It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gigantic structures on the front side of the moon + other 'anomalies'

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People
...By the way, why are you using those low-resolution NASA images when higher-resolution NASA images of the same areas exist?


How many times does he have to tell you? The buildings and spaceships are only visible on the low res wiki photo! Why would he use an image that doesn't show them as proof they exist? Why can't you prove the wiki photo is hoaxed?




posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
all of the google earth photos contain coordinates as you can see. you can check them your self in google earth.


AthlonSavage
These looking interesting but what we are going to need is the exact coordinates of each anomaly location and high resolution picture to go with it. Been through this before without that info the debate will become stalled.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonator7
 


"If people agree" on the Coordinate locations are correct which isn't easy in itself because the moon topology looks so the same, then its then a matter of getting high resolution sharp pictures, none of this fuzzy stuff



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by conundrummer
 


Haha sorry buddy, my quick reading Darren Browned me


So after all this rage you have displayed OP towards us for not seeing what you see, riddle me why NASA/ESA etc would 'photoshop' moon bases out of all the other pictures yet in one of the most photoshopped maps we have would forget to photoshop these alien/topsecret/government moon bases out of it, also as pointed out there are thousands and thousands of people with actual high powered telescopes who do take incredible pictures of the moon and said craters, I suppose all these who also do not see the moon bases must be brain dead virgins also.

The reason you use low res images is because we cannot tell what is really there, easier to trick people into believing this crap because it will always be a mystery which we all want to believe.

Peace and love



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
i am not trying to trick anyone and only crap is your lack of ability to recognize what i am showing you. for the motives of nasa or whoever is orchestrating the cover-up and gradual disclosure don't ask me.


Sparta
reply to post by conundrummer
 


Haha sorry buddy, my quick reading Darren Browned me


So after all this rage you have displayed OP towards us for not seeing what you see, riddle me why NASA/ESA etc would 'photoshop' moon bases out of all the other pictures yet in one of the most photoshopped maps we have would forget to photoshop these alien/topsecret/government moon bases out of it, also as pointed out there are thousands and thousands of ....



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

tachyonator7
first of all, the object in question looks like a buldoger to me, not a ship or building and your debunking is rediculous. in first two images you show a far zoom out of the already small object (~80m wide as we can see from the scale bottom-left..) so it would look like a crater from the high altitude. and i'm not even going to ask what the hell is that third picture and what it has to do with the object in question.


It IS the object in question.

The third and fourth images is of the same object that is in your low-resolution image. These image of that object is higher resolution. The third image I posted (the first one below) is just zoomed out to give some context. TThe fourth image i posted (the second one below) is the same object image zoomed in





Both of those images is of the same object in your OP image here:



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
you must be confused. which coordinates did you use and what is that "high resolution" image (that is evidently terribly low resolution) in the first place? anyway, to claim these two to be the same object is an insult to the intelect.. and anyone sane would agree on that.


Soylent Green Is People

tachyonator7
first of all, the object in question looks like a buldoger to me, not a ship or building and your debunking is rediculous. in first two images you show a far zoom out of the already small object (~80m wide as we can see from the scale bottom-left..) so it would look like a crater from the high altitude. and i'm not even going to ask what the hell is that third picture and what it has to do with the object in question.


It IS the object in question.

The third and fourth images is of the same object that is in your low-resolution image. These image of that object is higher resolution. The third image I posted (the first one below) is just zoomed out to give some context. TThe fourth image i posted (the second one below) is the same object image zoomed in





Both of those images is of the same object in your OP image here:

edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonator7
 


You still seem to be missing the point most are making to you. Whether you want to admit it or not you did call him retarded, even if in your mind indirectly. You will find there are allot of people who support your position here but not if you demean others while doing it.

They will abandon you despite believing the same. You see we can disagree on any subject and still get along here at ATS. Kinda like America, where my neighbors might be catholic, protestant or muslim, they might be republicans or democrats or even an independent lol, point is we all get along lol.

The moon pics, well I think their is a reason we never went back. I don't understand why some of the big scopes don't take some pics or why China does not release more pics and video.

The Bot



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

tachyonator7
you must be confused. which coordinates did you use and what is that "high resolution" image (that is evidently terribly low resolution) in the first place? anyway, to claim these two to be the same object is an insult to the intelect.. and anyone sane would agree on that.


While you continue to be insulting, I will show you ultra-clearly (considering you seem to be not understand otherwise) that the object in my image is the same as the object in your image.

Here is your original image:


As it clearly shows on your image, the coordinates of that object is:

24° 00' 36.69" N Latitude, 152° 06' 27.92" E Longitude
or
24.0101967° N, 152.1077556° E



The first image below is from Google Earth (Moon) with that latitude an longitude mark with a pin marker. Directly below that pin marker is the object in your image above (although the first image is rotated so north is up; in your original image, north is to the left).

The second Image below is a mosaic of other higher-resolution images taken of that area of the moon. I marked the object in question with an arrow, and marked other craters around it with letters on both images so you can see that I am talking about the same object that you are -- the only difference is that you are using a different picture of that object -- a picture that is at a much lower resolution.






