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.


NASA "Water find" - What it really is: Base by lake

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:17 PM
Here are the official photos by NASA of the area with water as have been mentioned in the news lately.

The image is badly overexposed, and blurred, but still it provides enough detail to reveal what it is really showing.

Here is the original image in its original alignment.

So, to properly see it correctly, a simple rotation needs to be done:

Notice how this brings forth the details as now the area is seen from a more correct perspective. The lake is seen in the middle covering most of the photo, to the right of the lake are some interesting structures, around and within the red circle NASA already placed there. Notice the smooth flat tall surfaces, the rectangular shapes, the straight lines, the interesting round concave surface to the left of the structures that have 3 black holes in it (right next to the red circle).

It seems to be some sort of base right by the lake, probably old ruins, but possibly still in use as well.

On the left side of the lake is another structure of interest, placed on a penisula, upon what seem to be a square surface.

Conveniently NASA has blurred out these interesting parts of the photo, and also overexposed it. I am sure they have high resolution great quality photos of the area in their own posession though which have not been released due to the details of the structures and the lake that would be clear.

Below is another image, where I have cropped out the area of interest, and highlighted the main structure complex on the right hand of the lake, as well as the smaller structure to the left:

To me this photo just confirms what I have written about the Moon and its inhabitants previously, as well as the true agenda behind the LCROSS mission: To observe and photograph artificial structures they knew were there.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:41 PM
i really dont see it. on such an unclear image, i dont think it is righ to say that there is a Moon base there.

while i am not debating the presence of such things. I am merely saying that the evidence here is very very weak.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by MR BOB

i would 2nd that, there is deffinatley nothing in this picture that to me says moon base or lake. Im not saying i dont believe there is nothing on the moon because i do but this just dosent cut it for me.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:08 PM
Yet another thread which takes a completely blurred image and tries to make it out to be something its not.

Really, how many posts do we have on ATS that all sing of the same hymn sheet?

None of this stuff will ever be proveable in the slightest until we have crystal clear, high quality images.

Until then, these kind of posts just make the theory even less believable IMHO.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:04 PM
You will not have crystal clear images, that is why they are blurred, to hide the truth. Which makes it rather obvious that there is something in those blurry pictures.

With todays technology, it is ludicrous to think this is the best kind of photos they can provide us with with equipment costing millions of dollars.

As I have said many times, even my 20 dollar webcam can take better photos.

This is a standard thing with NASA released photos, blurry and black and white photos revealing very little detail, and when there are something of seemingly interest, the interesting areas are blurred out.

But it does seem we are going towards a slow disclosure, where bits of evidence is released step by step over decades to prepare (I suppose) the public for coming revelations of the real truth.

The whole idea of NASA sending the probe to the moon to look for water in its own is simply hilarious as they already know what is there (yes not officially perhaps, but I know myself from my own involvement with those guys what they know) - so as far I am concerned, what makes more sense is them sending a probe up there to look for good places for future missions where they already know there is suitable environments, such as places with water, perhaps this frozen lake as in the above images, and what could be better than having an abandoned ancient base or other structures in place there already? Would make a perfect spot for future missions if they ever decide to go back there with men.

Look at that amazing official photo from NASA themselves, what a beauty it is, certainly worth the tax payers money eh? Fantastic details, showing the wonderful impact of the LCROSS and its great explosion , and fantastic details of the Moon surface and the frozen water and so on. Simply ludicrous and I am amazed they can still fool people with things like these images. The worst thing is people actually saluting NASA, almost worshipping them, as great heroes for coming back with crap like this. We are almost in 2010 and still they deliver images of such quality, even the very first moon photos taken by satellites around 50-60 years ago were of greater detail and quality.

Heck, even the very first photo of the moon ever taken through a telescope was of pretty decent quality - that was in 1839, that is 170 YEARS ago! Here is that very photo:

This above photo was taken almost 200 years ago with a very primitive camera and telescope, of the first existing, yet its quality is fairly decent. Almost 200 years and still we get back this kind of images. And it was taken from Earth! Not from a high technology camera on a satellite right up by the surface of the moon!

