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

page: 3
86
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Heres evidence of NASA tampering with the color of mars

And some day you have off, Google structures on the moon.

My apologies, I suppose this will not be "Proof" for some, but the evidence is there. I'll leave it up to you guys to connect the dots.

Heres an article about the moon and what a handful of scientists think it really is

[edit on 29-6-2010 by seanizle]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by seanizle]




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
[mor

Where did you get this picture? I lost that watch 15 years ago and have looked for it ever since. Seriously though I agree it looks stretched to look like a structure.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Skeptron]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Notice that the naysayers, as usual, can do nothing but make jokes and deny the obvious. No matter HOW much proof you offer, they will always deride and insult the people who use logic and common sense, as well as the evidence, to make a judgement.

There is incredible amounts of documentation that proves beyond any doubt that the structures seen on the moon are atificial. That evidence does not matter to the few notorious deniers of reality, who seem to thrive on insulting the intelligence of those who will not accept their specious and silly excuses for what is seen.

What a shame that so many can be so vacant about so many subjects and still get responses..sad.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I also just want to say that I am no photo analysis expert and this could turn out to be just another glitch in a picture, but that does not mean that all of the other evidence for anomalies on the moon and mars are the same.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Great Find!.... I going with my gut and saying the original lunar orbiter in the 60's got the images right and there is no image stretching. Now google covers it up with an even worse image. I do not believe in coincidences.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Clearly looks like an image artifact to me, rather than, say, an alien artifact. You see this "stretching" while google earth/moon/whatever is rendering quite often if you look for it.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
That is the best lunar artifact photograph I have ever seen. Clearly 100% legitimate, and there is also irrefutable evidence that NASA tampered with the later photographs.

I think this should be spread like a massive wildfire, because there is NO WAY that is just a trick of the light. Roll the cosmic dice 100 trillion times and you will never see natural forces make a structure like that.


What evidence do you have that the original image in the OP is not just an image artifact -- i.e., the image has been stretched? To me, it looks like a stretched image of a large crater with a few smaller craters. The whole image is a mosaic of many smaller images, so that could be why only part of the image is stretched.

I don't have the evidence at hand to prove this (although evidence may exist), so, of course I can't be 100% certain that it is just a stretched image, so I guess I can't readily discount other possibilities out-of-hand...

...however, I'm wondering how YOU can be 100% certain that it is an image of a structure? What evidence do you have that it is NOT a stretched image? You seem to have the confidence in your assessment to discount other possibilities -- more than I have.

[edit on 6/29/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow


Seriously people? You're debating whether an obvious data glitch is a giant alien wristwatch on the DARK side of the moon?

A ten second cut and paste in MS paint should make it obvious that the crater data was stepped and repeated.





posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


speculation has is that the moon was towed into place its orbit and rotation are very strange. Many of the apollo astronauts have come forword "buz aldren" there's a monolith on mars. And why has neil armstrong a national hero been so quit all these years. Did you see the speech he gave at the white house comparing astronauts to parrots and there are wonders out there that you can not even imagine. Why is so hard to believe there is other life besides are's. We are just a bunch of knuckle draggers thinking the earth is still flat. Open your minds and quit insulting everyone who doesn't agree with your ideals. Its a shame ats allows its members to insult one another.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
holy hell...

Anyone who has any understanding of how these images are collected, or have done ANY photo manipulation can easily point that black blob out as not actually being part of the landscape. It's likely due to the way the moon surface was imaged. Maybe they stretched that section to make it fit the adjacent photos that make up the bigger picture. At best, your argument could be that the landscape was stretched to cover something that WAS there. That blob is artificial, but it's artificial in the imagery, not on the moon itself.

Thanks for the reminder on why I stopped checking in on ATS for a while...



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by seanizle
 


I CAUTION you, in the post of yours at top of this thread --- the second link MAY have some malacious code...I am using a computer at the Hotel Business Center, and its program detected a 'thjreat' from that website!!!

Anyway, what I was able to read before being thrown off was gibberish...something it opened with, a statement "Beyond all doubt" that the nature of the Moon is in question!!