So, now that it is clear that the object I'm talking about is the same one you were, when I zoom in on that object, this is what I see:
Image Source



Hopefully this is now clear enough for you.


edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
the second image that is a composite, when zoomed in so much is also in very low resolution, if you zoomed it just a bit more it would be completely pixelated. but that's not the point, it may be the same location but it clearly does not show the object in question yet you nevertheless insist on "high resolution" composite images that obviously have any anomaly airbrushed out but it's a high resolution so it must be the truth, right? maybe it did't contain the object in the first place but i find it laughable that one could ever contend these two photos depict the same object (no pun intended).


Soylent Green Is People

tachyonator7
you must be confused. which coordinates did you use and what is that "high resolution" image (that is evidently terribly low resolution) in the first place? anyway, to claim these two to be the same object is an insult to the intelect.. and anyone sane would agree on that.


While you continue to be insulting, I will show you ultra-clearly (considering you seem to be not understand otherwise) that the object in my image is the same as the object in your image...

edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

tachyonator7
the second image that is a composite, when zoomed in so much is also in very low resolution, if you zoomed it just a bit more it would be completely pixelated. but that's not the point, it may be the same location but it clearly does not show the object in question yet you nevertheless insist on "high resolution" composite images that obviously have any anomaly airbrushed out but it's a high resolution so it must be the truth, right? maybe it did't contain the object in the first place but i find it laughable that one could ever contend these two photos depict the same object (no pun intended).


It certainly does show the exact same object. They are two different pictures of the same object, but it is the same object. The shadows are different because they were taken at different times during the lunar cycle. The reason I showed all of the context around them is so you can see that ARE the same.

I even put lettered markers around my image and the image from Google Moon that you got your picture from. Looking at those markers, it is obvious the that the orange arrow is pointing to is the same one on the Google Moon image (marked with the yellow pin and the coordinates) -- and THAT one is the same object that your extreme close-up in the OP shows.


And no -- you can't just zoom into the image I posted. You need to go to the LRO "Quickmap" website (linked below) to be able to zoom in on the images without them pixelating (as you zoom closer, higher resolution images are loaded). When you open the link, you will need to switch your view to the far side, considering that's the location of the object in question (152° E Longitude is the far side)

Image Source:
target.lroc.asu.edu...


edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Amazing Soylent !!
You truly deserve a medal

I bet you are one of the finest fathers on this world.
With this performance in here you earned my lifelong respect


PS: To be clear. I am not talking about the information you shared



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonator7
 


Thanks for posting.

Regardless of some of the more knee-jerk comments others have made, i would say the third image you posted is pretty impressive, and thought provoking too.

Quite apart from the interesting features in these images, whatever they ultimately are, what i find to be almost as interesting is the very good quality images able to be taken with what amounts to less than a 10" consumer quality telescope.

Impressive considering not only its size, but also its having to deal with the distorting effects of Earths atmosphere, but also in comparison to the majority of poor images served up by Google Earth, taken by state of the art, very expensive space probes actually in Lunar orbit, designed and sent there specifically to obtain photographic surface feature images and similar data.

The quality of what is a relatively tiny 10", $2000.00 shop bought telescope is surprising.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Seems like the OP does not understand that when you take a digital image and keep zooming in on the same image, it will not give you more and more detail. Instead, it will give you more and more compression artifacts.

The image of the moon from the wiki was taken with a low power eye piece. It will give you a great image of the moon overall, but if you want more detail of any specific area, you'll need to take a new image using a higher magnification eye piece (for example seeing the entire moon, you'd use something like a 20mm eyepiece. To "zoom" in on any area, you'd switch to a 9mm eyepiece).

Zooming in on the image itself is not really going to help past a certain point.

Anyone can test this themselves either with their own telescope and camera, or with just the camera and everyday objects.

Take this image a rooster here:



We can zoom in and scale the rooster that is the bottom most one:



We have a pretty good image here even though it is cropped and zoomed in, because the original image taken by me had enough information in it to show a clearly defined object: the chicken.

But now, I want to zoom in even more. Let us try to get a clear image of it's eye by zooming in even more:



That is the best we are going to get: pixelated and very blurry.

However, if we use an image that was taken at a higher power? Instead of a photo that was taken with a 18mm zoom on the lens of the camera, how about if it was an image of the same object taken with 55mm lens?



Now we have a better picture of the eye to work with, simply because the camera itself was "zoomed" in.

Now if we "zoom" in to the eye using crop and scaling again:



As you can see: we have a much better image of the chicken's eye, with much better detail.\

All because the original image was taken at a much higher magnification.

The OP's image of the entire moon from the wiki, is an image that was taken at a greatly reduced magnification. Details at that magnification are going to be greatly reduced. "Zooming" in with a photoshop program is not going to help very much simply because the detail information is simply not there. What you will get is artifacts introduced into the image from over scaling.