Probably didnt cost even 20 dollars back then for the whole setup needed either to take that photo as my webcam of today cost.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by IX-777]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:17 PM
usually i'm anti conspiracy guy but how can they convince me that they can with sattelites take photo of me taking crap but images from moon missions are so crappy.

nasa is hiding something. i would not bet what it is, but something is fishy with the moon.

edit for spelling, it's late here and beer too much

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Dinamo]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:38 PM
As another example, take this NASA photo, again showing what seems to be an extraordinarily square shaped structure, and again conveniently blurred out over most of the structure so the details are gone.

Same photo, just highlighted on the area of interest with the structure:

It is amazing that they can continue to manage getting all their photos of such horrible quality time after time, year after year, decade after decade. Always blurred up on the interesting features. No way this is just some fault on the cameras used, this is done on purpose.

Even NASA officials themselves have admitted tampering with images and removing civilization evidence from such photos, something that should make people think a bit further.

And, the quality of the images released alone should get people to think a bit, we live in the 21st century here, and they spend millions and billions of dollars on these projects and cant come up with better? I am certain they sit with photos of the very same areas presented here in their hands with excellent quality, colors and high resolution, but just present crap like this to the masses.


posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:24 PM
Its not a base, its clearly a lakeside villa.

What is the huge suspicion regarding pictures where theres a small blurry area? Imagine you were nasa (I very nearly posted this with the spelling 'nana'.. that could have been quite confusing!) and you wanted to hide something on the moon from the public. Would it make more sense to simply blur bits out that you dont want people to see, thus making the area stick out like a sore thumb... or do some sort of photoshop job so that the area just looks like theres nothing there? Id vote for the latter.

[edit on 14/11/09 by Bluebelle]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:33 PM
why oh why do we have another useless picture on ats ?

for crying out loud - Ive taken better snaps with a Kodak 110 - and we are asked to comment on it?

Lets take a real world example - I give you 2 pages of the pentagon papers pertaining to Kennedy and the Cuban missile crises. Can you comment without the missing 7 volumes ? You can not neither can any academic. This is another ATS shot in the dark

Good luck - im sure some one will take the bait.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:23 PM

In the case that every employee of NASA really wanted to hide the truth, of those whom know the truth, then indeed they would certainly do a better job and not release images like these.

But luckily, there are actually people working in NASA and all parts of the governments that WANT people to know the truth, and try spread bits and pieces of it here and there, as I said earlier they are slowly preparing people by releasing it in such pieces.

Doing it this way they also make sure to get it through, without revealing too much which would make them unable to get it through. After all there are thousands and thousands of photos they have to go through before releasing, and they do apply automatic image altering to many photos with software that is designed to remove civilization and life evidence. On Mars photos this is frequently done by turning all photos into a brownish and reddish colors, and colors that are blue or green will turn into brown and red instead - this is proven and I have previously posted information and evidence on this.

There are people in the government whom have come out speaking about these things, and revealing the truth, and acknowledging their involvement with such things, from all kinds of branches, the CIA, FBI, NASA, Military and Army, Air Force, NSA and so on. There are people whom have formed groups from employees of the governments and come out in public on these things, such as Disclosure Project, and the CIA Remote Viewers from Project Stargate, among many others. Several hundreds so far have gone public, and it keeps growing. Added to those are other governmental employers whom have gone public through other means, such as on their own, or through the help of various other groups working on spreading the truth.


posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by IX-777

Why didn't you use a clearer image to point these things out?

Like this one:

Can you show us on this image where all these structures are?

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:43 PM
Well done chadwickus. I can't wait for a response from the OP.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:49 PM
The image you are showing is "stretched", the color histogram has been expanded. Here is the greyscale image of the plume. What you call a lake is merely the deeply shadowed area of the crater. This area was selected for the impact precisely because of those shadows. It is here, where the temperature remains at more than 200 degrees below zero, that the ice that was being looked for would be most likely to be found.

(Too slow. Or Chadwickus was too fast.)

[edit on 11/14/2009 by Phage]

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:42 AM
Yes you can to some degree notice the structures there on that last photo too, but the photo I posted is of higher resolution and taken closer as it seem to me and from what I have understood, revealing more details that is hard to see on the image posted last above as its too dark and shadowy and thus the details remains obscured. Besides, the quality of the photo is - as per NASA usual standard - awful. Again a sign that they are not trying remotely to give decent high quality photos of the area - just as per usual when it comes to Moon and Mars photos of various areas.

