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.

 

VERY STRANGE Moon Anomalie??? Does anyone know what this is?(calling Mr Lear)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
The white dots are damage on films, might be chemical damage, it is not easy to see in low resolution Lunar Orbiter images but simple to see on high resolution ones. They are relatively common too. To see high resolution images from the Lunar Orbiter mission go to:

astrogeology.usgs.gov...
and

astrogeology.usgs.gov... VH_data/

Project homepage:

astrogeology.usgs.gov...




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
I confirmed the image does indeed have two paths. The first labeled "Lamont", and the second a default "path 1". This clearly indicates this image has likely been modified from the original.


NASA photos modified or tampered with? Say it isn't so... why would they do that?




Originally posted by Acharya
The white dots are damage on films, might be chemical damage, it is not easy to see in low resolution Lunar Orbiter images but simple to see on high resolution ones.


And this you believe because NASA tells you yes?

:bash:

[edit on 23-1-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Whilst I can't say what they are, the anomalies appear to have no depth whatsoever - either they're white dots painted on the surface of the Moon, white dots painted on the original image, or a fault with the image.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Bit hard to assertain depth at that altitude...


Spacecraft Altitude: 2716.89 km


This might help with the scale abit....

Have a look at this image, and take note of a marked features

The crater "Aldrin" for example, then look at the list below to find the average size



Aldrin 1.4°N/22.1°E 3 km
Apollo 11 0.7°N/23.4°E - km
Arago 6.2°N/21.4°E 26 km
Armstrong 1.4°N/25.0°E 4 km
Collins 1.3°N/23.7°E 2 km
Delambre 1.9°S/17.5°E 51 km
Hypatia 4.3°S/22.6°E 40 km
Lamont 4.4°N/23.7°E 106 km
Manners 4.6°N/20.0°E 15 km
Mare Tranquillitatis 8.5°N/31.4°E 873 km
Moltke 0.6°S/24.2°E 6 km
Ranger 8 / km
Rimae Hypatia 0.4°S/22.4°E 206 km
Rimae Ritter 3.0°N/18.0°E 100 km
Rimae Sosigenes 8.6°N/18.7°E 190 km
Ritter 2.0°N/19.2°E 29 km
Sabine 1.4°N/20.1°E 30 km
Schmidt 1.0°N/18.8°E 11 km
Sinus Asperitatis 3.8°S/27.4°E 206 km
Surveyor 5 / km


Source



[edit on 23-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acharya
The white dots are damage on films, might be chemical damage, it is not easy to see in low resolution Lunar Orbiter images but simple to see on high resolution ones.


Agreed. here's a couple of closeups to illustrate, from This Image :- 4102_h2

dots closeup :-


dots and lines closup :-


Definitely looks like some sort of chemical/liquid damage on the photo to me.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Hmmmmm, not bad


Im having trouble with what im actually looking at in relation to the photgraph.

The "dots" or chemical "spills" on the blown up image look almost "painted" or "drawn" on.

How did you get this image when the source is SO pixelated.

Is there an original source image you can provide? Perhaps with the area you enharnced,marked out?

Thanx



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The orginal source image is this one astrogeology.usgs.gov...

from This page posted earlier.

The images is huge, 6000 pixels across, and is actually rotate 90 degrees clockwise compared with the smaller image (i don't know why, that's how they are provided).

the dotted area is therefore to the lower left of the big image (lower right and 90 counter clockwise in the smaller jpg image)

hope this helps



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Cheers


30 mins to download......DAMN thats a big file for a pic





posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
stupid double post


[edit on 23-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
TRIPPLE even


[edit on 23-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Someone beat me to it, but I was going to say look closer and you can see craters under the white dots. Clearly the wihite dots are some sort of processing artifact and are not real.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Here is a quick set of pics i crudley put together



They are taken from this image

4065_h3_raw.tif.gz

IMHO they sortta point to damage to the film in the ways prev suggested.

But those pics at the beginning of the thread are still very interesting - not counting out any thing here guys!!

p.s. any one tell me how to embed my pics in my post?!?!

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Now_Then]
p.s. much obliged to zorgon for pointer on embeding pics


[edit on 23-1-2007 by Now_Then]

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Now_Then]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   


p.s. any one tell me how to embed my pics in my post?!?!


yeah, ive been wondering how to do that my self.

your EXTERNAL image link isnt working im afraid, any chance you can fix it?

they are deffinately picture anomalies on the last few, what id REALLY like to see, is a raw Tif image of the first pic with the array of dots, to get a REALLY good look at them.

as said in the first few posts,there are TWO types of anomaly here, funky blobs that looks like a bad SciFi effect for Doctor Who or something.

And then there is the white dots.

If anyone comes across the Raw tif image for the first pic, please let us know.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism

If anyone comes across the Raw tif image for the first pic, please let us know.


Here is a high resolution version of the image that started this thread, as I previously stated the white marks looks like chemical damage on the film.





Source:
astrogeology.usgs.gov... tion/data/4085_h1_raw.tif.gz



[edit on 23-1-2007 by Acharya]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
p.s. any one tell me how to embed my pics in my post?!?!


Simple enough


Click on that little icon on the post page and paste in the url of the picture... just keep it under 700 pixels wide or the boss will yell at you


in other words don't try to post the raw tiff its too big

WATER SPOTS on Copernicus #5




Originally posted by Acharya
Here is a high resolution version of the image that started this thread, as I previously stated the white marks looks like chemical damage on the film.


Maybe its Alien Space Bugs splattering on the space ship lens...


[edit on 23-1-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
and here's a closer closup of the bottom right of the dots :-




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
But rather than stare at water blobs all day I preferer real anomalies LOL








posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I would almost be ready to to say "ok,nothing odd there", except for the fact that, if you look at the Array of dots, close up, and put it in context with the surrounding area..

You'll notice that the internal shading of the white dots matches up to the sun angle as shown by surrounding craters.

it could be concievable that NASA would render the REAL anomalies there (maybe 5-10 dots) invisable by surrounding the area with other "questionable" anomalies.

This would allow them to leave the "airbrushing", instead just make the image inconclusive OR "obviously" damaged.

Or am i going abit TOO far there



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
it could be concievable that NASA would render the REAL anomalies there (maybe 5-10 dots) invisable by surrounding the area with other "questionable" anomalies.

This would allow them to leave the "airbrushing", instead just make the image inconclusive OR "obviously" damaged.

Or am i going abit TOO far there


I think so I'm afraid. If you look the little blobs are on lots, if not all of the images, all over the place. It would be far more time consuming and difficult to create all the blobs than it would to actually paint something out of the images if they wanted to hide something.

Im pretty sure it's just the result of left over residue from either the developing proccess (unlikely), the contact printing process (possible) or the cleaning process before the images was scanned (slightly more likely I reckon).



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Debunked IMO.

Those are obvious liquid blobs on the film. I was really thinking they were intelligently designed structures at first glance....... then I remembered that just about everything posted on this site is bunk and snapped back out of dream land. I would love it to be real structures, but I can't let that impair my judgement.

Unfortunately there is evidence that suggests it is liquid on the film.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by greerISaFraud]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join