New Evidences of Extraterrestrial Lunar Bases

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSaneTK
That image is very very fake, it looks like it's been put together by many images.

You think they strap a 5 megapixel camera on a satellite and photograph the entire moon in one picture? Of course its many images. That's how you map.

In regards to the topic itself: The Clementine images are more blurry than your average UFO image. I dont trust anything that's a big blur.

Besides, the "buildings" are totally unrealistic in size. Its like 1 pixel per kilometer: Those "towers" would be so tall they'd poke Earth.




posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
Some time ago probably about 4-5 years ago some pictures clearly showing structures on the moons surface were published in a magazine called "UFO Magazine" It was a UK publication however went out of print when the founder,writer,owner,editor passed away. I remember these pictures being awesome clearly showiing structures. I cant find anything on a search. If any other person ever collected the mags they shoud be able to find them easily. Sadly i binned mine when moving house


You really think he passed away? I bet something else happend to him



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:52 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...

Clementine also gave us pics of the Apollo landing sites, but even at the best res, the blast marks were mere specks...so imagine how big these things would have to be....

Personally, I think we're seeing some blurs by spacedust or something in front of the camera lens for some pics, and simple mosaic edges for others.

EDIT: NM, even the smudged ones are straight-edged when you look at them closer, all seem like mosaic edges (with some pics that didn't come out great).

Off_the_Street had a great writeup of how such mosaic images are taken, on one of the other threads showing mosaic pics...



[edit on 12-5-2005 by Gazrok]




Sorry!, but are you working for NASA?? this stuff is 150% edited with software
tools to camouflage things they don't want to be seen by the public.

TiPP! take a look in the Book "We discovered Alien bases on the Moon I+II"
by Fred Steckling there you'll find a lot of info and pictures about this subject



[edit on 20-8-2006 by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO]Booklink

[edit on 20-8-2006 by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by InSaneTK
That image is very very fake, it looks like it's been put together by many images.

You think they strap a 5 megapixel camera on a satellite and photograph the entire moon in one picture? Of course its many images. That's how you map.

In regards to the topic itself: The Clementine images are more blurry than your average UFO image. I dont trust anything that's a big blur.

Besides, the "buildings" are totally unrealistic in size. Its like 1 pixel per kilometer: Those "towers" would be so tall they'd poke Earth.


If you have watched "The Disclosure Project" some dude explains how big these structures are, he said they where miles tall


Toc

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Musclor

Originally posted by MCory1
One thing that strikes me as strange, and the main reason I'm somewhat skeptical of this, is the poor quality of the censorship. I would think that if there was something on there that just had to be hidden, whomever censored it would have gone to the length to hire a highly trained graphic tech to do the job, someone who does it for a living and who wouldn't make it that blurred. I mean, even someone who doesn't know much at all about Photoshop could've at least blurred out all of that one 'structure.'


Guys, this is more subtle than that. People behind this cover-up are probably very intelligent. They try to see how we think and react, and they set things perfectly in order to create confusion and skepticism. This is the way i see it.


Aside from that, why release the images at all if there's something that you want to hide? No one in the public really gets to know exactly how many images NASA has, no one gets a direct line to Hubble or anything. There could've been a "signal loss," and the images with the good info didn't make it back to Earth. Not that difficult to keep images from a probe or non-public telescope out of the public eye.


Clementine satellite has spent two months taking "officially"almost 2 milion images of the moon. I don't see them checking 2 milions of pictures, in detail. That's why there will be probably more discoveries.

[edit on 12/5/2005 by Musclor]


Trust me, if they need 50 people to go through 2 million photos, they will hire them and they will do it.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Something is definitely being hidden in these photos. The real questions that remain are:
1- What is being hidden?
2- Why are they hiding it?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Doesn't these pictures remind you of the "Soul Collector" thread where John Lear described a 7 mile high structure on the moon.
Here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
something as been censored...
with a smudge tool with a utility like photoshop...
that could be done...but what's to hide...
the smude is the same color as the moon so im not too sure what too think...



