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.

 

Moon: 19 58 48.31 N 21 11 35.57 E

page: 12
90
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nomadros
 


Not sure if this post is in exactly the right place though it's about moon anomalies so here goes:

About a month ago, sitting at my pc at early dusk, clear blue sky, a few clouds, glimpsed the moon from the patio which seemed extraordinarily bright, and I do look at the sky a lot, it was very bright, so I decided to take a pic on my Blackberry camera.

As I was focusing on the moon there were lights going round it, small, about 10 of them would have fitted in the moon as it looked on the camera, I reckoned there were around 5, all same size and shape, round, glowing lights, whitish like the colour of the moon, equadistant, uniform globes of light.

My mind somehow convinced myself it was normal camera focusing and with possible allusions to the scrolling lights and similar imagery of the google loading circle, the cable loading symbol and such like. Then my mind realised it wasn't normal focusing as the image was in focus and it wouldn't have made any sense.

All this mind reckoning was in the space of a few seconds during which I clicked to take a picture and realised it was odd and said out load, ''what the h** is that?''.

Below is the picture and an image of it enlarged on my pc. There are 3 lights and maybe there were 3 at the time and I thought there were 5 due to them circling. The circling was clockwise and like the numerals on a clock face, the lights were just out with the moon's perimeter as opposed to orbiting like saturnal rings or equatorially and fast, as for each globe to complete an orbit in less than 3 seconds, obviously this is as seen and not a calculation of actual movement.

I wondered if anything similar has been reported or witnessed or any logical suggestions.

I have had some UFO sightings before and at least once involving fast moving triangular lights.

Additionally, the 3 lights in the picture form a triangle and when I viewed it on my camera the moon was central, on the picture the moon is positioned above the lights.

Pictures to follow when I work out how to load them on here.




[edit on 25-10-2009 by theabsolutetruth]




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

No.
Neither a digital bug nor a lunar bug. It's a photographic flaw which is duplicated in at the same frame location (up and left of center) in a series of Apollo 15 images:
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My questions were more rhetorical to make a point, I believe you knew that though. I am also in agreement with you about the nature of these anomalies but I don't feel that it is a "case closed" situation from some of the replies I read afterward. I think there is still more to learn from this and I felt it had to do with a direct comparison of the images with and without these anomalies in this location.

I just wanted to add my opinion and thank you for your efforts as well as Phage and Soboro. I would also like to point out that even if this is "case closed" for this anomaly there is no need to worry because the Moon has many more yet to be explained anomalies to brood over.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I am also in agreement with you about the nature of these anomalies but I don't feel that it is a "case closed" situation from some of the replies I read afterward.

I just wanted to add my opinion and thank you for your efforts as well as Phage and Soboro. I would also like to point out that even if this is "case closed" for this anomaly there is no need to worry because the Moon has many more yet to be explained anomalies to brood over.


The credit goes to Soboro, Phage, and some others, not me, I'm just looking at their evidence and finding it very compelling, and pointing that out. I read the replies to those explanations too but other than someone asking why the specks are black and why the anomaly isn't (which Phage already addressed) I didn't see anything that would make me say it's not "case closed", unless someone just wants to understand exactly what fiddling Google does to change the color of the image. from black to something else.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are REAL things on the moon which are difficult to explain, so spending time and effort on those REAL things would make more sense to me than these photographic aberrations that show something that's not even on the moon. I'm not trying to take this thread off topic but just one example out of many that are way more interesting, is what appears to be a photo of parallel tracks taken in 1967, I can't explain that one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mikesingh
The two images below are what I found whilst studying the Lunar Orbiter images from Prof Robinson’s collections. Note that these ‘tracks’ were photographed in 1967 BEFORE any probe landed on the Moon! So these cannot be explained away as tracks made by a Lunar Rover.



There are many others in that thread many of which appear to be real anomalies or interesting images. But I'm convinced the anomaly in this thread is a photographic anomaly and not a moon anomaly.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Imagir
 

No.
Neither a digital bug nor a lunar bug. It's a photographic flaw which is duplicated in at the same frame location (up and left of center) in a series of Apollo 15 images:
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...





Photographic flow????

From your point of view, then, every "anomaly" could be only a Photographic Flow!


ATS Boys: don't waste your time to investigate.

Is useless to insert images of “anomalies” because they are all "Photographic Flow"!!
And however, Phage, your links don't work.....

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Imagir]

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Imagir]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


First, it's "flaw" not "flow".

Second, the "flaws" demonstrated in this thread are repeated in multiple images, that's why Soboro and Phage were able to make movies of them. So, yes those are flaws in the photographic images.

But you're jumping to conclusions to say that applies to all anomalies, it doesn't. I just posted a link to a thread that has lots of interesting images in it, most of which are not photographic flaws.

You would be doing a great service to promote the "deny ignorance" slogan of ATS by learning to tell the difference between anomalies that are caused by photographic flaws, and those that aren't, and you're getting lots of help in this thread on how to tell them apart, if you would just look at the evidence with an open mind.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Very Interesting point of view…

Your images are “anomalies” the other images are “photographic FLAWS”….
But why do you say that it is a Photographic flaws if the anomaly appears also in MULTIPLE images?


