Moon Landing Photo, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:12 PM by krzyspmac

I have inverted the image, and I do see something on the horizon, but I think it's just an artefact. The same is visible on the shadow of the moon lander.

[edit on 2008/8/5 by krzyspmac]

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:17 PM by optimistic skeptic

Wow...that is amazing. I knew that during the UFO disclosure project address to congress that an ex-nasa employee spoke of "mushroom and spherical shaped buildings on the surface of the moon" but I never imagined there would be a photo lurking around out there! I hope this turns out to be something....

Thanks for sharing

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:26 PM by jaden_x

looks like a very bad brush job to cover whatever wasn't supposed to be seen.
you can also see the same effects at the top. so, the black area in the middle being where the brush was solid black, and the bottom/top are the areas they missed, or thought was fully covered.

just my opinion.

__
edit to fix img tag.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by jaden_x]

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:29 PM by Nohup

Originally posted by jaden_x
looks like a very bad brush job to cover whatever wasn't supposed to be seen.

Maybe. But what about the exact same kinds of artifacts found in the shadow of the LEM? What's there that somebody is trying to "hide?"

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:34 PM by jaden_x

no idea, but just as the shadow on the floor, i'd say that background should look the same way all around. but i might be wrong. any PS experts ?

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:37 PM by internos

The artifacting is all over the image: but it's just visible in the darker area.
The pattern is the same, and the "structures in the background" are visible, after manipulation, only in a "special edition" while are NOT in other three official (and better res) versions.

[edit on 5/8/2008 by internos]

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:43 PM by ken10

Great pics guys,

I'd just like to say is there any possibility that could be heat rising from the surface creating a mirage effect ?

Although i really have no idea if the surface would get hot with no atmosphere, But just throwing a possibility out there for you to consider. But if it isn't it sure looks like structures !

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:47 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:53 PM by MrVertigo

This looks a lot like the stuff Richard Hoagland has been talking about. He believes they are giant glass structures, shattered after millenia of meteor impacts. I am not quite sure i believe that theory though.
In this particular case I am leaning more towards agreeing that what we're seeing here is a poor job of covering something up with a brush. In the shadow of the lander there are also what appears to be smudge marks from fingers or a brush, which would be consistent with a rushed job.
Strange that it's not on the hi-res version though... maybe they got the wrong set of negatives for the anniversary edition. After all NASA has been known to misplace things, like oooh... the tapes from the moon landing

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 07:08 PM by AlienCarnage

www.freewebs.com...

Just another look at image. To me it kind of looks like the reflections you would see in any bright object against a dark background in a picture.

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 07:50 PM by chapter29

reply to post by MrVertigo

I see the same spots on the lander shadow as well...looks just like finger prints. I am no PS expert either, but there sure does seem to be some major differences in the background (horizon) area - and that sure does look like a skyline and buildings in the mix.

If this is an actual photo and not disinformation, then I'd say we have something very interesting here.

Can't the goddamn aliens just say "hi"?

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 08:33 PM by Electro38

Those aren't the original print photos, they are digitized copies of the originals.

I'm not an expert, so please correct me if I am wrong. But, if we don't know in which manner the were copied, scanned, digitized, edited for use on a web page, etc. then how can we say the original prints were deliberately altered to hide structures?

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Electro38]

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 08:37 PM by rodebert

Hate to burst your bubble but all those squares and shapes over the horizon is just JPEG compression damage to the photo. I see a lot of that in photos due to my field of work.

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 08:48 PM by LazyGuy

reply to post by rodebert

I agree. Look at how the lander shadow shows the same blotchy broken up pixels.

By the way, thanks to jaden_x for posting the image.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by LazyGuy]

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 09:19 PM by ghofer

Originally posted by rodebert
Hate to burst your bubble but all those squares and shapes over the horizon is just JPEG compression damage to the photo. I see a lot of that in photos due to my field of work.

Exactly. I get the same thing when I try this with some of my own photos from planet Earth. I'm pretty sure there are no big glass structures in the fields near my house.

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 09:28 PM by George Costanza

1 They landed in a crater(but why take that out).2 Its a human Moon base that no one is suppose to know about.3 Its an alien base or city.If not those 3 then why would you need to block stuff out? What are they hiding behind that?

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 09:37 PM by chapter29

reply to post by LazyGuy

O.K. this may put this thread to rest, but I have a question, and of course it's a rookie question - so here:

Why doesn't the land area of the pic have the same building looking-skyline compression qualitites as well?
Beacuse there is something actually there, the compression effects do not have the same look?

It seems that either way, this will end up being labelled another "I don't know..."

Also, shouldn't the original and not just the anniversary pictures have the same issue? Why this one and not the other? Comments on this one seemed to be addressed earlier in the thread, but just to make sure, can anyone explain how the JPEG compression affects only certain areas of a photo?

Much appreciated!

Just trying to figure this one out...

[edit on 8/5/2008 by chapter29]

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 09:44 PM by masterShake122

Hey guys I'm a Photoshop expert, been doin it for years so if anyone needs help debunking images let me know. Here is a my rendition of the photo. The pyramid on the horizon doesn't surprise me though after this video:

Pyramids on the moon

Photoshop effects:
Saturation +82
Lightness +34

[edit on 5-8-2008 by masterShake122]

[edit on 5-8-2008 by masterShake122]

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 10:01 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by rodebert

If what you say is true, and is only a product of the image having been compressed, can you explain why it only happens on the horizon and not in the rest of the image, as in the sky for instance?

reply posted on 5-8-2008 @ 10:02 PM by masterShake122

Originally posted by chapter29
reply to post by LazyGuy

can anyone explain how the JPEG compression affects only certain areas of a photo?

Typically when an image is compressed like color pixels get simplified into just single color pixels to reduce file size. The more the compression the more un-alike pixels get blended together. Areas like the sky seem smooth because it's all the same color, where detailed areas are blocky because they contain more colors. Make sense?

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^