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.

 

Objects I just found on the moon.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
I understand that. But surely youre not suggesting a dust particle on or within the camera itself would show up as a clear image on a photo of a clear image of something else thousands of miles away?
Not only am I suggesting it, it's an undisputed fact. That's how cameras work.




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, that is a wonderful fake EDITED animation someone made. look to my previous post.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm not going to let this thread turn into an argument. All I can say is, IMO, you're wrong. If it were a piece of lint, dust, hair, that piece of lint, dust, hair would be in every section where that camera took a photo. The same exact shape, size and all. But it's not is it? They are all different aren't they? Why? I coulda sworn i read somewhere that all NASA space objects are assembled in a lint free, dust free enviroment? Clean as a whistle?

Maybe you should go there with a white glove on and show them the lint is they let in.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, that is a wonderful fake EDITED animation someone made. look to my previous post.

What makes you think it's fake? You can't have possibly researched it at all in that short a time. If you'd like me to explain further how dust in the camera can be in focus I can, but if you insist on calling real evidence fake with no basis, then there's really no point in me trying to answer any of your questions.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MavRck
TO CAPTURE SCREEN-SHOT(S)


Go to the area that you want to take a screenshot of.

Once there, click the "print screen" button on your keyboard. This takes the screenshots.

Go to the "Paint" tool. Go to "edit" and then "Paste". There is your screenshot.

PS* For future reference, if you don't know how to do something...Google usually does.
edit on 4-12-2010 by MavRck because: (no reason given)


Let me add a couple of steps. When you save the screen shot it includes a facsimile of your whole computer screen when all you really want is the photo or illustration. Once you have the screenshot, go to File on YOUR monitor, click on Save as and save it as a jpeg on the second box (drop down menu) and if you want you can change the upper box from Untitled to a more appropriate.

Once you have indicated jpeg save it to a folder. I didn't specify a folder so it was saved automatically to My Pictures folder. If I wanted to mess with the photo, I would have brought up my Picasa and cropped the photo to just show the image. Then if I wanted to put it in a thread or reply here, I would have used the ATS Tools which allow you to upload a photo. But keep in mind that you should crop the photo before uploading to approx. 700 pixels and if you make it larger than that when you post it here it may be too big for the ATS system to handle so you'll see only part of the phot. Experiment.

There are a lot more things you can do with that photo in Paint such as adding arrows and other effects.

edit on 4-12-2010 by The Shrike because: Corrections



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
My photo...


Reminds me of this object...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I have actually been dealing with cameras for roughly 15 years. Never once have i captured a piece of lint or dust in any of my photos. Wether it be hi def, low def, no def, Mos Def, never. You are clearly avoiding my points,and your points thus far are made up of that such as for example 'its dust cause someone made this video of a superimposed piece of dust', or 'no sir'.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


I believe you have to download the google earth moon viewer program here Google Earth

then you have to type in the coorndinates....not sure if you can just past them...


You can paste them. But what I did was since the OP used an asterisk instead of a degree sign ° , I copied his coordinates to my Notepad and then using the Character Map which you can get for Windows XP:
tlt.its.psu.edu... I changed the OP's asterisk sign to a degree sign and then I copied and pasted the corrected coordinates in the searching box. But after arriving at the initial coordinates I used the other coordinates but Ithe lunar image didn't change, it just sat there from the initial coordinates so I just zoomed in to see if anything was visible. What I saw was Rima Hadley/Mons Hadley Delta area but no matter how much I zoomed in I didn't see anything out of the ordinary so I don't know what the OP is alluding to.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BrnBdry
If it was dust, I dont think youd be able to see it. If I'm taking an in focus picture of an object thousands of miles away, surely a dust particle on the lense wouldnt be visable at all in the photo.
It's not moon dust on the moon, it's earth dust inside the camera.


Or in the projector when the print was being made. When one looks at a lens, any lens, but a projector lens with the light on one sees, mostly, a dusty interior. Of course, you are not going to look up the lens when it's lit, an angled look will suffice.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
I have actually been dealing with cameras for roughly 15 years.
Digital? Or film? These are film images and you probably won't see the same thing on most digital cameras, except for possibly SLRs. When you get dust near the focal plane of the camera, it will be in focus, that's why it's called the focal plane. The focal plane is also where the light rays coming through the lens converge to form a focused image.