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Imagir]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

They are flaws because they are caused by the equipment. They appear in different images because they are caused by dust in front of the film.

Prior to exposure, the film in the Apollo mapping camera system (a schematic of which is reproduced below) was held by pressure against a glass plate containing the reseau marks.

Subsequent analysis during image reprocessing has revealed that during the missions foreign debris are present in the optical path of the camera system and can be seen in the seen in the photographic exposures. Selected examples of blemish features of this type are shown in Figure 2. A movie showing blemish movement can be seen here.

apollo.sese.asu.edu...



Go to this directory: apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Look for these images:
AS15-M-0329_LRG.png
AS15-M-0135_LRG.png
AS15-M-0370_LRG.png
AS15-M-0381_LRG.png



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

But why do you say that it is a Photographic flaws if the anomaly appears also in MULTIPLE images?


Because there is no reason the exact or nearly the exact same black speck would appear evenly spaced on the surface of the moon at defined intervals, but there's a very good reason why the same black speck would appear the same location of regularly spaced photographs of the moon's surface, and that is because the black specs are an artifact of the optical imaging system, and not a part of the moon's surface.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Thanks Phage & Arbitraguer

But how do you can explain that a very similar anomaly is found in an absolutely different zone from the first?

FIRST MOON BUG


SECOND MOON BUG



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Umm, not sure if you guys realized this or not, but every picture taken of the moon goes through some sort of approval process. If there was something that was truly an anomaly don't you think NASA would have kept that photograph?

I find it hilarious that people use Google Maps to look for answers. Like there isn't a buffer from the original source to the internet.


Oh, and this "moon bug" is hilarious.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Privacy-Please]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Privacy-Please
 


I really think that you are joke

Your speculation is absolutely right but
Nasa people
(sorry still laughing) are humans
like me and probably you
and... "sometimes"... "something"... SLIP OUT



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
Thanks Phage & Arbitraguer

But how do you can explain that a very similar anomaly is found in an absolutely different zone from the first?


See figure 2 in the link Phage just posted. The caption reads:


Figure 2. . Examples of consistent blemish features in sequential metric frames from the Apollo 15 mission. Note how the position and orientation of these blemish features change slightly from frame to frame (ASU).


So you're seeing what looks like a slightly different orientation perhaps.

I don't know how many photos were taken with that particular artifact in the picture, but if it was in 10 photos, you'll see roughly the same thing in 10 different locations on the moon, and those 10 photos could cover many miles of terrain so the first one and the 10th one could be quite far apart relative to the moon's geography.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks again but I'm not still convinced of this explanaition.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by Privacy-Please
 


I really think that you are joke

Your speculation is absolutely right but
Nasa people
(sorry still laughing) are humans
like me and probably you
and... "sometimes"... "something"... SLIP OUT


I agree, sometimes, some things may slip out. But apparently according to most people, things slip out every time NASA opens there damn mouth. So either NASA needs to shut up, or too many people dissect jpeg artifacts way too seriously.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Privacy-Please
 


For this reason I'm a member of ATS.

These issues are tremendously serious and we cannot wait for that NASA or the Governments says to us how are really the things in topic of Aliens/ET…

We, all we, must to put them with "backs against the wall" and to say the truth on what they hide from many many years...

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Imagir]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks again but I'm not still convinced of this explanaition.


OK then, well let me ask you this:

Have you got a better explanation for why that similar looking object appears in different places on the moon, that also happens to be in roughly the same position in each of the photographic images?

If so, I'd like to hear it.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm not an expert and may be you are right, but the Moon is a really strange place and still misterious....

Hope hear your opinion on my next thread about some strange anomalies on Tycho Crater.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I think one could say that the object in question is an anomalous flaw. The evidence appears to show that this is connected to one camera from a single mission and is most likely due to debris on or around the camera lens. If this were a hair then it would no longer be considered anomalous as we could then identify it accurately but this debris remains unknown even though its origin is not.

From the link Phage posted there is some compelling information about the imaging process and what are called "Blemish Artifacts".
Take a look at a diagram of the Apollo mapping camera system, this might help explain how the blemishes seem to move around a bit but still stay somewhat orientated.
Metric Camera System.

Here is a collection of Blemish Artifacts from that site found in some of the Apollo film stock. There is also a little down-loadable Quick Time video link that shows one anomaly slowly advancing across the film plate giving it some animation.

I hope this helps because understanding what we are looking at in these and other images is crucial to our understanding of the Moon and what is really up there. I have seen more unexplainable things from images of the Moon then I can remember right now but I feel that the truth is more bizarre than we can imagine.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Can someone look at this AP17 photo on extreme zoom. I see three blurred spots that looks as if they may have been airbrushed.

I am not sure if one of them is in the exact right spot or just close.

Kind of strange that zooming in on the clementine you get less resoloution than the apollo photos...Department of Defence and ballistic missile department sending a moon mission is strange to me anyway. You know clemintine photos will not have any anomolies due to it being a military operation.

If you can find an airbrush indication in that spot that would prove it was not debris on the scan due to differant source and dates of the photos.

Thanks all, but please like others said talk about evidence not each other. We are discussing photos not Members.



new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join