Originally posted by sremmos
I like you more and more every day Phage.
Keep it real. It's better to be refuted then to accidentally propagate a falsehood. Phage's explanation makes perfect sense and he provided reasonable evidence to back it up.
Namely photographic evidence, which is what you were relying on in the first place.
It looks like there is something on the camera lense because each picture there has that object in the same exact area of the photograph but on different geographical locations.
When contrary evidence is provided to a claim the first step is not to accuse that evidence of being a fabrication, otherwise anything you present should just be assumed as much.
The member that refuted you went through the trouble of actually looking up these other photos and giving us better reference material. I'm thankful for it because before I saw what he had posted I did think that the shape was humanoid and a real anomaly.
I am really glad that I did not try to spread the word in light of the evidence that has been presented in this thread already which suggests that it's not what it initially seemed to be.
It is disappointing but it's also reality.
Originally posted by PhageAnd if I can I come up with an explanation that satisfies me. That doesn't always happen. If it doesn't, I don't jump to conclusions about giant robots (for example).
Originally posted by fooks
it seems the op has a different angle in the his pics.
rather than straight down like phages?
Originally posted by theregonnakillme
NASA came up with the dust excuse and super imposed the object onto other images to back up their story!
Originally posted by Phage
The original image is from a scan made at Arizona State University. What you have "found" is dirt which was caught in the metric camera on an Apollo mission. There are many other examples. Many of them found right here on ATS.
Subsequent analysis during image reprocessing has revealed that during the missions foreign debris are present in the optical path of the camera system and can be seen in the seen in the photographic exposures. Selected examples of blemish features of this type are shown in Figure 2. A movie showing blemish movement can be seen here. While the image processing steps undertaken as part of this effort might remove some of these blemish features, users should be aware that blemish features exist and take appropriate precautions.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by sremmos
Neither amateur nor professional astronomers are capable of imaging the moon at this level of detail. The images I used have a resolution of about 6.2 meters per pixel (big robot). To obtain that resolution an optical telescope would need a mirror about 20 to 30 meters across. The largest telescope on Earth (Gran Telescopio Canarias) has a diameter of 10.4 meters.
Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
2 Flags and 2 stars?!
I'm telling you something is strange round these parts as of late.