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.

 

NASA’s Moon Pics Slip-up!! Here’s The Evidence Of Artificial Structures!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Our tax dollars are going to NASA officials that use PAINT on windows... They proably have their 8 year old do it for them... "here you go hunni, cover up this spot here".... LOL




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Ive been using photoshop and various other imaging software for over 6 years, and this is definitely a case of smudging or smearing.
Whoever says this smudge is a result of a processing error or a compression artifact has no idea what they're talking about. If either were the case, the smudging would appear much more 'blocky' and pixelated.

Here is a comparison of NASA's smudging and some quick smudging I applied to the same image:




Compression artifacts and processing errors do not give you strange shapes like this:



[edit on 6-11-2006 by freakyty]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Some are typical glitches from digital data break up. Some we do not know how far back to the original source they came from. Interesting but not convinced, what is the use of a moon base unless it once had air on the moon at some point and being lived there once. Or a conspiracy to mine for something before another nation gets there.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
All I have to say MikeSingh is that this short thread has brought out more 'strawman' posters than any thread of this size on ATS I've ever seen.

You have to be onto something here. Keep digging guys. I just voted WATS for you.

Does anybody have any idea of the scale of the possible areas being covered up here?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
NASA "trying" to cover things up by dispersing pictures with gigantic smudges on them? Come on...those smudges could only be more bush league if they actually spelled out "NOTHING TO SEE HERE."

1) We know those are smudges (for the sake of this post, I'll concede that they are intentionally placed - not development errors - and were put there by NASA, not by some hoaxter).

2) We know that NASA has the technology to doctor photos far more effectively than these were doctored (we know this because JUNIOR HIGH KIDS have the technology to doctor photos more effectively than these were).

That only really leaves one explanation:

NASA wants people to believe that amazing discoveries in our solar system are being kept from Joe and Jane Public. After all, who would be the #1 beneficiary of a huge public outcry for more excursions into space, more cameras, more of a PRESENCE in space?

NASA, of course.

These pictures, in my opinion, are NASA's version of a sweeps-week cliffhanger. Give them the ratings, or you don't get another season!



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   



This is the area I was particularly interested in.
I am fortunate enough to possess some serious hardware that will decrypt tampered photographs.

if you focus on this area here..


You will begin to notice a definite forming of three distinct shapes.Using a top secret facial and pattern recognition program I was able to extract the missing information.

After patching into the Global CSI files I actually discovered that NASA has been witness to,(and covered up) an unprovoked alien attack upon a much loved member of the welsh community..



I will continue my efforts to find a motive and find both the Mekon and the ''Mash get smash'' guilty of driving a modified Abraham tank over Ivor the Engine(and driver Jones).

I would be grateful if anyone could discover where on the moon the body was hidden.

A further intended victim ''Idris the dragon'' is believed to be in hiding.

edit to cover up oncoming insanity

[edit on 6-11-2006 by AGENT_T]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Hold on maybe its alien stealth technology trying to cloak their cities

All I see is compression and transmission artifacts.

If NASA wanted to prevent images of "Alien Cities" from being seen wouldnt it be easier to "lose" the offending photos?

If this really were airbrushed images perhaps NASA done it to cause debate and interest. Interest = funding



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I think you guys hijacked this thread for a laugh. The original images posted by the thread starter did not include that image of the square compression artifact.

In addition you overlook the possibility of deliberately making it look like a compression artifact to throw an observer off the trail. While this seems unlikely it is still a possibility.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
As in a different thread about some other photos from Clementine, I tried the new version of their browsing software here.

As in the other case, the images do not show that blurry areas. In some cases the blurry areas were replaced by black areas, but most appear as a "normal" Moon photo.

This is the first photo when viewed with the new version:


This is the second photo:


This is the photo posted by ZoooMer:


PS: I never understood why people think that they had spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work just to publish some photos with bad touching-up.
They publish what they want, if they found something that they do not want us to see they simply take it away from public eyes or even destroy it, they are the first people to see the photos.

And why is everyone blaming NASA on this case? Wasn't this a joint operation?
As they say on the site:

Clementine was jointly sponsored by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and NASA. The BMDO assigned responsibility for the Clementine spacecraft design, manufacture, integration, and mission execution to the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) provided lightweight imaging sensors developed under the sponsorship of BMDO.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Ya think
what else would those blurs be by the way, what is the explanation for those blurs.of



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOne1989
Ya think
what else would those blurs be by the way, what is the explanation for those blurs.of


I just contacted NASA public inquiries and asked them that question myself! There has to be an explanation, I'm eager to find out what rediculous answere they'll respond with.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quackmasterthe so called structures all ways seem have been captured in a perfect X-Y axis?