On the other hand, if you take another image, using much higher magnification, the resolving power of the telescope will show more detail. Take a picture using those magnification powers, and you'll have a photo that has much more detail that can be zoomed in.

It's very simple and is something that can be verified by anyone with a camera that can zoom in and out, and a photoshop program on their computer, and taking images of any everyday object that you have.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
you are insisting they are the same object just "the shadows are different". i don't see how different shadows "of the lunar cylce" (or any other natural process) could make your completely ordinary looking crater to look like a white machine of some kind that clearly drops a shadow on the ground.. it just doesn't happen in the real world. my "extreme close-up" is the same size as and shows the same area as your "hd" photo, so get that clear. your main argument is that google earth picture is a pixelazation which is simply wrong, since resolution is good enough the shape of the object is clearely discernable an can in no way be assigned to compression artifact. it's funny to what distances debunker will go desperatly trying to destroy the proposed evidence regardless of the increasing debility of his claims.

i have put the two together so we can compare them easily.




Soylent Green Is People
It certainly does show the exact same object. They are two different pictures of the same object, but it is the same object. The shadows are different because they were taken at different times during the lunar cycle. The reason I showed all of the context around them is so you can see that ARE the same.
I even put lettered markers around my image and the image from Google Moon that you got your picture from. Looking at those markers, it is obvious the that the orange arrow is pointing to is the same one on the Google Moon image (marked with the yellow pin and the coordinates) -- and THAT one is the same object that your extreme close-up in the OP shows.
And no -- you can't just zoom into the image I posted. You need to go to the LRO "Quickmap" website (linked below) to be able to zoom in on the images without them pixelating (as you zoom closer, higher resolution images are loaded). When you open the link, you will need to switch your view to the far side, considering that's the location of the object in question (152° E Longitude is the far side)
Image Source:
target.lroc.asu.edu...

edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
learn to differenciate "compression artifact" and slightly out-of-focus objects. not the same, you know.

reply to post by eriktheawful
 



edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

tachyonator7
learn to differenciate "compression artifact" and slightly out-of-focus objects. not the same, you know.

reply to post by eriktheawful
 



edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)


Learn to realize that you can not over zoom a digital image and expect to see details.

Learn to realize how telescopes work.

You are using images from the internet.

Have you actually done any REAL research, say: getting the use of a telescope yourself and actually go and LOOK at the area with your very own eyes?

Instead: you want to use an over zoomed, pixelated, artifact filled image to support your speculation.

Yet this is the visible size of the moon. 7 billion people can see it. Literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of amateur astronomers (or anyone one with a even a cheap set of binoculars) can zoom into the areas you are indicating.....

And none of them (or myself) are screaming about alien structures on the near side of the moon that can be seen in great detail.

I would suggest that instead of being a arm chair CT who depends upon blurry images from the internet, you actually get off your rear end and go look with your very own eyes.

This isn't the far side of the moon. This is the near side. Anyone can go out and look at it, and look at the area in quite great detail.

Before you go any further trying to claim CT about something that ANYONE on the face of this Earth can see for themselves.....don't you think you should go look, and even, if you dare, take your very own images of this area?

Millions do. But you won't.

Because you depend upon those blurry internet photos.

Once you actually have some telescope time under your belt, and take your own images of the moon....then get back to us.

Taken with a Sony HandyCam:



Taken with my Canon Rebel 1100d :



Taken with my 5 inch reflector, 20 mm eyepiece and Canon AE-1 SLR camera through the telescope:



You see, some of us actually DO go out and do these things for ourselves.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
i feel your hate and anger because you failed to locate any anomalies yourself with you pocket telescope that shows moon in potato resolution.. i wonder why you don't see the structures. anyway, structures ARE in the wikipedia moon photo, that 's what it is and that's all that i claim.

reply to post by eriktheawful
 



edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

tachyonator7
i feel your hate and anger because you failed to locate any anomalies yourself with you pocket telescope that shows moon in potato resolution.. i wonder why you don't see the structures. anyway, structures ARE in the wikipedia moon photo, that 's what it is and that's all that i claim.

reply to post by eriktheawful
 



edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)


And of course instead of debating in a intelligent manner (or showing that yes you have the experience, knowledge and ability to use the equipment yourself), you instead take to being abusive and insulting.

Pretty typical of your posting style here on ATS, and is not surprising. But's it's also against the TCs here.

Why not try keeping to the subject: your artifact on the moon, and answer the following questions:

Have you actually used a telescope to view this part of the moon? If so, what type of telescope were you using, eye piece info, etc. ?

Have you taken your own images of the area in question? Many examples of amateurs that have imaged that area have been show to you (and ignored by you).

How, if this artificial structure actually exists, has it remained unobserved by literally hundreds of millions of amateur astronomers for over a century or more?

How is it, that only you seemed to have found this structure, in plain view, using a wiki image only of the full moon, at very low resolution ?

No hate here. Only questions, and on topic no less.

Can you answer them?



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
To be honest with you they just look like craters. Don't forget there is metal atoms in the dust on the moon that will reflect light from the earth.




top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join