity photos" or for some internal purpose?
Click to expand...
absolutely. They are still fake if they are for publicity and passed off as real or for internal purposes. Back then, who would want to believe a moon photo was faked? I still don't want to believe it but i know for a fact many are fake.
 
pixelsmith said:
i think they went too. another question is why did they fake so many photos?
Click to expand...
isnt it because back then there was a space race with the commies and West is best no matter at what cost. Right now the reason for faking stuff is less clear. There is a covert military space programme, this may interfere with public face of space exploration. i'm going to ring Hoagland on this and see what he has to say.
 
trainedobserver said:
Pixel,

Let's say you were tasked with managing the group of technicians producing "fake" images for the program. I can't believe you would allow those types of errors to appear in the finished product. I am not talking about anything more elaborate than a review in a quality control cycle. It seems like the contents of these "fake photos" would have to be well thought out and defined up front and would have to meet a set of requirements so that they would fit into the overall timeline. Does it make sense that NASA would spend so much time and money as they obviously did on the Apollo moon project and then produce substandard fakes? It seems unlikely. Is it possible that some of these may be composites made as "publicity photos" or for some internal purpose?
Click to expand...

iI i was tasked with managing a group of techs covering stuff up. I would (a) keep it "in house" (b)the less people involved the better. This gives us a number of problems and a number of answers. Less technicaly proficient air brushers and less people to render thousands of photos efficiently and expertly. There was definitely a big bum rush with NASA when they found out people were actually going through meticulously countless images they thought no one would bother looking at. With copies and negs floating around across the world, not to mention periodical and book publications of untainted photos albeit maybe small images. The biggest red herring is the stuff that cant be viewed like the original Apollo 11 tapes, scan footage which by all counts is part of the most important documented film ever made. I guess its harder to aibrush live images or hide poorly faked ones.
 
theres a couple of hypothesis to consider here;

We found crazy stuff on the moon.
We faked stuff in case the whole world watched a massive US FAIL.
We went to the moon and it was moon like with no weird stuff.
We went to the moon and it was moon like with no weird stuff but we decided to covertly visit it to secretly mine stuff and militarize it.
We went to the moon and it was moon like with no weird stuff so we set about creating a myth about the moon being or had been inhabited. A cog in a plan.

When i say "We" i mean the M.I.C.
 
nameless said:
There was definitely a big bum rush with NASA when they found out people were actually going through meticulously countless images they thought no one would bother looking at.
Click to expand...

I have heard this before and have to say it doesn't hold any water at all. These are photographs of the most significant achievements in human history we are talking about. No one at NASA would have assumed that these pieces of history could have escaped the scrutiny of countless generations. The "they didn't think anyone would notice" argument makes no sense to me. Neither does the argument that someone was "passing clues" in the photographs. The only argument that makes any sense other than misidentification is incompetence (which is what you are saying I guess). Here we have an organization capable of astounding technical achievements and they can't produce flawless photographs when they would have been absolute control of every aspect? It seems pretty ... mind boggling.

If there is truth to the "air brush" stories and theories, could anomalous features in moon photographs indeed be indications of touch-ups intended to mask aspects of the mission or equipment used that they didn't want the Russians to see rather than ruins, aliens, or UFOs?
 
Zeeman crater, The Moon?

1647k6.jpg
 
Back
Top