Moon: 19 58 48.31 N 21 11 35.57 E

page: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Nichiren
OP, good catch!

Wouldn't it be funny if John Lear was 100% right about all the "nonsense" he kept telling here on ATS? The latest NASA mission was such a strange event that I'm open to a lot more possibilities ...

UGGG! No.. it WASN'T

Just because you feel it was strange doesn't make it so.. what is with you people? Sometimes I wonder how it is exactly that you get on in life.

-OMG we came to the stop sign at the same time...I wonder what that's all about? CIA, NSA, NWO?? OMG!!

I have no idea if this is an anomoly, a picture artifact or a google joke but when I see people posting different "perspectives" of a moon image and regarding them as ACTUAL perspectives and not extrapolation, I get seriously annoyed with you guys.

Sometimes I feel as though I am reading posts written by fifth graders.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by gormly]

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:52 AM

here's another one.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by gormly

Just had a chance to look at the original pics posted and am wondering if anyone else noticed that in one of the close up side shots of the original anomaly, where it looks most like a base of some sort, it appears there is light being emitted from the large rectangle on the left; if you look at the plane which is perpendicular to the surface. There also appears to be something much like a beacon light on several of the anomalies, although I suppose it could be a perfectly circular reflection of sun light...

I can't see NASA coming clean if these are bases of some sort. They get their funding from TPTB so they're not about to rock that boat.

I find this thread fascinating so please continue!

[edit on 10/27/2009 by texasbelle4732]

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by texasbelle4732

As for NASA coming clean, something wasn't as clean as it should have been on NASA's equipment, that much is obvious. I'm not sure what they call "blemishes" are from, but they're not supposed to be there.

It doesn't look like a base in this photo does it?

I don't know if there's a base on the moon or not, but if there is, it's not shown in the photo in the OP of this thread. If you read the thread and think clearly you'll come to the same conclusion, but I'm assuming you haven't really read the thread to still be asking if it could be a base.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:18 PM

what is your point?

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:04 PM
i think most of you are missing one big point . if it is a compound /base then why does it have a perimiter . what are they keeping in or out

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by clint flint

what is your point?

My point is this,
texasbelle said:

Originally posted by texasbelle4732
I can't see NASA coming clean if these are bases of some sort.

Look at this movie posted by Soboro:

Originally posted by Soboro
I wasn't going to bother posting this but whatever i guess lol

That's starting at your location and using the ruler following a heading of about 104-105 degress every 21 miles or so.

That whole giant strip image across the moon is filled with similar anomolies that repeat over and over again and slightly differently each time. I was going to post a long time about such a thing along the top edge of the map until I noticed the repeating and then more all over the place doing the same thing. I figured it was just debris floating around in the satellite between the lens and a protective piece of glass.

See the black speck on the right? That's what the source image looks like, and it doesn't look like a base. The source images just show black specs like those which are the root cause of what people (like texasbelle) are wondering if it's a base.

The image in the OP is a modification of that black speck that Google did based on whatever algorithm or image processing they do to produce Google moon images, then it starts to make people wonder if it's a base. But my point is look at the original photo, which just shows a black speck, where it doesn't look like a base at all, does it?

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:54 PM
Amazing all those anomaly's on the moon there has to some truth in it.
great thread

Maybe a large ship or something

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by underduck
Wow ....

"a trans dimensional galactic battle cruiser" is not the first thing that comes to mind. Looks more like rock to me. Maybe a flaw in the picture.

I certainly hope you aren't thinking of it as a rock like we generally do on the Earth. Most rocks on Earth are moved to their current location from their source by means of glaciers. There are no glaciers or running water on the moon.

Yeah it could be a rock, maybe a meteorite, but you should also see it in the center or near the center of impact crater.

It could also be a hoax, like something added into there. I don't think it is really a problem with the camera it self.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by krystalice

What do you mean?

You've lost me...too sharp to be realistic? I don't understand your reasoning.

Corners of buildings are sharp, aren't they?

Did you mean 'too sharp to be natural'? (as opposed to realistic)

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:05 PM
Great find. I have two other photos that show anamolous dark and light structures -straight from the nasa database. Not sure if they are photo errors or what, but they are definitely not natural looking. You have to zoom in to the hight resolution version. (I will try to post). You can also read more about moon anomolies (as well as UFOs on the moon) in my blog, What's Up with Aliens at

I find it EXTREMELY significant that in the 90's the Clementine satellite orbited around the dark side of the moon and captured 1.8 million images, yet only 170,000 of these images were released to the public! -The rest are CLASSIFIED. What? Why would images of the dark side of the moon be classified??