I am no astronaut, but I am guessing that the chance of all the subject matter on the moon that you all seem to having kittens about hasn't been been set up so that it fits the perceived X-Y axis of a ship or telescope that passes or points at the moon.



NASA posts info on their various photo sites that pictures are oriented after they are transmitted for easier viewing... there is no mystery in that




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7Ayreon

I just contacted NASA public inquiries and asked them that question myself! There has to be an explanation, I'm eager to find out what rediculous answere they'll respond with.


so much for denying ignorance .. huh ? you have a priori concluded that the NASA answer will be " rediculous " so , why did you even bother to ask ?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
im not one thats really good at photoshop..but is there a way to remove the air brushing?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by UniversalFunk
While the pictures do make you stop and scratch your head, there still is the question as to why these pictures would ever see the light of day.


Take a look at the Mars Rover galleries... they record EVERY picture they take in order and they are ALL posted good bad and ugly and endless shots of the rover "target" But each image is there They are called RAW images... 5 camera views... whether they are touched up or not they are posted..

They had one cute shot of one rover taking a picture of the other... good way to see damage... They also have shots of the two moons passing over head in a set of sequence shots... so the Martian moons are back


Spirit: All 87,226 Raw Images

Opportunity: All 79,184 Raw Images

Wanna hunt for anomalies on Mars? Have fun I found several that the "automatic filters" missed...


Oh yes they DO have automatic filters that look for keyed in targets and block them in transmition... ( What I don't know yet is how THEY recover the data that is blocked)



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
What I want to know if anyone here has a powerful enough telescope to see the moon in detail. I have a telescope, but it was for looking at mars and it's pretty powerful because I could see craters and what not on it. But I'm considering taking a better look at the moon for any 'anomalies'. Are these anomalies on the moon on the side facing away from earth or does anyone know of any that are borderline? Because I seriously think if you have the right telescope to see such things you can find them yourself.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
im not one thats really good at photoshop..but is there a way to remove the air brushing?


Sure!! Cut out the area and you are left with a black rectangle! No more smudge! Hmmm I wonder where I have seen that.... Oh yes I know!! They say that "black" area is "missing data from the transmition"....


But seriously... No you cannot undo the smudge without having the original image.


Originally posted by ArMaP

This is the first photo when viewed with the new version:


This is the second photo:


This is the photo posted by ZoooMer:


And why is everyone blaming NASA on this case?


Yup it is a NAVY project merely sponsored by NASA but hey they have the same Boss!



But why does no one ask why is the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization taking pictures of the moon? Huh? How come? Nothing suspicious about that right?

And why oh why do they have THIS disclaimer on the first page?


The Naval Research Laboratory is not affiliated in any way with any organization selling lunar property or acreage on the moon. NRL has no involvement, either officially or unofficially, in providing "after-sales service" for the purchase of lunar property from the Lunar Embassy, its franchisees, or any similar organizations. Disputes arising from the purchase of lunar property from such organizations must be resolved with the seller directly.


Nevermind I will go into that on the Moon Mine thread


You "Laughing Boys" are sooo funny... but you miss the really good stuff!






[edit on 6-11-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
What I want to know if anyone here has a powerful enough telescope to see the moon in detail. I have a telescope, but it was for looking at mars and it's pretty powerful because I could see craters and what not on it. But I'm considering taking a better look at the moon for any 'anomalies'. Are these anomalies on the moon on the side facing away from earth or does anyone know of any that are borderline? Because I seriously think if you have the right telescope to see such things you can find them yourself.


Nope the Lick Observatory photos posted in John Lears Lunar Pictures are taken with a 36 inch telescope and you can barely make out fine details and even that one is not strong enough to show the Lunar landing sites...

So I doubt yours will help much


Unless you have some Reptilian device we are not aware of


Copernicus Pictures
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lick Observatory picturs
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I posted those "new" images but I forgot to say what I think of it.

I find it "natural" that there are some black areas that represent areas that were not photographed.

If the software used to join the images was not that smart, then it may had tried to make up the rest of the image but interpolating the information it had on both sides of the black area, resulting in those blurred areas.

But this is just one possibility, I do not know the real reason for the blurred areas or the black areas, but I do know that if I was the responsible for showing some pictures with some things that could not be seen, I would find it easier to put a black patch over the image and say that it was a transmission fault than trying to blur large areas in a way that it is so obvious that any one can see it.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
with more evidence coming to light day by day,there is without doubt a humongous
world changing plan going on around us,and like the lone gunmen only a few have actually cottened on



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join