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.

 

Rare Hole In the Moon Photographed

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Ok here goes, I brightened it up as much as I could, does not look like a shadow to me...what do you guys think?





posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


I still think something very dense and relatively small hit the moon at high speed, and low angle. I still think it looks like an exit hole. Can I give an opinion as to what that would be? I'd rather not, I'm not a space debris expert. I'm just describing the way it looks to me.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


This picture helps my "shadow" analysis. Look at every crater in that picture. The shadow in each crater is in the exact location it should be, if the sun were to make the shadow in that crater as I suspect.

Really not trying hard....Just writing what I observe. I never claimed to know everything.. Just have an opinion.
I will leave my original posts behind me... I was rubbed the wrong way and behaved poorly.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Mobius1974]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Oh man I need to wipe the sweat off my brow from reading all that arguing. Sheesh!

That's a cool pic. Thanks for sharing OP.

If you want to speculate, well I speculate that Earth has been populated by advanced human civilizations in the past, and perhaps they went to the moon as well. Perhaps that hole was dug by them. Or maybe it is aliens? Until the average joe can study these things for himself or we get a government we can trust, who knows what the truth is. I personally do not believe the moon is natural.

Fyi - most of what is purported as facts in regards to space is still theory. No one knows what gravity is, no one has touched a black hole, no one has ever visited the big bang. Its all guessing, maybe with a little bit of math, but mostly guessing. No one has even seen the core of our own planet. So who knows what's really down there. And unless you discovered it or experienced it or touched it yourself, its all based on your faith in the accuracy and truthfulness of a third party anyway. Usually someone you've never even met.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986


Fyi - most of what is purported as facts in regards to space is still theory. No one knows what gravity is, no one has touched a black hole, no one has ever visited the big bang. Its all guessing, maybe with a little bit of math, but mostly guessing. No one has even seen the core of our own planet. So who knows what's really down there. And unless you discovered it or experienced it or touched it yourself, its all based on your faith in the accuracy and truthfulness of a third party anyway. Usually someone you've never even met.



I totally agree on this point, thats why demanding proof really leads us nowhere. We just dont know for sure at this point.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Looks like there are rocks in the bottom (center) of the crater (hole) to me.

Exit hole- If it was an exit hole the edges would be pushed up and there would be a debris field.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you for your OPINION I did not make any "claims" but was merely speculating about different possibilities.


However, since you are now making claims, Please shine "your bright light of science" and provide PROOF and EVIDENCE that the moon is not hollow, and also provide PROOF that NASA does NOT airbrush their photos to hide classified material from the public. I would love to see your irrefutable evidence for this.

And later that same day .....


I totally agree on this point, thats why demanding proof really leads us nowhere. We just dont know for sure at this point.



Yeah what he said.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by Mobius1974]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Ok guys after playing around with photoshop, I think I may have gotten a better result with this moon hole....check it out, Im definitely leaning towards this being a hole, whether an exit or an entrance hole I dont know





posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Ok , ok I might be with you on the hole... the rocks on the top would have a continuous shadow accross them if it was a shadow...



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


Yep I think its a hole too....What could have caused this thing? for some reason my gut feeling tells me that its not a lava tube...and for it to be an impact from something...well then we would see more of an impact like a regular crater, and we dont have that here (debris and crater like features are not present here)

Also I think in moon craters, we almost always see the bottom, right?

so lets say that maybe its not a lava tube, definitely not a crater ( i think) so what the heck can it be?

Made by machinery perhaps, or a natural cavern of some kind?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I would stand by my previous thoughts on this photo. I have included some example pictures before to show people some very basic things to look for in a photo that has been edited.

In the NASA anomoly photo I have increased the contrast significantly. You can do this with a standard S-curve or similar. (Similar to edits Gemini has made) Notice the large amounts of grain in the edited version? It is very partterned and what you would expect to see from an unedited photo. Now if you zoom in you will also be able to identify Jpeg compression. Jpeg compression is cataegorised by the box like artifacts it creates. It is important with photos such as this to be able to differentiate between grain in the blacks, compression, and an actual object. Differemt compression formats have different tell tale signs based on their algorithm.

I don't remember them all the time, so when I'm viewing an image I feel is suspect I like to do a couple of things. One is compare photos taken with similar camera set ups. This way I can see things like grain and natural lens distortion etc ... I do this by taking a photo of a grid when possible with the same camera body and lens if I have this facility available. Otherwise, I will use someone else's source photos which are very unlikely to be altered.

I keep this image open next to the suspect image so I can remind myself of standard compression artifacts and also the grain and distortion which might be in effect. Grain is very hard to duplicate. I then apply modifications to line up the distortion on the grid image to make the grid more 'accurate'. This way I can see the shape of the object I'm looking at in real life and get an idea of the scale by then applying these grid modifications to the suspect photo. I sometimes have to do this using real life objects and you may not want to go this far unless scale is something suspect to you.

Sorry for rambling but if you also look at the photo of the singer; notice no amount of tonal scaling will make the black any less black. This is due to the blacks being classed as 0 in RGB - the equivolent of no data being there. This also happens with heavily pushed whites to a degree that reach the 8-bit cieling of 255 (remember you will have to multiply if viewing the images in 10, 16, or 23 bit!) This is tell tale sign of an image being modified by a human since a well exposed even amateur photo should generally have values on both end of the tonal scale. You can also bring up a tool such as levels and look at the graph there. The graph will show you the range of values across a given scale. If a high number of values are spread out or pushing left or right and you're not in some odd place with many hard shadows and bright lights this might indicate problems too ...

This is a very brief introduction to how to look for things, and likely many people here already know this information. Generally a photo taken in the dark won't be fully dark at all unless editing has happened.

Examples below. I hope this helps someone!














[edit on 30-6-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Please dont take this the wrong way, but 6 paragraphs later I still dont understand what your getting at here....The last photo posted IS heavily modified, cropped, and zoomed in by me....I was playing around in PS and made quite a lot of changes..

So what exactly are you saying again? lol



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky
reply to post by Pinke
 


Please dont take this the wrong way, but 6 paragraphs later I still dont understand what your getting at here....The last photo posted IS heavily modified, cropped, and zoomed in by me....I was playing around in PS and made quite a lot of changes..

So what exactly are you saying again? lol


It's mostly just a general thing haha. Sorry if I ramble.

I know those images were edited which is good to look at them with. Duo toning can help, too.

Just noticed some posts that seem to interpret some of the compression artifacts etc ... as objects and I noticed some of the not so good theories are based on compression/grain artifacts which people misinterpret as cities or bits of walls or things.



[edit on 30-6-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Welcome to ATS lol

Second line...ugh

[edit on 30-6-2010 by GeminiSky]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Haha this is true.

The original post is quite messy. I dunno. I'll clean it up if anyone is interested but am not sure they will. I did some editing to make it a little clearly, I think I quoted you mostly by accident.

My posts can be quite rambley since I suck at writing I think!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


Its the truth man. We have such a primitive understanding of the universe and even the world around us. There's really no such thing as absolute proof anyway. The only way to get that is to see or experience it first hand for yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join