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
This may have been stated before, but if you type in Lat -16, Long 61 then you will see what looks like tracks of some sort, if you try to follow the tracks it wont let you see anymore. can you tell me if you have seen this or if you know what it might be?



Edited because since I have typed this I am having trouble finding the image again

[edit on 21-8-2006 by chris01621]

Ok 1 pixel, 256 by 256 you might need to go left of were it puts you.

[edit on 21-8-2006 by chris01621]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by chris01621
This may have been stated before, but if you type in Lat -16, Long 61 then you will see what looks like tracks of some sort, if you try to follow the tracks it wont let you see anymore. can you tell me if you have seen this or if you know what it might be?



Edited because since I have typed this I am having trouble finding the image again

[edit on 21-8-2006 by chris01621]

Ok 1 pixel, 256 by 256 you might need to go left of were it puts you.

[edit on 21-8-2006 by chris01621]


also what's the black square in the image?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Have a look at this. It claims to be a 20 mile high spire. Possibly an explanation for those blurred out towers

www.mufor.org...



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Three supposed towers on the moon forming a triangle which is supposedly exactly 272 miles on all 3 sides

www.mufor.org...

Scroll halfway down this page to look at it with some text

www.mufor.org...



[edit on 21-8-2006 by thesaint]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
also what's the black square in the image?


Do you see what looks like tyre tracks in your image because I dont see any black square?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
back to the original pics.
i've done some sharpening to the extent possible..
now what do you know.. im 100% sure its a guass blur and not a mosaic glitch.
artifacts that arise with the smart sharpen are streight lined, pointing out the rectangles used for bluring (there are multiples, some are overlaping, go for the psd and experiment with smart sharpen filter)

here is what i've ended up with



bi.l27.ru...



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
i'm still waiting for comments...

here's a step by step to how i did it:
1. copy the original pic to a layer.
2. run smart sharpen on it with params almost maxed out
3. see where are the rectangles
4. get back to the original pic
5. use the rec. marquee tool to select one of those rectangles.
6. right click and use layer via copy
7. smart sharpen the new layer.
and so on.
not a brush.
used plain photoshop cs 2, rec. marquee tool, smart sharpen filter, layers and nothing more.

anyone?



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I don't think there is anything at all being censored...there's a much more convincing way which leaves NO TRACE of editing if done correctly, I can do this in Photoshop at 16 years old with no training in digital editing at all, look:

img242.imageshack.us...

[edit on 24-8-2006 by LiamCA]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by chris01621



Do you see what looks like tyre tracks in your image because I dont see any black square?


Since the image was gone from the original link, I've uploaded it. What's that black square?




[edit on 24-8-2006 by Purgatory]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Remember that it was done in 1994
here is why i believe its real:
-probably it was done in a hurry
-they have to hire those who can keep secrets and thats not always the professionals
-remember McKinnon? you still think they are professional enough?
-it would be a plain waste of money and time to cover it up good enough. Why bother if it won't change a thing? they keep the mass media shut, no need to care.
-we(those who digg) will be still arguing no matter how hard the proof is

note: and yeah, i was skeptic as hell before i've fired the photoshop up. base on the moon just sounds plain nuts.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by krif
Remember that it was done in 1994
here is why i believe its real:
-probably it was done in a hurry
-they have to hire those who can keep secrets and thats not always the professionals
-remember McKinnon? you still think they are professional enough?
-it would be a plain waste of money and time to cover it up good enough. Why bother if it won't change a thing? they keep the mass media shut, no need to care.
-we(those who digg) will be still arguing no matter how hard the proof is

note: and yeah, i was skeptic as hell before i've fired the photoshop up. base on the moon just sounds plain nuts.

I understand your points but censoring in such a sloppy way is pointless as people easily see it. It took my about 20 seconds just to do the image I did.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiamCA
I understand your points but censoring in such a sloppy way is pointless as people easily see it. It took my about 20 seconds just to do the image I did.


Could someone analyse if that structure is perspectively correct to the ground? (imo it is) If so - we'll have a defenitive answer.





top topics
 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join