It's very interesting...

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
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]

i just love these posts....

blah blah blah i saw a ufo... took a pic....blah blah blah... can't post it right now because:

a) i'm at work
b) don't know how to upload
c) can't seem to find it, lost it, my dog ate it...
d) i'll post it later today...

anyways back on topic:

well i think soboro and phage pretty much explained what happened in these images. i'm conviced that these "anomalies" are really just flaws in the photographs/scans.

i agree that the moon has mystery to it, but when the evidence is telling you the truth you can't just turn your head the other way and deny it.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by bladebosq]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:56 PM
Hey, I found the thread!

Way late to the game, but I found this thing next to the object in question and wanted to pass it along. I just posted about it in the new member forum. Didn't want to come out of lurk mode but thought it was worth it just for this:

top: 19°15'51.64"N 20°27'7.87"E
bottom (as far as I can tell): 22°27'51.11"N 21°20'3.67"E

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by draknoir2

If you have Google Earth Movew about 13 miles to the South west, theres another Similar shape. Also South east of the original object about 13 miles , oddly making a right triangle, is another much smaller object. and then about 4-5 miles south east of the last one Mentioned is a Much much smaller object. All of then have the same, more reflective then the surroundings, look to then. could it simply be a rock ya, but does the objects forming the Symbol for Earth from stargate get your mind going? it did for me, However it ended in me buying Stargate Atlantis on DVD. LOL.
On a Side note On Google Earth= Mars why is the Face on mars so very different from the rest of the surface Photography? As I understand it the higher resolution an image has the Easier it is to Manipulate. And the Face is much higher resolution then the rest of the planet.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:45 AM

Originally posted by da pickles
i think most of you are missing one big point . if it is a compound /base then why does it have a perimiter . what are they keeping in or out

I agree.. it Does like it has walls around it. Done look at these pics.. see it in Google Moon.. zoom in and out.. it looks like a base in that respect.

That being said, I have been told that some the lower the resolution the more you get squared off images. i will need to compare this to some others..

oh and.. i don't know how to use the ruler thing in google earth.. will someone measure this thing please?

