This web page was created to compare William Rutledge's alledged Alien Spaceship on the Moon to Apollo 15 data.
Retiredafb videos can be found at http://revver.com/u/retiredafb/
Apollo 15 data came from http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/images/html/AS15-M-1581.html
I downloaded the 1.2 gigabyte Raw Image Scan from AS15-m-1581 and edited it to present the relevant image for comparison.
This is the contrast enhanced clip from the Apollo 15 data.
These are 3 stills from the video clip http://revver.com/video/624322/alien-spaceship-on-the-moon-stills-from-apollo-20/
All three stills show the ship from three different angles. Each has its own perspective and the terrain features match the Apollo 15 pix. It is obvious that these photos contain more detail than the Apollo 15 photo. Each are from a different angle at the same elevation. In my opinion they could only have been taken from low orbit over the moon. Are they fake, you be the judge.
I scaled the Apollo 15 photo and one of the stills, then circled craters to help with matching terrain.
The Metric photos and Apollo photos are zoomed in to compare the grain.
The Lower pix is from A 15 data and shows the film grain. This adds a random aspect to the landscape. This is a normal artifact of film stock and shows the data to be a high res scan yielding the best detail the film is capable of. This happens when the film resolution is pushed to its limit. Landscape flattening is also evident in this data and is a normal artifact of large focal length telephoto lens. It is like trying to examine the crack in a brick from the photo of a house.
The upper pix is from the metric. It shows the image going out of focus before the film grain limit is reached. This is a normal artifact of a low res scan of a high res image. I have searched for the original high res images but can find no public release of them.
The comparisons of landscape are limited by these artifacts. The A 15 data is starting to randomize due to film grain limitations. The Metric photos are low resolution copies of an original. The A 15 data has a shadow angle of 23 degrees and was taken in the afternoon of the Luner day. The Metrics have longer shadows and were taken later in the Luner day.
When I first saw this I said no way. However the three metric photos show authentic moon landscape. The vid with Leonov in it could have been hoaxed. Except the original clip of Leonov can be found no where else. Without further evidence I would have to give this serious consideration. The three metric photos and the Leonov clip are evidence. Decide for yourself. Below are links to all the evidence I could find both pro and con.
Here are some more links for your evaluation
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0607/newevidence.html
http://www.angelismarriti.it/ANGELISMARRITI-ENG/home-ENG.htm
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/walkaboutmoon.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_36e.htm
http://www.ramistrip.com/001%20New%20RAMISTRIP/GALLERY/052%20Trio.htm
This link is to a very rigorous evaluation that asserts the anomaly is a natural formation.
http://tasfastas.googlepages.com/apollo20-pseudospaceship22322222222223
Some more links to NASA pixs.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1037.jpg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1038.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1333.jpg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1334.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S15/M/1335.jpg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...S17/M/2805.jpg
The following pixs are from the NASA links above. I edited them to give reference numbers and show enlargement of anomaly. This also illustrates some of the issues. Even at over 3 km long the anomaly is still a small object in a large image. Every opinion from the science community is that this is a rock or a horizontal thrust ridge. Every evaluation pro and con has its issues. What do you think?
The following links are quite revealing.
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/images/html/AS15-M-1579.html
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/images/html/AS15-M-1580.html
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/images/html/AS15-M-1581.html
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/images/html/AS15-M-1582.html
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/images/html/AS15-M-1583.html
It is only from the east that it looks like a spaceship. Views are 1579 eastern view to 1583 western view.
In the most western view of 1583 it looks most like a ridge.
I'm betting it is a big ridge of moon rock and dust. I am quite perplexed as to the purpose and energy put into the Rutledge claim.
Should his claim prove to be valid I would be quite surprised. I gave this all the serious consideration I could give it and in the end find that it fails. I am still wondering where the Leonov clip and the metric views originate from. If hoaxed a lot of effort went into this. It is quite imaginative.
Still there is this to consider.
There is still the possibility that the western view is an illusion making a ship look like a rock. While I cannot say exactly what an ancient craft might look like, being on the moon a construction of constrained symmetry would be highly suspicious of being one. Perhaps you see rocks in every view because you expect to. The online 1583 image shows the left edge of the anomaly as the crest of a hill. Add more contrast and anamolous shape pops back out. Is it the crest of a hill or the edge of a solid object? Small artifact in a large dataset so it is open to interpretation. Film grain is a factor.
Finding a suggestive anomalous shape of some obscurity in a very large data set. An unknown vid of a famous cosmonaut in a technical setting, metric photos with some level of correlation to A 15 data, a knowledge of terminology and equipment, vids of impresive complexity, and a supportive interview with sophisticated technical knowledge. Bringing all that together would speak of an ingenious and imaginative undertaking such that every aspect of its creation could remain unknown. Not one leak as to source of hoax. And a certainty that the Leonov vid could not be revealed of source. That is nearly as unbelievable as a secret Apollo launch.
Our air force technology is inferior to none. Their abilities are astounding. If they wanted to hide the launch of a large rocket I think they could.
You must judge this for yourself. An opinion, no matter how well qualified, is still just an opinion.
