Moon Photo's with sections smudged or blanked out!!!!! weird

Download the following and move forward.
I wont ruin it but the video is 93 minutes long and has some amazing structures in clear view.

www.dark-truth.org...

AHHHH Jose Escamilla?
The man who take pictures of the sun through clouds with and IR film and calls it a UFO?

Dont ya just love those zooming videos he takes of moths and insects flying around and calls them 'rods'

The man has his own media company, I just wonder if money might be involved here somewhere?

Originally posted by blahdiblah
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

 

OK ignorethefacts can you explain to me why there are square blurs on those lunar pics?

[edit on 18-9-2007 by blahdiblah]

If I need to do that, then you deserve to fall for anything posted online. Can you tell me why you think they should not be squares? LOL

reply to post by Chorlton

who is it now on star trek--the romulans or the klingons ?that are able to cloak their space ships---it has only just recently been announced that we are near or have the technology now to dress a soldier in an electronic light bending suit that makes them invisible almost----just like that alien that came to earth for a head hunting vacation that arnold swartz(?) killed eventually.

reply to post by Dutchie59


thanks duchie59 for letting us know about this 93 minute you tube film---absolutely fascinating-------glad i dont know any secrets that someone would think it was worthwhile throwing me out of a window to make sure i didnt tell ! i have to watch it again-----not sure if i heard right but thought i heard that there might be nukes in space already?---to defend against aliens? i have to wonder---why bother?---they obviously could have eliminated us by now if they were hostile---our governments have helped wreck this planet----we need someone with some sense to repair the damage already done by us.

For anyone who brings up the "it's nothing but bad data in the image" argument:

Do you all have any idea what bad data in an image should look like?

For one it wouldn't be blurred out, it would be black pixels. Secondly, they wouldn't take up large chunks and look like a perfect black square.

Picture an image with small black dots all over it. That's what a picture with bad or missing data would look like. Not one large picture with one large black square or rectangle or blur covering one certain section.

When people on here call the blurs bad or missing data it cracks me up. That just proves they have no clue at all what they're talking about.

With how advanced the equipment is, they shouldn't have soo many images that are blurred or completely blacked out in certain areas.

And to IgnoreTheFacts...If you're going to sit on here trying to debunk things then post evidence that backs up what you say. Here's a reply of yours above:

If I need to do that, then you deserve to fall for anything posted online. Can you tell me why you think they should not be squares? LOL

You were asked if you could explain why there are square blurs and that was your reply to that question. Obviously you can't answer that even though you've made yourself out to be an expert that knows all the answers. That's why you decided to take their question and turn it around on them trying to get them to answer it. Because you have no clue at all what you're talking about.

You do this a lot on here from what I've noticed. IMHO the only reason you're on here is to get an argument going and you just keep the argument going without ever adding anything useful to the thread and it's getting old and annoying which is why you're now going on my ignore list.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by nightmare_david]

Originally posted by nightmare_david
For one it wouldn't be blurred out, it would be black pixels. Secondly, they wouldn't take up large chunks and look like a perfect black square.

Picture an image with small black dots all over it. That's what a picture with bad or missing data would look like. Not one large picture with one large black square or rectangle or blur covering one certain section.

The way missing data looks depends on the way the data is gathered, stored and transmitted.

If the equipment takes 20 consecutive photos with 5 parallel cameras and one of the cameras fails to work, the missing data will be a black stripe where the 20 images from that camera would appear.

If the data is stored in a device that works like a hard disk and some areas of that storage device are unreadable, then the way that the missing data will look depends on the way the data was stored, if it was stored like a BMP file then the missing data will be a black horizontal stripe that extends for as much pixels as the lost data.

If the transmission fails and can not be repeated, then the way that the missing data will look depends on the way the data is transfered. If it was transfered in packets of data and one is missing then, probably, that missing data will look like a black stripe if the data was sent in packets representing lines, and it will look like a black square if the image was split in squares, each square representing a data packet.

With how advanced the equipment is, they shouldn't have soo many images that are blurred or completely blacked out in certain areas.

The Clementine mission is not a recent one, it was launched in January 1994.


My examples may not be the best, but I hope that they show that the missing data may have many different results.

