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.

 

Ancient structures that Nasa forgot to hide?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I've discovered it few hours ago, like you can see in the video those structures disappear in Visible and Elevation mode, this look like if they forgot to hide this image in Infrared mode, what do you think about it? is this the proof that they retouch everything?



Some pics:












[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I think it's pretty well understood NASA has been doctoring photos and you might have found some good evidence right there. I think that since they break it up to smaller pictures with the lines and all that they took a higher resolution image of that one spot. The only thing I see they might want to hide are those three domes. They don't appear in anything else from what I could tell so I wonder.... what could they be? Why is the section that is edited taken in a higher resolution than the other pictures? Could they be reducing the clarity of all the pictures flat out so they can zero in on what they want to see while faking everything else to the public?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, why do you think they're "ancient structures"? There's nothing unusual about them that I can see.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Just out of curiosity, why do you think they're "ancient structures"? There's nothing unusual about them that I can see.

Look at the shadows they are structures and very big, guys i don't know why, but i think that they're hiding something and this is the proof:


(the resolution of the 2nd image is higher then the proportions are different)

They have faked this image, this for me is the best proof of what they are doing, but this time they forgot to edit 1 image, why they should photo edit something that is "normal"?



[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Sorry for the repost but i've a problem with my internet connection.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JANAP-146
Look at the shadows they are structures and very big, guys i don't know why, but i think that they're hiding something and this is the proof:

(the resolution of the 2nd image is higher then the proportions are different)

They have faked this image, this for me is the best proof of what they are doing, but this time they forgot to edit 1 image.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]

I'm still not seeing any "ancient structures", just terrain features. What, specifically, makes you think they're ancient structures?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I'm still not seeing any "ancient structures", just terrain features. What, specifically, makes you think they're ancient structures?


I know that is hard to prove it without high resolution pics, but the first thing that let me think that they're ancient structures are the shadows, and the second thing is that they've retouched both images except of this, explain me why they should edit an image that haven't anything of strange. They have blurred everything farm4.static.flickr.com...

[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]

 


Trimmed quote

[edit on 20/4/09 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JANAP-146
 


I think it is possible that they might be hiding something up there and I have seen much more convincing photos then these. All you are looking at here is craters. To think they are anything else is pushing it bigtime.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Speculate beyond "ancient structures"... They might not be proof of an ancient civilization on the moon but the objects are clearly not in the other pictures. The one picture the objects are in was taken in a higher resolution if you compare it to the outer pictures. To me it seems they were looking to see if the image the OP is talking about was something of an ancient structure or just another moon feature. Either they found it to be nothing and left the high resolution picture, or it was and they edited it from the other photos and forgot that one.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
[edit on 19-4-2009 by Clairaudience]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by JANAP-146
 


I think it is possible that they might be hiding something up there and I have seen much more convincing photos then these. All you are looking at here is craters. To think they are anything else is pushing it bigtime.

Yeah, then is true that they are idiots, just an idiot could open photoshop and edit a crater.


@Clairaudience: noone and anything is perfect, and never will be.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by JANAP-146
 


I think it is possible that they might be hiding something up there and I have seen much more convincing photos then these. All you are looking at here is craters. To think they are anything else is pushing it bigtime.


Please post some of these more convincing photos or show me some links. New to the site and this subject. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy

Please post some of these more convincing photos or show me some links. New to the site and this subject. Thanks.


Sure:
Google Mars

There is a cleaner image: i39.tinypic.com... i repeat, they look like rests of something for me, there is only the desert near those things.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by JANAP-146]
 


Trimmed quote


[edit on 20/4/09 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Could you please circle the object(s) that you are talking about? Or describe what part of the photo I should be looking in?


jra

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Could you please circle the object(s) that you are talking about? Or describe what part of the photo I should be looking in?


Yeah I'm not really getting what I'm supposed to be seeing and what is supposedly retouched. And where on Mars are we looking at exactly?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JANAP-146
 


They do not disappear in Elevation mode, they are there, if you are talking about what I think you are talking about.


The features may be the same (they are there, only less noticeable), and the resolution of the camera or the angle of the light may account for the difference.

I will try to find some more photos from that area.

PS: This shows that Mars is far from photographed with high resolution, some very large areas do not have good photos.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Ok.. these guys need some serious photoshop classes.. the Blatant use of the Square eraser is just rediculous these maps.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
Ok.. these guys need some serious photoshop classes.. the Blatant use of the Square eraser is just rediculous these maps.

This is what i was talking about, there are traces of retouches and who use photoshop know it, guys i'm JANAP-146, someone that is a [snip] after i posted this topic changed the password of my old account.

 


Removed censor circumvention

[edit on 20/4/09 by masqua]


jra

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biohazard³¹³
This is what i was talking about, there are traces of retouches and who use photoshop know it


I've been using Photoshop for well over ten years and I'm not seeing squat. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse or anything. I just don't see anything unusual in these images. Definately not anything that screams "photoshoped".



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I've found again something of strange, but this time on the Moon:




After a bit of work:




It is geometrically perfect, but something or the time ruined it.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join