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:58 PM
Latitude Longitude Contributor View
18° 23´ 53.78N 25° 55´ 47.78E Caviness N1823E2555
18° 52´ 48.50N 23° 38´ 41.25E Wikle N1852E2338
18° 59´ 17.63N 24° 48´ 57.84E Caviness N1859E2448
19° 25´ 19.91N 24° 30´ 41.13E Wikle N1925E2430
19° 42´ 54.23N 20° 30´ 37.42E Wikle N1942E2030
19° 57´ 28.24N 19° 16´ 03.19E Wikle N1957E1916
19° 58´ 22.64N 21° 11´ 56.86E Buchli N1958E2111
20° 09´ 18.63N 19° 49´ 58.48E Wikle N2009E1949
20° 10´ 57.96N 21° 25´ 39.43E Wikle N2010E2125
20° 12´ 17.18N 17° 30´ 54.55E Moore N2012E1730
20° 17´ 41.30N 18° 38´ 36.70E Moore N2017E1838
20° 52´ 18.43N 19° 20´ 56.76E Buchli N2052E1920
20° 56´ 57.92N 13° 47´ 24.68E Wikle N2056E1347
21° 02´ 08.85N 17° 44´ 03.19E Caviness N2102E1744
21° 04´ 38.54N 18° 08´ 58.15E Moore N2104E1808
21° 06´ 15.91N 17° 20´ 55.01E Buchli N2106E1720
21° 16´ 24.21N 16° 29´ 17.28E Caviness N2116E1629
21° 22´ 50.44N 13° 18´ 05.80E Moore N2122E1318
21° 27´ 54.75N 16° 12´ 18.13E Wikle N2127E1612
21° 29´ 11.04N 17° 59´ 29.06E Moore N2129E1759
21° 33´ 13.81N 13° 45´ 55.94E Moore N2133E1345
21° 36´ 07.48N 12° 02´ 56.29E Moore N2136E1202
21° 46´ 33.57N 12° 30´ 10.03E Moore N2146E1230
21° 47´ 55.96N 12° 11´ 28.68E Wikle N2147E1211
21° 53´ 58.86N 09° 20´ 11.81E Moore N2153E0920
21° 54´ 49.53N 10° 55´ 22.39E Wikle N2154E1055
21° 59´ 34.69N 18° 03´ 41.17E Moore N2159E1803
21° 59´ 35.41N 12° 43´ 57.92E Moore N2159E2143
22° 01´ 56.56N 09° 37´ 13.58E Wikle N2201E0937
22° 02´ 00.81N 09° 20´ 13.58E N2202E0920
22° 02´ 03.35N 09° 32´ 40.77E Caviness N2202E0932
22° 04´ 07.82N 12° 20´ 13.47E Moore N2204E1220
22° 07´ 23.98N 19° 36´ 48.20E Moore N2207E1936
22° 08´ 13.61N 08° 07´ 13.64E Moore N2208E0807
22° 15´ 27.29N 08° 19´ 11.49E Moore N2215E0819
22° 27´ 13.85N 07° 04´ 53.87E Moore N2227E0704
22° 27´ 27.16N 07° 09´ 19.37E Moore N2227E0709
22° 27´ 15.52N 22° 13´ 30.11E Wikle N2227E2213
22° 29´ 58.80N 15° 32´ 30.62E Wikle N2229E1532
22° 30´ 34.09N 05° 38´ 43.44E Caviness N2230E0538
22° 30´ 52.99N 10° 38´ 26.71E Wikle N2230E1038
22° 42´ 09.63N 08° 33´ 48.65E Moore N2242E0833
22° 45´ 37.73N 21° 21´ 25.77E Wikle N2245E2121
22° 48´ 21.03N 18° 55´ 28.47E Caviness N2248E1855
22° 49´ 00.19N 08° 39´ 48.85E N2249E0839
22° 49´ 54.63N 07° 42´ 27.44E Moore N2249E0742
23° 02´ 04.44N 06° 28´ 39.72E Caviness N2302E0628
23° 12´ 25.52N 10° 01´ 08.65E Wikle N2312E1001
23° 19´ 07.12N 18° 10´ 36.31E Wikle N2319E1810
23° 24´ 29.43N 11° 11´ 33.14E Wikle N2324E1111
23° 50´ 54.47N 06° 56´ 17.05W Caviness N2350W0656
24° 04´ 21.05N 09° 41´ 26.17E Wikle N2404E0941
24° 20´ 22.82N 07° 38´ 54.10W N2420W0738
24° 35´ 47.09N 19° 08´ 39.94E Jonkers N2435E1908
24° 45´ 59.22N 16° 58´ 31.83E Caviness N2445E1658
24° 50´ 01.98N 10° 02´ 06.95E Wikle N2450E1002
25° 02´ 25.86N 10° 47´ 19.75E Wikle N2502E1047
25° 19´ 18.08N 07° 23´ 38.67E Wikle N2519E0723
25° 28´ 37.04N 13° 07´ 12.92E Wikle N2528E1307
25° 42´ 53.97N 03° 02´ 55.31E N2542E0302
26° 01´ 10.09N 11° 25´ 36.43E Moore N2601E1125
26° 21´ 57.44N 12° 06´ 48.92E Wikle N2621E1206
26° 38´ 20.19N 09° 08´ 59.01E Wikle N2638E0908

[edit on 15-12-2009 by A TRUE AMERICAN]

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by texasbelle4732

You said:

I can't see NASA coming clean if these are bases of some sort. They get their funding from TPTB so they're not about to rock that boat.

Have you any idea as to the thousands of lunar photos that NASA has released and which can be seen in many websites, NASA's and others'? Do you really think that something that looks different than the natural geology of the moon wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb and if such were seen by NASA photo specialists they would release the photos? Yet you can look and see the whole surface of the moon and nothing sticks out like a sore thumb. People who see lunar anomalies don't see them in clear, high-resolution photos. They see them in blurry, highly-pixelated photos because of pareidolia. Move on, there's nothing to see here!

Always accusing NASA of nefariousness without evidence.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by The Shrike
Yup..we know, this was sorted out on Page 5 of the thread. Dirty camera lens.

However I'd like this one dissed please...

[edit on 16/12/2009 by nomadros]

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:16 PM
I see the number 5 on the top of the structure

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by wolveriine

Overzooming can be hazardous to your perceptions. It is not a structure.
edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in