It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Now THIS is an anomaly

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:17 AM

Originally posted by
reply to post by mikesingh

Remember! The photo is upside down!

Darn! Why the dickens didn't you tell me that earlier? I fried my brains looking for it right side up!! And lost some sleep too!

Ok, here's one further to the right. Strange landscape. Now this one's right side up! (Did I need to say that?

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:19 AM
I've looked over the original image several times and I've yet to find the anomaly that the op posted. Could someone please mark where it is on the original image, or pride detailed info on where to find it.

This looks extremely interesting but I'm a bit hesitant until I can verify it for myself.

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:38 AM
Does anyone know exactly where this Lunar Orbiter 3 picture was taken?
I'm useless at all that longitude and latitude stuff. A simple crater name or area would be great.

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

All the satellite info is at

If I am correct it was taken 59km above the surface. Does anyone know how to scale a photo to see the size of an anomaly? Like 1 pixel equals x feet?

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

I share your frustration. Looking at your photo I still don't know exactly where you are. I'll be posting a jpg that has the white photo scatches and the city within the same photo.

Believe or not, even after you go back to the original big photo and try to find it, it will take some time (and experience) to dodge and burn it out. See where I set my dodging circle parameters in Photoshop in a previous post.
In addition, your photo software should have this some feature like this , if you have software that can just contrast a jpg as a whole (not specific area) It will no way come close to the Photoshop feature. I have used ThumbsPlus image software for 7 years and no way would I have found the city using that software. After I viewed a Photoshop burn detail tutorial on You Tube I taught my self Photoshop. In ONE WEEK I was able to get the Lunar City.
I just think of all the hundreds of Mars photos I have worked with, that I can now use Photoshop now on them. YIPPEE

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:53 AM
Lol, I was about to say, flip it upside down, one of NASA's favourite moves, throws your perception out of whack!!

Right, Mike, I don't know where you are on that picture, but I like it!!!

Check this, anyone else notice this?

I saw them, the minute I looked at the picture, a large pyramid and a smaller one, the smaller ones shadow is more visible, top left of the image.Seemed to be surrounded by the 'geometrical' patterns on floor.

Is this on the OP pic? or was that one from your private collection?


[edit on 10-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

Yep! That image was extracted from the OPs image, not my private collection!

And yes, the pyramid like structures are pretty strange. There's another one toward the left of the image, but I cropped that one out to concentrate more on the center of the image! Duh!

[edit on 10-9-2008 by mikesingh]

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:06 PM
Here is the photo of the city in relation to the white marks

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:58 PM
Good find. Very interesting images, the "lunar ghosts" are weird.

I don't want to sound like a debunker, I'm not, but these images cannot contain any artificial structures surely. The people behind these missions wouldn't let data like that into the public arena, would they?

Unless they're using ATS as a source of free analytical staff of course!

I ask that question to Mr Singh too.

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Sendran

I think you would find the latest NY Top 20 seller "Dark Mission" By Richard Hoagland very interesting

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:33 PM
Ok... so you took this (zoomed a bit more than you did):


After hours of painstakingly adjusting the pixel contrast

You come up with this:

It appears to me that your pixel manipulation is at best, creative. Is there any particular reason you didn't select some other area to work on? The "patterns" you accentuated appear all over the photograph.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Phage]

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Phage

The final picture doesn't "just appear like that" like you said. First, you don't work on the whole photo at once, you break it up into sections. The photo you blew up was about the same size of my original and was divided up into about 16 equal boxes. It would be impossible to ever come up with any conclusions if you evaluated the whole picture at once. Very few understand the amount of REAL information there are in these photos. The real amount of information in one of these photos is astounding.

What I noticed from all these anomaly jpgs that are posted on the net is that, people don't know the real depths of a photo's greyscale,shadows, shapes, lines, curves, circles, semi lucent objects, and most importantly #D qualities that are in these photos- most of the time they show pictures with a couple of "edges" of shapes, and try to fit it into what they are fimiliar with and say it's a "house" or something.

I just wanted to add that I don't think there was any creativity that was put into this photo. In fact I know there was no creativity. I would rather call it - very analytical diligence. You just cant come up with this type of photo, like a fast food burger. I've been doing this for years-a lot of times even with this city photo, I would just get totally burnt out and would have to leave it alone for a day. There is now way you can do this at one sitting. No way. And sometimes I would just come up with rocks and part of a natural landscape.


ULOs: Watch and Learn #1 - Moon Structures

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by

nice work

extremely interesting picture , thanks for posting.

star and flag from me

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:40 PM
You know what I find hilarious? Everytime one of you posts the original source picture, I download it, blow it up, and scour it for minutes on end, and NEVER find the anomaly that was originally posted.

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by
Very few understand the amount of REAL information there are in these photos. The real amount of information in one of these photos is astounding.

You do understand that these photos have been "put through the wringer" before you did anything to them, right? The photos are shot with a film camera, automatically processed then scanned onboard the spacecraft, sent as video (not digital) to Earth. Those video images were then printed on Earth. In spite of all that, the images are very high quality. The original negatives were not "lost", they remained on the spacecraft which crashed on the moon.

But we are not looking at those high quality prints. What we have here is a jpeg (notorious for "adding" information in the form of artifacts) image of a very low resolution scan (73 dpi). Yes, the original prints had a lot of information. This image does not.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Phage]

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:13 PM
i have to agree with Phage. With the amount of photoshop work you put into just that small of an area would leave me to believe that you ended up "creating" more than "uncovering" data. Especially if the image you were working on was generations away from the "lost" original.

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:10 PM
Fanastic find!

But the original Photo botherme somwhat, while i am inclined to say that it does not seem like a photo anomolty to me, the photo itself is very strange

in the scaled view it seems like it is a Landscape photo, with water at the bottom, your city in the rocks, and sky above, and is weirder still as i click on it to enlarge.

For some reason my brain is having trouble seeing this a a convetional moon photo, as i cannot see how all the photo joins up as a flat,downside veiw of the moon, making me think that it is an ajusted landscape photo.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in