Also, I don't think that in this case we can call the blurry areas missing data in the sense that there is not part of an image missing, what is missing is some complete images.

And the missing images appear as black areas on the new image browser, forget the old one.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks for the information armap, I was wondering about this myself. As I said earlier, the smudged images look too selected and form shapes and seem to trace objects rather than be lines of missing data etc. I dont know what is up there, whether it be alien or man made but one thing I am certain of is that something DEFINATELY is being covered up!!!

I know the Clementine mission wasn't recent and I never said or implied that it was. I was talking about how even today they still take pictures and have these huge blacked out areas they call missing data. They take multiple shots of areas at one time. There shouldn't be soo many images with missing data like that, because they could fill in that data with other passovers and they never do that.

What are the odds of missing data in the same areas everytime a picture is taken of that area? Missing data in images taken by different satellites of the same areas. I don't think so.

heres an interesting link I have found which contains some excellent information about the moon and its possible artificial origin....

paranormal.about.com.../XJ/Ya&sdn=paranormal&cdn=newsissues&tm=118&gps=160_1242_1089_819&f=10&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=14& bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.rense.com/general69/moon.htm

reply to post by Turbohale


Hey Turbohale. Great find.

I looked more into that browser and scanned the area. I came across and object. I started laughing assuming that NASA missed this object to blur out.

Let me know what you think and the rest of the fine ATSers.
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...



[edit on 18-11-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

[edit on 18-11-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis


link says object not found!.

save a copy of the pics in your temp files if you havnt!

Originally posted by welivefortheson
reply to post by Tomis_Nexis

 

link says object not found!.

save a copy of the pics in your temp files if you havnt!

Every few minutes after I put the link up I get that message too. I saved the photo, well actually several of the object at different heights.

Stupid question: how would I go about loading into a reply?

Another way of locating that object:
In the menu area under the map
Latitude: 10
Longitude:56

Then zoom in, you'll see a dark square in a relatively lighter coloured terrain, you can't miss it.

Edit: I don't know why, don't use those co ordinates, it won't take you to the object. This is getting on my nerves.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

[edit on 18-11-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis


Those images are created "on the fly", they only exist in your browser, that is how they can show images from every place in every size without having all those different images available on the site.

To put the images on a post upload them first to a site like ImageShack, then use the code provided by ImageShack for "Forums" and paste it into your post.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks ArM, I'll get right on it.



[edit on 19-11-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

Here's the object I found on the Lunar browser. 3 images.
Once again it's Latitude - 10, Long - 56 on the browser.

Dead center on the shot.

Closer at 8 kilos.

1 kilo away.

I don't know what to think of it. Just seems to be odd compared to the terrain around it.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

Why was my post deleted? If the mods had the courtesy to at least PM me reason for deleting my comment on Mr Lear's moon findings, in which I emphasized "in my oppinion" and with "with all due respect to mr Lear", I would be very happy.

And yes. I still think it's:

a) Hyped up
b) No structures there but just wild imagination

So, what's the problem here? Who has a personal grudge with me here to silently remove my comment?

Do I see posts getting erased claiming there's a grocery store and intersections on the moon? No. So what's the deal here? Only one side allowed or what?

Originally posted by mikesingh
Are you aware that NASA has a photo section that pores over images and airbrushes anomalies that are out of sync and beyond comfort levels of the Military Intelligence, CIA, NSA etc before they are released for the consumption of the general public?

Well, then, which is it? Are they good and efficient at it, or are they not? If they're really scouring every image, why are there so many with "anomalies" found by a bunch of goofballs on a website?

You know, if you really want to look for "anomalies," look for small areas where the landscape has been patched with a bit of another portion of the image. Two identical craters or groups of identical craters too close to each other, for instance. The sort of thing the "Rubber Stamp" tool in Photoshop does so well. If the NASA folks are as good as you say, then they'd be smart enough to copy and paste a bit of the image (or even a reverse of the image) to make it so less conspicuous you'd have a really, really hard time catching it.

So which is it, are they incredibly skillful and diligent or sloppy?

[edit on 19-11-2007 by Nohup]

So will the JAXA agency prob currently flying around the Moon see these ruins or not? Are they also in on the conspiracy to hide things?

space.jaxa.jp...