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.

 

Huge Alien Structure Revealed - Far Side of the Moon 2010 *PHOTOS*

page: 11
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Here is quick little animation I threw together.




To me it looks as though the imaging software glitched, and gave a repeating pattern for that segment, but I really don't know how their software works, or how it was compiled.

Enjoy




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanizle
Looks legit to me, you can see detail in the structure, along with shadows. The picture is from the 1960's, and if it is just an "Artifact", why completely smudge it out in the newer photos.....

As of now I think its real. Its been proven time and time again that NASA tamper's with their images, this is just another case of it.

If this is proven to be legit, someone needs to push this as evidence that NASA truly is covering something up.



[edit on 29-6-2010 by seanizle]


The photos are all airbrushed our from NASA before they are sold to the public. However it could be an alien structure.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


Thanks for that Solasis, and i take your point about the hoaxes muddying the waters etc.

But that is also a double edged sword. If every image containing potential anomalies of an ancient human or ET origin, is treated in the same almost automatically negative way, it will ultimately be assumed by many if not most, that every image is a hoax or simple pareidolia induced error, regardless of the quality or content of the image, which of course is an equally damaging thing.

But of course that is intention to these 'long duration psy-ops'.

Look, we all know that unless we have our own private ATS moon or Mars probe, taking substantially better quality images than we've been provided with from our various agencies, we are not going to know for sure about ANY image, regardless of what we think we see or what we think we don't see contained in them.

What i'm really saying i suppose, in a long winded way (sorry, it's me, what can i say), is that i would MUCH rather the naysayers AND the protagonists said that they THINK it LOOKS like such and such, or it COULD be so and so, and it doesn't LOOK like it to me etc etc, and language like that, as opposed to saying this IS a space ship, this IS a pile of rocks and this is definitely, 100%, without a doubt - what - are you crazy?! it's a stretch on the image! kind of thing.

I'm ranting, i know. It's OK, i've calmed down now, we're all safe again!





posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
What's a giant Timex digital watch doing on the moon? I had one the same shape as that thing.


This is exactly what I was thinking the instant I saw the image.
This is just a digital watch photoshopped into the shot.

My second thought was, "Why do all these videos of aliens, etc. have ominous music playing in the video? Is this what was playing while the camcorder recorded?" I would give these videos more credibility if the original creater and poster of the video left the original sound in and left all the dramatic sound efx out.

And honestly! We all need to stop fooling ourselves and fooling around with the truth. Otherwise, when it REALLY happens, no one is going to believe it!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I am unsure if that is the same ISIS. There are many programs under that name, actually. ISIS is the name of the software that ASU uses to process the images from Mars. Not Windows compatible, and likely too resource hoggish for most ATSers.

Not really, I use it on a virtual machine without any problems.


In fact, I will look for other photos of that area, just to make this post more on topic.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WOW Weedwhacker!!!

A breath of reality after ten pages!!!

If NASA actually found real artifacts or evidence they sure as heck wouldn't hide it. Their budget would be ten times more than all the alphabet agencies combined.

There would be soooo...many flights to the moon, bases erected, hotels, casinos, you name it.

Thanks for the reality relief...I was almost giving up reading this bunk.

73's,
Tom



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I am unsure if that is the same ISIS. There are many programs under that name, actually. ISIS is the name of the software that ASU uses to process the images from Mars. Not Windows compatible, and likely too resource hoggish for most ATSers.

Not really, I use it on a virtual machine without any problems.


In fact, I will look for other photos of that area, just to make this post more on topic.


Well you, sir, are not the average ATSer.


I have a Linux box, but not enough RAM to process the raw files. My laptop could handle it, but i use Windoze and cannot do much altering to it due to work i have to do with it.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
The normal pattern recognition of our brains works fine, and we are perfectly able to discern anomalous or out of place objects, without pareidolia (or 'seeing' shapes that are not really there ) acting on our senses 100% of the time. If it did, we would not have survived as a species.

The problem in cases like this one is that our brain was not made to look at 2D representations of 3D scenes, and that's where the problem begins. Pareidolia on a 3D live scene is different from pareidolia when looking at a 2D photo of a 3D environment, specially when we have no references, like in this case, in which we are looking at something we never saw.


Sure, that's why we have photo interpretation and analytical sections in military intelligence...so we can waste money and resources and put our troops in harms way, chasing down the imaginary missiles and bunkers and tanks, that the analyst personnel are incorrectly seeing, because they 'want to' see them.

Do they make their reports based on just one photo? That's another part of the problem in cases like this. Many people base their opinions (and some of those insist that only their opinion is possible) on just one photo and commit themselves to protect their opinion without (apparently) thinking that they can be wrong.


And why do they reply and argue SO vehemently, often using snide comments and ridicule (sound familiar..hint: UFO) against anyone or anything that appears as though it should not be in the image?

To make things worse we have people that act the same way from the "other side" of the question, saying that those that have a different opinion are "disinfo agents" or gullible, when they are only people that think in a different way about something for which nobody has clear evidence.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


I have to say I agree with you 100% there. it seems more so than any where else that people on ATS state their opinion as fact, when in 99.9% of instances it is not possible to 100% certain. I have strong opinions like anyone else, but without actual proof I accept everyone else's views as a possibility (unless of course I have actual proof)!

