New Evidences of Extraterrestrial Lunar Bases

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I think it's most like image copying and mosaicing artifacts.

But here's a test. Look for them on images on the Earth-facing side of the moon.




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Nairod

No way that's real....................is it? Where did you get that picture?

Peace



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Nah it was a 5 minute photoshop jobby with a pic of the moon from that site and a pic of Prince Charles ;-)

But it's nice to think it could happen!

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Nairod]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Musclor:

Well done on your cross references of the "blurring". Why blurring occurs in three separate images is a pretty sure indication that something is being hidden.

What it is, who knows...

CJS



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   



Before saying any comments, please read the two following articles concerning the story of this unbelievable picture, published in a french magazine in 1969.

world.altavista.com...://www.chez.com/idylle/docs/match.html
world.altavista.com...://sboisse.free.fr/fun/artefact/



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Quite interesting, tho using the pictures provided in the 2nd article and superimposing the light shape on top of the dark park, the light shape when at the same length as the dark shape, is about twice as wide. And the part extending horizontally is differently shaped. They extrapolate this as being reservoirs, but it's hard to really say. If that's the exact same area then the lighting has pretty much inverted on that shape and the shaping of it has changed somewhat, or it has been altered.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Remember that most pics from space are mosaic composites, not just ONE picture.

Not to mention, from the scale of these photos, the "structures" (as you're assuming) would be on the order of "Grand Canyon-sized" and be visible from Earth-based telescopes I'd wager...


Good point, in that case the image in the last picture is approximately (probably smaller than) 170 by 50 km.
Is it on the far side of the moon?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Good point, in that case the image in the last picture is approximately (probably smaller than) 170 by 50 km.
Is it on the far side of the moon?


Yes it is. "Face cachée" means far side.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
well i have to say the pictures are convinsing that there are bases up there and all the evedence of the astronauts saying there were things up there, but lets think about this for a sec if there were bases up there , and the blotched out the pics, why do such a bad job at it, or release them at all, i think its all just a joke really sure there could be stuff up there but who really knows, thats like the acients where did all there supposed tech go, i have a vague guess as to why we dont really know many of the acient mysteries, WAR, the acients aka the egyptians, myans, incans, and who ever else im forgeting, had a war with someone or some other races from the stars and lost? isnt that possible i mean its very possible



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The idea that there is an alien base on the dark side of the moon is an old one. Several ex USAF and NASA employees have come forward and made statements in this regard. Are any of you familiar with the Disclosure Project in Washington D.C.? If this extra-terrestrial stuff fascinates you, then you definitely need to pay their website a visit. They have a lot of witness testimony, a very concerted effort.

Here's some old data on the moon base, surprised no one pointed this out:

ufocasebook.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divergence
I use photshop a lot and it looks to me like it was "masked" and then "smudged".

If it was missing data the area would be speckly, indicating a random pattern of random noise.

On the first photo you can see were the detail sort of "melts" toward the bottom of the frame. This is a clear indication of the smudge tool being used.

If these photos were altered by NASA then they have a novice on the job.



With regards to all those saying they have done a poor job, let's look at it this way. If they do a poor job on purpose then it can be attributed to lossy compression. If they did a proper job, i.e. really taking time then people like us and other Photoshop experts will eventually find evidence of definite fakery. THEN there would be a huge stink. If they wanted to cover up moon bases then I think they have done a very good job.

The voice of reason speaks again.


[edit on 6-8-2005 by Maus0r]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
(Closeup from picture recently posted)


Wow, that is pretty interesting. Anybody have an explanation for that?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
How many of us actually in the hidden lunar base conspiracy? I will agree it's an interesting concept and something to ponder but if you actually told someone that you believed aliens have a moon base they'd call you a friggin idiot.

Someone told me a while back that Micheal Collins had written a book about seeing an alien armada on the moon, that was the first I'd heard of that idea and was skeptical so I looked up the book and couldn't find it. Does it exist? Could someone please direct me to it?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Very interesting. Reminds me of a Klingon bird of prey. Anyhow are these bases on the dark side of the moon only? If they were on the other side would we be able to spot them?

Jesus 3 posts sorry about that. Anyhow I read the thread in its entirety. I have two questions

1. What is the Navy doing exploring space. Last I checked there were no oceans on the moon.

2. Supposing there are structures there. Is the apparent photoshop job
A. Something to get the mass's going (like this thread)
B. An actual mistake or giveaway if you like about the true nature of the photos?

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
please remove

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
please remove

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
This picture was pointed out in another thread here recently, I think it's the most interesting Clementine photo there is:

LINK

[edit on 6-8-2005 by CyberSEAL]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The thing that amazes me is you can find stuff like this on mars. I have pics on my hardrive that show what looks like excavation equipment on mars. I'll see if I can find it.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Structure from Apollo picture, 1968 :


Trace from Clementine picture, 1994 :


Well, as the conclusion of the analysis says, it seems extraordinary that the trace of the Apollo structure is found, 26 years later on a Clementine picture !!! HOW can you explain that ?

To me, no doubt the release of this Apollo photo was a BIG blunder by Nasa.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Surely they could just not post the pics online? or show anyone at all? There must be enough pics of the moon for people not to say a couple are missing! I reallly doubt the're dust specs on the lens..lol.. that seems more far fetched than moon bases, seein as tho there are 2 triangles on the 1st pic

Anyway, how queer





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join