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.

 

Nasa forgets to smudge out an anomaly on the Moon

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Hi brand new member however I have been reading posts with interest and occasional shock.

O'k I believe its is dust. Or rather Earth dust. But it an odd shape, wouldn't dust be blob shaped?

Well that's it for now. Thanks and bye.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NWOPrimate
 

It is dust inside the camera. It appears in every image from the Apollo 15 metric camera. It appears repeatedly on Google Moon because Google Moon uses the images from the Apollo 15 metric camera.






Considering you nailed it in the first page, I can't believe this thread is still going.

Meanwhile the world is going to *#^$...



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Nope, it's an Imperial Probe Droid... it's a good bet the Empire knows we're here.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 





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?


Use your brain for a moment.

Of course it would be simpler to just remove the 'object' from the image or images it appears in, but that is not possible to do with any measure of credibility.

Why?

For the very obvious reason that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people may have the original on their computers, or printed out and stuck on their walls as posters!

What good is changing the image that slipped by the censors, if millions of people downloaded the uncensored image before they change it??!

The only option left to them, is to do nothing and claim dust or whatever, and to add the same 'object' in the same relative position in other images.

Then someone who is a mouthpiece blogger in support of officialdom, such as Phage and other here, can claim what they have.

So, no...not convoluted in the slightest.

To simply change the image that slipped by, they would have to change EVERY downloaded or published copy of the image too.. ALL of them.
I'm sure you'll agree, adding the anomaly to a few more frames is a much easier task than recovering all the copies of the original, complete with the anomaly! (Impossible task)

I wish people would use their brains a little, before jumping on the sycophantic, ass kissing bandwagon.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
..Of course it would be simpler to just remove the 'object' from the image or images it appears in, but that is not possible to do with any measure of credibility.

Why?

For the very obvious reason that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people may have the original on their computers, or printed out and stuck on their walls as posters!

What good is changing the image that slipped by the censors, if millions of people downloaded the uncensored image before they change it??!

The only option left to them, is to do nothing and claim dust or whatever, and to add the same 'object' in the same relative position in other images...

ALL of these images had been previously downloaded and saved. Using your own argument, wouldn't it seem odd if this dust just magically appeared on all of those images if those images were previously known NOT to have that dust?

You don't seem to be following your own line of reasoning.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
The only option left to them, is to do nothing and claim dust or whatever, and to add the same 'object' in the same relative position in other images.

As Soylent points out, that would mean every other image from Apollo 15's mapping camera would no longer match with previously downloaded versions. It fails your own logic even harder than simply editing it out of the picture late would. Furthermore, the "object" changes slightly between pictures as it's jostled by vibrations and moving parts advancing the film, so it's clearly not the same "object" being digitally added in to every other image. There is no reason at all to believe your speculative scenario.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by coop039
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, witch 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.


Wow. This thread is still going?
Why is has everyone choosing to ignore the whole scale and size issues here? The "object" is the same size in all the pic reguardless of how much the camera is zoomed in or out. SO then does that mean this "robot" knows when the camera zooms and changes size accordingly?

C'mon guys, phage put this one rest back on the first or second page. Its stuff like this that keeps from being here and reading as much as I used to.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
First of all, my opinion on this is that it is dust on the lens for sure... Think about it for a few moments.

It is in several other frames, same orientation, same shape.

To me anyways, this suggests that it is some sort of foreign object on the lens, or maybe even inside the camera, and not a humanoid or robot.

Look at the size of it! If it IS on the ground like many here are saying, this humanoid/robot would have to be about 325 meters long and about 80 meters wide!! Thats a huge object.

I have looked at the Google Moon/Sky/Mars maps for a bit now and i can tell you that many of these anomalies repeat themselves... Ill see some very interesting smudge, or a line of some sort, then ill zoom back a bit and look around the area. 99% of the time ill find the same anomaly nearby, either exactly the same or ever slightly distorted, because on Google Moon/Mars, smudges and lines tend to distort with the terrain a very little bit.

I personally do not think we can gather any conclusions from the Google Moon/Mars maps...

Reason tells us we should go with the best explanation until someone definitely proves otherwise.. So to me, knowing all the glitches and image artefacts of Google Moon and the fact that 99% of them repeat themselves, to assume that it is a 325 meter long humanoid/robot doesnt cut it.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
On the other side of things, i kind of agree with Spikey a bit..

IF there was indeed something there in one of the original photographs, i think NASA might repeat the anomaly in other frames instead of removing it from that one frame... There might be more evidence left over from the process of removing an object than there would be evidence for the "copy/pasting" of one.

Just a thought, i still think that it is dust on the lens lol, but its good to think about different options.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
It looks like Phage provided an exhaustive analysis and explanation a while ago, and this "droid/anomaly" theory is still alive and well? That really smacks of idiocy.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


23 minutes, not your best time but still pretty quick.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeedawg
On the other side of things, i kind of agree with Spikey a bit..

IF there was indeed something there in one of the original photographs, i think NASA might repeat the anomaly in other frames instead of removing it from that one frame...