I've seen many images of moon 'anomolies' that genuinely do seem to be unexplainable as any sort of glitch, compression element, photographic/film/lens anomaly etc etc. However (and here's where I sound like a complete hypocrite for everything I just said!), as someone who has been doing digital image editing for over 12 years as my full time profession, this IS (and no 99.9% chance here I'm afraid) a blatant processing error, anyone in the industry could spot it within seconds... people really need to move on.

I've seen many images of anomalies that we should be concentrating on to get to the bottom of exactly what they show, however this is not one of them. From hundreds of things I've seen, read, and heard I believe very strongly that there is/has been non-human (or current human anyway) activity on the moon, so I am in no way a debunker! I'm just getting a little bit fed up of the waste like this detracting from the really interesting stuff out there.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Seriously?

That's obviously a stitching error between photos.
The orbiter taking pictures is flying by, and those pixels got stretched, then on the next pass, other photos are taken and composited together.

Or else, it's a flaw in the development of the negative.

But if you look at the blurring, it's along an axis, and the elongation shows a "smear" effect. All other features in the photo have round, granular details -- this one has details elongated along the axis of the smear.

The later photos didn't "photoshop" it out -- it's the exact same crater but it does NOT have a smear. You can use Photoshop, however, and use a directional blur to simulate the earlier "artifact."

This same "image artifacting" has given rise to the "lizard eyes" phenomenon, where the block-compression of highly compressed JPEGS tends to turn round pupil holes into "diamond shapes" -- or, like a lizard's eyes.


>> If there are structures on the moon, then they are underground.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Well Thats NASA for ya...What in the World are they trying to protect or cover up I mean.Really If I wanna Go to a Plantet with All Hot Girls That walk around Half Naked in thongs I'm going to go to a plant with all hot girls walking in thongs.If I wanna go on the moon and Drink some Jack with an extratressial I'm gonna do just that.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 

You'll notice that this site draws people who do not necessarily believe in the party line.
This particular piece may be a glitch. Then again it may be a method to destroy information which was inconvenient. It may be a stretching over something else.
I am unable to figure the precise line demarcating the image's stitch lines which would border this photographic anomaly. I am unable to 'pull' the stretch back to it's original dimensions.
It does not appear to be an evenly distributed area that was distorted but if someone takes the time to suck this data in and respin it I'd like to see it.
This certainly isn't an anomaly I would have bet on but I am always more interested in why these occur due to my inherently suspicious nature.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 



yes! but only if deserted.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by spikey
 

Just for fun, I did a little stretching of my own to see what it would look like. I'm not "great" at photo editing, so this isn't EXACTLY like the OP's image, but I think it's close enough to see that the shape the OP says is an artificial structure is just a stretched image of a crater.



[edit on 6/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


GREAT! I too would love to have this be some alien base but I would rather get to the bottom of it than sit here and say it's something it's not...and clearly it's a photo processing glitch, which you have shown here. It looks exactly the same, so either it's a processing glitch or aliens like to build things that look just like them


again.....why is this thread still going on when more than one person has shown it's a processing issue and NOT an alien secret base?! I am all for anomalies but I would rather have the anomaly identified than continue to be called something it isn't.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Sorry to disagree - the "stretching theory" although makes sense - does not apply to the same areas around this anomaly.

Also the Clementine image (update) of the same area shows OBVIOUS stitching on the exact place where the anomaly is. Zoom in and really look at the new version and you will see what I mean. You will see the area has been sliced into 4 sections...



Funny thing are some comments saying "I know the moon has stuff on it - but this isn't one of them" (which is cool). Perhaps those that say that can show where they do see these anomalies/structures/whatever!?

edit to ad: Also most people are disregarding the 2nd image that shows the same anomaly from a different perspective. That is a different image I believe...


Cheers!


[edit on 30-6-2010 by watchZEITGEISTnow]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanizle
Looks legit to me, you can see detail in the structure, along with shadows. The picture is from the 1960's, and if it is just an "Artifact", why completely smudge it out in the newer photos.....

As of now I think its real. Its been proven time and time again that NASA tamper's with their images, this is just another case of it.

If this is proven to be legit, someone needs to push this as evidence that NASA truly is covering something up.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by seanizle]


You have clearly never used photoshop before. Someone has simply used the blur tool to stretch the picture a little bit. The Blur tool works like a newspaper article being pressed onto silly putty before it's stretched.

This one is obviously a hastily-produced hoax by the OP



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


I dont doubt they take things out and redo the area that had the anomaly but the original picture you show with what some referred to as a time x watch or whatever, looks like a photo processing glitch. I am only new to photoshop and even I can tell. I have looked in the area on google moon but I don't see anything. I like google moon and mars but I think a lot of those images are messed with and aren't really what they are suppose to be. I have looked at places on Mars and it's so badly put together in all the "good" areas it makes me wonder what should really be there.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nematode
Here is quick little animation I threw together.




To me it looks as though the imaging software glitched, and gave a repeating pattern for that segment, but I really don't know how their software works, or how it was compiled.

Enjoy


It's not close enough, IMO. Look at the concentric rings around the feature. That is no glitch in the first one, yet they disappear in the second. I think this is genuine.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
The first video shows not a rectangular slot, it shows cast shadows. The appear to be perfectly in line with other shadows of the surrounding area. Obviously a mistake.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I should have read the other posts first, yes it's a glitch with the processor. The spacecraft or the hardware on earth got it wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join