Non-SLR consumer cameras won't produce that effect because there's normally no way for dust to get to the focal plane as is possible when you have film going through the camera. NASA might have been able to do a better job keeping dust out. And again on their images made with electronic sensors instead of film, I don't suspect you'll see these types of dust specs.


your points thus far are made up of that such as for example 'its dust cause someone made this video of a superimposed piece of dust', or 'no sir'.
That "video" is a compilation of four images from NASA, feel free to download the same images from NASA yourself. I provided the link with all this information but apparently you didn't review the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
If you haven't seen other pictures then you didn't look at the other threads and you didn't bother looking at the original images. I you had, there are many other examples which you would have seen
Here's another: Here's what it looks like when Google is finished with it.

Giant Moon bug?
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...


edit on 4-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BrnBdry
 


This post made me finally download Google earth. First thing I clicked on was Louisiana. I found strange circular (UFO's!!! AHHHH) objects South on the waterfront. Then I went to my town, and saw my damn car parked in my yard, creepy google.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Arbitrageur, you're wasting your time. The OP doesn't want to have anything explained. Save your breath.

I've worked in the TV industry for 21 years and am very familiar with seeing hairs in the gate.

He won't understand that phrase and thats the problem.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


You can save yourself a lot of trouble by just leaving a space where you would put the "degree" symbol. Like this
25 55'34.01" N 2 59'19.09" E



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In the post above I see your point as it is captured in 4 different spots. However, who's to say it wasn't captured in 4 different spots because it traveled along, and it was photographed repeatedly?

I mean c'mon. These things are assembled in prolly the cleanest place on Earth. Theres just way too many IMO in the photos, too be lint or dust. I personally havent found one that was alike.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
As to the dust explanation... Makes perfect sense to me. When I first saw all of the "objects" listed in the OP, I immediately thought of what you see when looking toward a light, with your eyes closed. They are called "floaters". www.uic.edu...

Though I know nothing about photography and if the same phenomena is even possible, they do look very similar.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BrnBdry
If it was dust, I dont think youd be able to see it.
Here's a compilation of moon photos someone made showing another speck of dust:


Notice how it's always in the same spot in each frame? It's not on the moon, it's in the camera.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To find this effect you need to look at original images, the ones that Google Moon is based on.


It doesn't look remotely like dust on the lens to me... therefore .... every frame used on Google Moon would also have dust in the same place......: if this makes any sense ...someone needs to remind me to go up there and clean that dirty lens. ..... oh I`m sorry..... someone did,...or maybe the aleins cleaned it while the were in the area.......sarcasam! ..........just being foolish and nieve...unless i`m right ,then of course i would be wrong.... then i would be like most people just an idiot.. which reminds me.... what were we talking about ?..oh ya. windex. I like the rather blue color, but i could do with out that ammonia smell. but it cleans very well....smile everyone its only fun.. and everyone has to split a gut sometimes. I beleive that everyone has right to there opinion. there are no certains [in this world] but maybe if we reach far enough in side us we will find our inner eye and, and in one brief moment remember to use that can of air and blow of those lenses before we copy and use photoshop. this way we won`t have to sit her and beleive that the satelite has dust on its lens and it cleans it self with windex.I need to go to bed ,I`m starting to wonder if my mind is even working.....laugh the world may be a better place. Peace!



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In the post above I see your point as it is captured in 4 different spots. However, who's to say it wasn't captured in 4 different spots because it traveled along, and it was photographed repeatedly?
And as the object moves along, and the camera moves along, it just happens to coincide so perfectly as to end up in almost the exact same spot in the frame of the image each time?

Wow you really want to believe something badly to make that kind of stretch. If you can really make yourself believe that, then I can't help. What are the odds of that happening in your estimation?


Originally posted by MiTS65
Arbitrageur, you're wasting your time. The OP doesn't want to have anything explained. Save your breath.
Well based on his last post trying to explain away why the "object" is in almost exactly the same place on 4 different images, I would now have to agree with you. I tried though.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by awcgs
It doesn't look remotely like dust on the lens to me.
It's not on the lens. It's near the focal plane of the camera. The clearer parts are closer to the film.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by awcgs
It doesn't look remotely like dust on the lens to me.
It's not on the lens. It's near the focal plane of the camera. The clearer parts are closer to the film.

Exactly. Its in the gate. Why the OP can't understand this is beyond me.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join