Silly, silly nonsense.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


In order to get any type of resolution on the surface ot the moon you need a telescope with a 18 inch (+) mirror. In most cases this means having it custom ground by an optics manufacturer.

Any idiot can check the brouchers and see how expensive that type of hardware is.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
The "artifact" is just a "data clone". A "glitch", if you will, when the data was recorded and sent back to earth.

The image appears as it does because there was probably a pause of some sort when the data was processed and caused the data to be written over and over, rather than recording exactly what was suppose to be there.

It's obviould when you compare the new images with the old images that it was a fraction of the crater that was recorded over and over and over again in a hiccup.

I recreated a somewhat similar effect using the "image clone" tool in photoshop. I could have recreated an exact replica, but I'm not going to waste much time on a data clone. You can see that the image clone acts much like the data clone in re-writing the information that's there:



[edit on 29-6-2010 by tyranny22]


That's not bad, but for one thing, the OP's image shows more detail than one feature that's been dragged a bit. It's not a repetitive structure, except with the horizontal lines. But even those aren't evenly spaced or even of the same width. There would need to be multiple objects being dragged, while also being corrupted and reoriented and lastly, entirely new features would have to be created like the concentric lines of the feature's perimeter. Just because a data glitch can produce a similar feature, that's certainly not proof that that is what occurred here.

Secondly, has that kind of defect happened on any other lunar photographs? Or for that matter any photographs that had to be sent back to Earth via radio? That would greatly help your case if you could find some similar glitches in other photographs.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
Notice that the naysayers, as usual, can do nothing but make jokes and deny the obvious. No matter HOW much proof you offer, they will always deride and insult the people who use logic and common sense, as well as the evidence, to make a judgement...


What specific evidence do you have that makes it so obvious to you that the image in the OP is a structure? I don't care about all of the other evidence that may or may not exist about structures on the Moon. This discussion is about the picture in the OP, and we shouldn't use pre-conceived notions to attempt to prove THAT particular image is a structure.

Please tell me why that image CANNOT be exactly what it looks like -- a stretched image of some craters.

...or is it that this photo MUST be another structure and CANNOT be anything else, because the idea of structures on the Moon fits your pre-conceived notions of artificial Moon structures.

That's a very close-minded approach to analyzing this photo. I wish some of the people on ATS who have a belief in alien visitation and similar ideas would be a little more open-minded (not all are like that, but there are some).





[edit on 6/29/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Well, its an artifact alright, there is really no debating that. Regardless, with artifact I mean an image artifact.

Great find guys! You found an imageartifact!



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Is there any sense of scale? Judging the average crater size on the moon this thing could be anywhere between 500 yards and 20 miles across. This was OBVIOUSLY artificially created. Every member on this sight needs to personally contact NASA and say "what the HELL". We need to drag this out into the light where it can bake in the minds of the people of Earth!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Um Phage isn't the all mighty all knowing you and others like to make him out to be. He is a person who happens to be a member. Sometimes he has good answer but you know what, so do other members! Don't rely on one member to give you their answer. This whole "lets wait for Phage" crap on here makes me cringe.


And I'm sure it makes him cringe as well.

I agree, I too dislike the almost hero like worship afforded some members, yet it's not like they are self-appointed or if they desire it.

There is a fine line between blind acceptance of a members posts and the respect afforded an experienced and qualified member.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 



"However, the ignorance of those that treat their desire to believe like a religion will take ridiculous stuff like this and run with it. In the end, we all get lumped into one group and looked down upon as a bunch of ignorant wackos."

I concur. I believe in aliens and UFO's. At some point, maybe we'll have full disclosure, if not, I still believe. Back in the early 70's, I had an object (not a spinning flying saucer, but more like a manta ray shape) fly over my head and stop right above me and my friend. I have no idea how long it stayed there because I was terrified. It seemed that a short time later it moved slowly forward and took off at an angle so fast that I couldn't even locate it in the night sky. After seeing something like that, full disclosure doesn't even seem to matter.

I don't know whether the object is real or not. Sure, I'd like to believe, but I'm not going to just jump on the bandwagon, though. Did they photoshop? Didn't they photoshop? Who can show 100% proof?





new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join