You can live in blindness and believe that NASA do not have technology much better than what the guy had who took that moon photo I posted above almost 200 years ago if you want. But truly that is not the case, and it is ludicrous to even believe they can not retrieve better photos than this now in 2010 of such important missions and considering the millions spent and high technology and the very fact of how close this sattellite with its camera was to the surface of the moon when taking the photos. The details should have been incredible and the resolution amazing and the colors as well. Instead we get an image similar to that 200 year old one, only real difference being a bit closer to the surface perspective wise on the later NASA photo in question.

Here is another photo of the same are and again the features are visible if you look but as with the one above it is of too low resolution and quality and the image is black and white and too dark thus the features remains mostly hidden, which obviously is done on purpose.

and then the same area using my original photo which obviously have greater resolution and details and is taken closer to the surface. Rotated to match the above image for comparison.

Also I was searching for more info on these structures, and came over this page about the LCROSS mission and the structures etc with a lot of interesting and revealing information:


posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Bluebelle

it wold make much more sense to blur them , if you create fals images of the moon, it will be found out. as NASA is not the only one to photograph the moon.

it would be a vey very bad idea indeed.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by MR BOB
reply to post by Bluebelle

it wold make much more sense to blur them , if you create fals images of the moon, it will be found out. as NASA is not the only one to photograph the moon.

it would be a vey very bad idea indeed.

Well why arent these supposed structures showing up on pictures other people have taken of the moon then?

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by IX-777

I'm sensing a skirting of my question, but it's ok, I anticipated you claiming that the structures were obstructed.

So here is an even clearer image of the area, no obstructions and quite good quality:

Oh and if you think the photo of the moon from 200 years ago is impressive, have a look at what the Palomar Observatory can do.

It was pointed at Cabeus at the time of the LCROSS impact.

So I'm not sure where you think I or others believe NASA (and others) don't have the technology, it's clear they do, so please use the higher resolution images provided to show us these structures instead of that washed out image.

Thanks in advance!

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by Bluebelle

im not saying anything is there, just what would be the obvios thing to do.

and how do you know they have not. have you personally checked indias hd photos, and compared them with nasa's? or another space agency. or the us navy who also has pics of the moon.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:47 AM

Originally posted by MR BOB
reply to post by Bluebelle

im not saying anything is there, just what would be the obvios thing to do.

and how do you know they have not. have you personally checked indias hd photos, and compared them with nasa's? or another space agency. or the us navy who also has pics of the moon.

Well how would it make more sense to blur them out? If all it took was checking a set of pictures taken by someone else then wouldnt matter whether they photoshopped an image or blurred it out.

And no, I dont believe that anything is there so why would I spend hours poring over pictures? But if someone does believe there is something being covered up then its up to them to do the research and provide us with the evidence.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:20 PM
Its irrelevant that they have some photos in pretty good quality that are claimed to be of the Moon - or of Mars and so on for that matter, as long as they still come up with crap images like these shown here with the technology we have. If they can come up with such fantastic quality high resolution color photos on some, why do they still come up with ancient style sad black and white pixelated horrible photos for the most of the time?

And again, you seem to really believe in NASA. Then explain me how on Earth - or how on MOON - can a person walk up to pick up an object WITHOUT an astronaut suit on, as in the following video - the person steps in on the right hand of the camera at exactly 2:33 min:

The above video is official video found from NASAs own site at:

Apollo 16 Video Library
VIP Site
Journal Text: 170:45:07 RealVideo Clip: (3 minutes 18 seconds)
Journal Text: 170:48:20 RealVideo Clip: (3 minutes 21 seconds)

This video alone is evidence that NASA fakes their images and videos of the Moon. For more check these:

and these


Also, should it not be a pretty obvious clue that they manage to have direct and instant communication with Houston back on EARTH, while they supposedly are on the MOON?? Even NOW satellite technology is not good enough, have you never seen on the news a reporter being in a different country being asked questions and it takes many seconds between the question asked until the reporter receives them and can answer? Surely they did not have BETTER technology in the 60s that could produce such instant communication all the way to the moon when we cant even do that here between different countries on Earth now.

Enjoy. And make sure to listen to all the ludicruous pre-scripted acted out lines the "astronauts" are speaking out between themselves and "Houston".

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in