Respectfully, why would you think it would raise less of a "Red Flag" if ALL of the metric camera images from Apollo 15 suddenly and magically gained a dust spec where there wasn't one previously instead of just one photo "losing" a dust spec?

If I was this hypothetical person at NASA in charge of "Hiding the Truth", I would rather take my chances explaining the disappearance of a spec on only one image instead of trying to explain the sudden appearance of a new dust spec on 1500 images.



[edit on 8/11/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


jra

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
What good is changing the image that slipped by the censors, if millions of people downloaded the uncensored image before they change it??!

The only option left to them, is to do nothing and claim dust or whatever, and to add the same 'object' in the same relative position in other images.


So, if you believe that NASA can't remove it because "millions of people" might have an original copy. Then wouldn't you run into the very same problem with them adding the object to multiple photos? It's also kind of contradictory. How can something slip past some supposed censor, but at the same time be purposely copied into other photos by the same group that supposedly let it slip. It just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

Besides, I don't believe high resolution scans of the Apollo Metric photography were widely available until recently. The Apollo Image Archive didn't start scanning them until around 2007.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by jra]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I have the perfect salution for that 2.bp.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Your picture of Captain Hyperbole is absolutely hysterical. Thanks for that!

And I honestly can't believe how many people truly believe Nasa has an entire department devoted to smudging and blurring photos of "obvious alien activity" on the moon.

That's like almost off the wall fringe conspiracy.

Especially since not even John Lear could convince anyone there was something actually up there.

If John Lear couldn't make me think Klingons had overrun Luna hundreds of thousands of years ago, OP's picture of a dirty lens ain't doin it either!



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
A life form or a robot? Really? Gotta love an overactive imagination..

Just to flog this dead horse a little more though - the alleged 'dust' being present in other photographs merely shows that said life form/robot is moving about the landscape. And I take this as further proof that whatever it is, is definately alive.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
Whats are the odds on a bit of dust being shaped like a humanoid/robot...

What are the odds of a humanoid robot showing up in multiple pictures of the moon, always looking the same -- and in the same position in the frame on many successive images?

If I told you the following...:

1. I have multiple pictures of open desert taken from a plane at different times of different locations, with a "spot/object" in all of the pictures.

2. The spot/object looks the same in all of the pictures.

3. The spot/object is in the same part of the frame in all of the multiple pictures.

...are you telling me that you would first assume that the spot is actually a real object that just happened to be in all of the desert locations I was photographing -- in the same orientation and, luckily, in the same part of the frame in every photo, RATHER than thinking it just might be dust on the lens.

Really?
...no, seriously -- Really?
[edit on 8/10/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]




Everbody, Everybody, gets the object in the middle of shot when taking pictures... even Nasa believe it or not!


But just because its in the middle in every shot your just going to ignore everything else,

Dust


You sure its not swamp gas or lanterns?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NWOPrimate
 

Yes, it changes shape depending on the ground its on because Google Earth warps it to make it fit the shape of the Moon.



Can we see the evidence of Google Earth warping images to fit the shape of surroundings, writen & photoghaphic, and can you please explain the shadow the dust on the camera is making on the moon i may have missed it but i feel everybody saying dust is ignoring this fact & also the fact its not blurred like you would expect from dust on the lense witch is evident in EVERY SINGLE DUST ON A LENSE picture ever taken. is this special dust?....



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
Can we see the evidence of Google Earth warping images to fit the shape of surroundings, writen & photoghaphic,

So you're saying google earth just tosses Apollo 15 metric camera data onto its moon globe without bothering to rotate and scale each image to fit their globe regardless of the orientation of the original photo or the altitude it was taken at? Is that what you're suggesting? Because if not, then each image must be distorted from its original form and you shouldn't be using google moon as a primary source of data.

and can you please explain the shadow the dust on the camera is making on the moon

There is no shadow, it's just a dark bit of debris, which is why it doesn't change due to lighting conditions and angle. A shadow would.

also the fact its not blurred like you would expect from dust on the lense witch is evident in EVERY SINGLE DUST ON A LENSE picture ever taken. is this special dust?....

Apparently you think dust and debris can only occur on the outside surface of a lens when in fact that is the least logical location for it in this instance. This camera is more akin to an SLR, not in method of operation, but in relative complexity and number of mechanical moving parts relative to say, the point and shoot cameras you're probably familiar with. It also had a Reseau plate perfect for collecting loose debris at the focal plane of the film.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 

It is not in the middle of the shot. It is in the upper left corner of the original images (in the same place). It is in the middle of the shots I posted because I cropped them to show the dust.

There is no shadow on the Moon. Just because the OP was edited to say it couldn't be dust (after I showed it was dust) does not mean there is a shadow. It is not dust on the lens. It is dust inside the camera, right next to the film. But in a way you are right, the dust is casting a shadow...on the film.

Distortion. Maybe. But I'm not completely sure since I haven't been here to see it for myself.



[edit on 8/12/2010 by Phage]




top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join