Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nasa forgets to smudge out an anomaly on the Moon

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

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.


---------------

If it was dust it would be a solid black mark NO SHADING!, also as to it being on multiple images in the same place; it is called centring an image. Take any image with the same object in shot at the same angle and you can centre the image so that it is in exactly the same place on each picture. 10 year old + Photoshop = Object in the same place in multiple images; also know as NASA media office

[edit on 10/8/2010 by theregonnakillme]




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

I don't chose to "believe" any particular explanation. I look at different explanations. I try to come up with some of my own. And 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).

Often when I consider the actual evidence at hand, it turns out that the "official view" makes the most sense. Sometimes it doesn't and if I think I have a better idea I'll stick with it. Sometimes, neither the "official view", nor other ideas, nor mine, are entirely satisfactory. In those cases I see no point it expressing my lack of opinion. Those "out of the norm" ideas are a result of lack of information. Some people can't stand that, they can't just say, "hmm, interesting". I can. But "Um. I dunno." seems like a waste of bytes when there are usually plenty of stronger opinions out there.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I see. Thanks for answering the questions.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

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).


So true. I mean in all honesty, Why must this anomaly be a robot.
Why jump there?!

Is there a robot that you have seen elsewhere that this matches the
description of. Some kind of reference?!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


How does dirt caught in the camera system cast a shadow on the surface of the moon? Wow, you are slipping.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


But Phage we kinda wanted to play MOON MONSTERS for just a wee bit


I'm a little bummed that these are not brain eating zombie robots from planet 867-5309


Okay seriously thank you for answering the questions



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


[color=#FF6600]Are you blind? Look at the feet. The dark color on the surface of the moon that appears to end at the feet is the shadow.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Justaposter
 


He phoned in a reply. But it really did not answer anything.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I can see what appears to be a 'bend' in the shape indicating shadow but I honestly don't feel like I can tell what's in that picture well enough to say that is a humanoid casting a shadow from its feet.

My question is this:

Do amateur astronomers have the ability to look at the surface of the moon in real time as clearly as we see it in these photographs?

If so, do amateur astronomers report seeing these anomalous things on the surface or is this the only known example?

I understand the theory that NASA would hide #, they definitely would, but I don't believe that amateur astronomers all over the world would or that NASA could successfully hide giant robots from them.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Also, does anyone know of high quality Infrared and Thermal imaging of the moon's surface?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
It does not have to be a giant robot in order for it to be an anomaly. It could be a man shaped geologic formation, but I doubt it.

[edit on 8-10-2010 by groingrinder]


jra

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
it seems the op has a different angle in the his pics.


rather than straight down like phages?


Because the OP was using Google Earth/Moon and Phage was using the original source material.


Originally posted by theregonnakillme
NASA came up with the dust excuse and super imposed the object onto other images to back up their story!


That's just a little convoluted don't you think? Wouldn't it have been easier just to remove it from one image, than to copy and paste it on to multiple images?

[edit on 10-8-2010 by jra]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   

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.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



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.


apollo.sese.asu.edu...


lil this guy gets his information from the same people who lied about those information. guess you can figure out yourself how much he knows.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


This is true, I shouldn't have said "giant robot" as that's color commentary. I just mean that I can't determine whether or not it's an object that's on the moon casting a shadow (knowing where the primary light source was coming from or comparing other shadows would tell us if this was the case or not) or not.

If it's not casting a shadow on the surface of the moon then it's almost certainly an artifact on the camera itself.

To investigate this further we need to determine if there is actually a shadow being cast or not. Does NASA offer timestamps of when the photos were taken and can we use those to get the position of the "lamp" (sun) in comparison to the object?

We should try each photograph that has the artifact in it, if it's a match on one of them it is either a coincidence or it really is something on the moon and NASA really did just doctor the other photos.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   

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.


That's too bad but what about radio telescopes or infrared telescopes or thermal telescopes (not sure if the latter exists)?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sremmos
 


Image ID: AS15-M-1155
Mission: Apollo 15
Revolution (Orbit): 33
Camera: Mapping/Metric
Exposure: 00:00:00.09
Camera Tilt: VERT
Scan Resolution: 6.7 meters
Start Time: (DOY:213) 1971-08-01T11:49:28
Spacecraft Altitude: 99.87km
Center Coordinates (lat, lon): 25.61°,-23.42°
Corner Coordinates: 27.93°,-26.58°
28.28°,-20.75°
23.17°,-20.41°
22.72°,-26.04°
Sun Elevation: 5.0°
Features: LA HIRE SCARP,LAMBERT,LAMBERT R
Film Type: 3400
Color: black&white


[edit on 8/10/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Keep in mind guys that at 6 meters per pixel realistically any living creature that's not super-mammoth would be less than one pixel large in these photographs and so effectively invisible to us.

What this means is that even if there are robots and such on the moon we probably can't see them.

Ten pixels across is 60 meters.

This is bigger than a person:

.

would look in that photo. A LOT bigger since we are nowhere near 6 meters tall/wide/thick.

Also with what Phage just posted it looks like all the information necessary to determine if that is in fact a large object on the surface of the moon or an artifact on the camera.

I refuse to believe that NASA is also fabricating it's timestamp for this image specifically to defeat this anomaly that they could have air brushed out as they are commonly accused of doing.

Why go through the trouble of duplicating an anomaly when you can just remove it, and if they didn't know about it then why would they have a counter measure in place already?

Further, their counter measure would fail if someone had an older copy of any of the duplicate's originals since they could show that NASA had done this.

To me it seems like it'd be very dangerous for NASA to use this method if they just "later realized" that the anomaly was there and that it would be absurd to believe the duplicated the anomaly from the beginning because removing it completely would have eliminated the possibility of this thread and us potentially figuring out where the light source was in comparison to the "shadow."

[edit on 10-8-2010 by sremmos]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
2 Flags and 2 stars?!
I'm telling you something is strange round these parts as of late.

That's 4 stars and 4 flags till now!!
All for seeing some distortions that look like 'alien anomalies' on the Moon!

These anomalies are the result of overlapping of images and processing the imagery. The digital imagery is taken through a series of stages such as color balancing and warping to produce the final mosaic for the entire area.

And then there are those ubiquitous dust particles, pixel distortion and data loss that spoil the party!

So for God's sake, NEVER use Google Earth as a medium for anomaly hunting. This has been said a gazillion times before, but few seem to be listening!


And then you very confidently headline your post: Nasa forgets to smudge out an anomaly on the Moon! Oh yeah? And how, pray, are you so sure of this? These so called 'smudging out' conspiracies by NASA is getting tiring!




[edit on 10-8-2010 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Okay, having read through all the posts, why has no one asked 'where are the footprints'? no tracks of any sort, the Astronaut's left tracks, if that 'thing' is really that big, surely we should see its tracks?






top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution