Nasa forgets to smudge out an anomaly on the Moon

page: 6
44
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Wow. This board has really changed in the past year or so.
Way to many people who want to believe SO bad that they deny the truth, with is not what this board is about.

Along with all the evidence phage showed, notice how the "object" stays the same size as the pictures zoom out. So in the pic that was zoomed out the most that "robot" grew to an ENORMOUS size.

Guys, it something on the lens or negative. Deny ignorance.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


I said 'the most obvious answer'-not 'is right' or 'is true', just what one would deduce from known empirical data-providing that data is not false.
The 'dirt in photo' pics are quite rare, yet Phage found a whole bunch of them ( i'm assuming they are all from the same camera). Is this a new phenomenon?
Doctoring a photo can mean to blur/cover up/ADD/subtract items, as someone already pointed out.
You might remember THIS photo, "the one that got through"




And if you look closer;


'Nuff said!



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Looks PhotoShopped.

The only reason I say this is the angle at which the picture was taken and the angle at which we're seeing the individual.

The view of the individual is nearly dead-ahead, as if we're looking straight at him from a few hundred yards away. The view of the moonscape looks to be nearly 45° birds-eye-view. To me the angles don't match up.

Also, the scale seems screwy. The large crater above seem like it'd be 25-50 meters in diameter. But, without any coordinates to confirm this, it's really only speculation.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by tyranny22]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TrappedSoul
 


Originally posted by Phage
"Ok. Here is where your "robot" came from."

"Here he is in the image before that one"

"Here he is on the image after that one."


This just clearly shows that the robot moves with great speed!

Hmmm, sounds like a rogue Transformer to me.........I hear they're pretty fast



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

Camera and scanning debris are not uncommon at all.

That which appears in the Apollo metric camera images is easy to find. Once it is located in one image, it appear in the same location in other images. Occasionally debris shifts location slightly as the film is advanced, moving vertically in the frame until it disappears. In this case it is visible in every (well, I didn't look at every image, just random selections. There are more than 2,000 images) image from Apollo 15. And it is not the only example.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


No, i'm saying that they post photo's with anomalies, that have been tampered with.
Sometimes they post one that was not screened properly, often these files will CHANGE after 12 hours (the approximate time apparently, that a NASA technician needs to discover he's made a booboo)....It's VERY important to download these pics within 12 hours of being posted, and compare them a few days later



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


All i can say to that is; their 'clean room' wasn't very clean now, was it?
All those airlocks, micron filters etc, and these bloody great lumps get into the camera? Sloppy, i call it.
The 'hair' in the picture i just posted was not in the previous photo, or the next one, the shoddy 'photoshopping' is amateur work (maybe it's a double-double bluff).
Tell you what, go to NASA.GOV or JPL & look at AS-17-136-20767
Maybe it looks different now



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by keepureye2thesky
 


Haha, you're post must be my favourite on this thread. Made me laugh so much. Making dust angels. Good stuff.

As for the tread itself...
It kind of surprise me, that Phage, came up with perfectly good explanaition, which he was able to backed up (and all on the first page), and yet it took antoher five pages, to convince most of poeple.
Sure it would be nice to have a picture of the robot making dust angles on the moon, but Ockham came up with his razor for a reason.
Do some of you really want to belive so much?
(Also, I think that if NASA really took pictures of something they wouldn't want us to see, they wouldn't forget to smudge it, simple as that)



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by theregonnakillme
 


lol check you scale dude. If it was a life form it would me hundreds of meters tall, at the least. Plus, it doesn't cast a shadow... sooooo



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hey there, Phage. Gotta ask this:

Is it possible that the image in question could have been overlapped onto other images in order to make it seem like it appeared in several other photos thereby making it appear to be something on the lens. Could they have done this to cover up for their 'mistake'?

The conspiracy theorist in me HAS to ask this. Hope you understand



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aninonymous
 


Good point. Thanks



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Phage
 


All i can say to that is; their 'clean room' wasn't very clean now, was it?
All those airlocks, micron filters etc, and these bloody great lumps get into the camera? Sloppy, i call it.

The best clean room in the world can't prevent debris from appearing in a camera. What with all the vibrations and g-forces of launch, it's inevitable that some tiny bits of material will become dislodged within the camera and appear in the images. The zero g environment after launch probably encourages and enables tiny bits of debris to propagate within the camera to be within the light path where it might not have gotten if the camera were on earth.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
Is it possible that the image in question could have been overlapped onto other images in order to make it seem like it appeared in several other photos thereby making it appear to be something on the lens. Could they have done this to cover up for their 'mistake'?

Look at the debris; it's the same shape in every picture, yet each picture records it in a unique way. The details of the shape change ever so slightly between pictures, whether due to vibrations jolting it or just the way each piece of film happened to record the debris, it is not an artificial duplication.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by theregonnakillme

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.l


Really "Dirt caught in metric camera" that causes the the negative to show a shadow of said piece of dirt? Er I don't think so !


Yeah, this just brings more debunkers out of the woodworks that want their small piece of the pie. I'll tell you what, they're probably the reincarnation of those that challenged Galileo about the "Center of the Universe". Wasn't he also arrested because he challenged them that we were not at the center of the universe? Kind of like the crap that goes on here except you are publicly ridiculed because now, Extra Terrestrials are not accepted to todays Modern Views of Science.

These people that went by those views, got proven wrong, what was it, three times? And all the ridicule backfired upon them. We believers have the upper hand on debunkers on the Modern Views of Science bandwagon. In the end, we laugh them out of their career instead of them laughing us out of ours. Hell, even their children will look up to them and say, "You idiot. You challenged or even questioned as if there were no life in the universe, or our galaxy? Just seems that history is repeating itself over, and over again and well, these sorry fools will only have to re-write the whole human history when disclosure comes. Re-write it, in shame.

I'm not going to deny any reality of this since the military has possibly a chokehold on all news media and information outlet and I sure as hell wont accept a dust particle, ice particle, or even a bit of dirt because thats almost every answer to a complete unknown situation.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I have made a little 5 minute video about some Google Moon anomalies, some of you might want to check it out. It is on my YouTube page. Search for username Jeedawg. The video is called "Google Moon Anomalies".

Anyways, from looking at the Google programs Sky, Mars and Moon, i have found that many anomalies repeat themselves, following a straight line... which kinda suggests that its a glitch from the stitching of images.

Check around your anomaly, most likely you will find the same smudge nearby, and then check is it repeats itself along a perfect line...

Check it out...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeedawg
 


Just so you don't get accused of rickrolling, (what I thought, at first), here is the embed to the actual video, and not your entire YT channel:




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

Do you know a lot about the procedures used when loading the metric cameras? Can you point me to some information about it? But obviously there was a problem.

re: AS-17-136-20767
The scan with the "anomaly" did not come from JPL or NASA (or LPI or ASJL). You will notice that every link to the version with the "anomaly" is to spacearchive.net, a private site which is no longer available. It was operated by Davide De Martin who collected images from a range of sources. It is quite obviously a flaw in the scan.

What is SpaceArchive?

SpaceArchive.net is an archive containing hundreds of images pertaining to manned space exploration, from the early Mercury to Apollo-Soyuz missions.

Each image is downloadable at the best quality now available, and is accompanied with the shot information, such as mission, date on which the photo was taken or released, title, description, etc.

Great attention was paid to provide a good search engine, with many search filters that allow good performance.

SpaceArchive.net is always in search for new pictures not yet present on the archive so, if you are in possession of images that can't be found in SpaceArchive.net, do not hesitate to contact me or e-mail me a good scan accompanied with all available data for the image.

Many pictures were restored by me, restoring the original colors, enhancing the contrast, removing scrubs, scratches and dust maks. I hope that this work helps to remember in the best way the epic of space exploration and the men who were involved.

web.archive.org...://www.spacearchive.net/
I guess he didn't bother working on that one but there were others that he did.
Someone uploaded the version from spacearchive.net to here:
upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ah thank you for embedding it, i dont post very often.

I do admit that a lot of anomalies can't really be explained... But with all the processing and stitching and w/e they do to assemble the GoogleMoon map im sure that 99% of them are glitches and artefacts.

Are there any other programs like Google Moon-Mars-Sky? Maybe the anomalies would be more credible if they were present on similar programs.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuantumDeath
In the end, we laugh them out of their career instead of them laughing us out of ours. Hell, even their children will look up to them and say, "You idiot. You challenged or even questioned as if there were no life in the universe, or our galaxy?

So anyone who refuses to tow the line that dirt particles like this on film images are aliens on the moon is automatically guilty of believing that there is no other life in our galaxy, let alone universe? You're putting words in our mouths that do not belong there.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It is quite obviously NOT a fault in the scan, or 'debris' in the camera.





top topics
 
44
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join