Weird Moon Anomaly! A Big UFO Or Artificial Structure?

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Great find IMHO, heres one for you I punched in the numbers and got the picture, but when i clicked directly on the object it tells me "This Image is unavailable" What is that? it allows the pictures all around the object to be zoomed but not the object pic itself. please someone try it and report back, just has me wondering.



Great thread mike you do make it interesting.

Edit for link but go to the site and try it



[edit on 18-9-2007 by geemony]

reply to post by PokeyJoe

---

It doesnt surprise me in the least that someone could screw up this bad at NASA. Rough night eyes were glossed over didnt realize they were allowing a poor scrub job to get on the net. might not be there long now.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by geemony]

Hmmmm...if thats a UFO, then where is the other half is my question?

reply to post by geemony

---

My guess would be it's ebcause they lack a higher resolution image of it, which is why it' appears"airbrushed" to begin with. You get the same message if you click on any fuzzy part of the images. That's the best they got.

Honestly, there's really nothing to see here Literally. Even if this were a giant structure or UFO, it's impossible to tell.

Here's one I found a while back in a set of photos from John Lear. Looks like a huge tower with a shadow. Someone suggested a hair on the scanner, which I think is wrong, as the tower shadow is aligned in the same direction as the other shadows.




Chaz.

Why didn't they just doctor the photos to avoid this mess? I personally believe it's nothing.

Whatever was there was lifted off or damaged with tape. Ordinary scotch tape most likely. Perhaps a note was taped to it and removed before it was scanned?

Give me a Moon image with something, and I can airbrush it out better than this in Photoshop.

This is a digital glitch. Nothing more.

That makes sense, but one would assume NASA of all people, wouldn't tape things to their photos ( just considering the importance and quality of them) but thats just my view on it. plus people make mistakes all the time so it could justbe tape .. but the real question is, is that what you want to believe it is???(same ? posed for both sides)??

[edit on 18-9-2007 by CyborgPirateNinjaJesus]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by CyborgPirateNinjaJesus]

Billion dollar device made exclusively just to take pictures, yet have blurs around areas that would measure miles in scale?

Does that make sense?

They make expensive stuff all the time that either explodes after launch or crashes when it lands.

Found this one on the Clementine satelite too after looking at the OPs pic and link.

reply to post by The Phantom

---

That video was by far the most convincing piece of evidence for this theory I have seen.Thanks for posting it.

It just does not get more obvious than this. This is as close to a shape as I'm going to get with the contrast information on the image. I'd say someone had something taped to it and pulled it off. Some careful protocols in place here I'll tell ya.

What most of you likely don't know is that when they make these images, they are done in strips, then stitched together (as mentioned in the video posted on the previous page).

The process isn't perfect. Often passes don't line up quite right. Rather than put out pics with big black pieces missing from them, they interpolate the sections of missing data from the edges of the data they have. Anyone who's done this knows that it always results in a fairly crappy job... but since these images are not critical, it really doesn't matter that much.

I "discovered" this years back when I was working on a game project involving Mars. We wanted to be as accurate as possible to the Martian surface, so I was re-constructing hight-map data from NASA side-scan images. I noticed a crap load of this kind of artifact and got curious. I played around a bit and was able to erase then reconstruct them by using the process I mentioned above.

Later, it was confirmed when I was corresponding with NASA directly. Hehe, they wanted to know how the hell I'd made such accurate maps after we'd sent them some samples. They were a little put-out when I confessed that the artifact areas were filled in by totally fake information. After I'd done the same thing they had to fill in the gaps (but at a higher resolution), I hand painted in terrain that matched up.
BTW, I used my technique for building height maps on the area known as Cydonia (the "face"). I was sorely disappointed at the results. Nothing came back looking at all face-like and I managed to prove (to myself, at least) that "the face" and the pyramids were all just tricks of the lighting.

I caution anyone interested in "structures" on other planets to be aware of the human tendency to impose Pattern Recognition upon just about anything we look at. Read up on it: Wiki entry
We see faces in clouds and Jesus on potato chips.
Why would you expect anything different when looking at pictures of the Moon?

reply to post by mikesingh

---

I hate to say it, but this is the real deal. There is no plausible explanation for this, This is in fact, an object of non-natural formation. Period. Nuff said.

reply to post by Project_Silo

---

your welcome, if you'd like to see more convincing evidence check out the movie it came from. it should be on google video. it's called "the greatest story never told"

mikesingh,

Mr. Skipper posted a very similar photo on his site, and lenghty commentary, Marsanomalyresearch.com in June of 2004.

Specifically in the master index at:
"(069) ... 06/14/2004 ... Clementine .... None .............. Moon Miscellaneous Structures"

Go to the following link:
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Frankly I am a little shocked that you don't reference him, but maybe you came by it from another source. I believe that he is, however, the originator of this "discovery." Did you spend hundreds of hours scanning the Clemintine material and find this all by yourself?

I usually look forward to your posts, but I find your possible lack of forthrightness irritating and telling. Credit seems due to Mr. Skipper.

Mr. Skipper's site is full of many wonderous "discoveries" to be made by anyone who can endure his wordiness.

reply to post by mikesingh

---

If you notice on the left side of the "object" there are seration on the end of the object. Reminded me of the end of a piece of scotch tape, when you take a piece off the dispenser, a serated metal edge is at the end of the dispenser cuts the tape and gives the tape a jagged edge. I have seen more convincing photos of objects on the moon than this one.

Yup that does seem alot like the outline of tape, on the left side those ridges don't seem like the bi-product of airbrush or photo shop. What if "tape pull-off" is a cheap cover-up technique?? (lol just kidding) as for me i will consider this photo debunked(not to say there are no structures on the moon but you have made a good point for this piece of "evidence". Kudos Blaine