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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Here's just a few dust particles NASA somehow allowed to get into their camera.

Fish hook?



Burnt out match?



Taperworm?



Gotta be a dead spider, right?



String?



2 for 1 special?



Hair?




WOW, NASA should fire some people right now.

Oh, how about this?

Surely I'm imagining these tracks going over this hump too? Which also happen to be right next to most of the lint in the photos.

edit on 4-12-2010 by BrnBdry because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.


So you took the entire panaramic photos of all four shots, and layed them across one another, and they landed perfectly ontop of one another? Or were the photos cropped out, THEN layed ontop of one another to fit the story you're telling? My vote is the second one.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
So you took the entire panaramic photos of all four shots, and layed them across one another, and they landed perfectly ontop of one another? Or were the photos cropped out, THEN layed ontop of one another to fit the story you're telling? My vote is the second one.

My vote is you have no experience with photography.

I have been employed in this area (specifically telecine) for 21 years and I can categorically state that all these pictures show hairs/dust/whatever behind the lens.

You may want to believe that extraterrestrials are operating craft which look like pubes but you're wrong.

Get that into your head. You are wrong! I am a professional and see this type of thing every day.

You are not a professional and have an over-active imagination.

Get over it!



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Actually, theres nothing to get over. I mearly was wondering what they were. He says dust. I disagree. Im pretty sure I never said they were alien crafts.

BTW, you see this all this time in you field? Got any personal examples? Show me a photo you took of the moon nice and upclose, that has lint showing from being within the camera on the developed photo.

Oh, I happened to be a technician at Precision Camera in Enfield CT. Have been for many years. The amount of lint in those 7 photos alone, I'd have a hard time finding in a dozen cameras, let alone it all being in one.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
So you took the entire panaramic photos of all four shots, and layed them across one another, and they landed perfectly ontop of one another? Or were the photos cropped out, THEN layed ontop of one another to fit the story you're telling? My vote is the second one.
I gave you the links to the NASA images. If you really wanted to know you would look at those.

But it's easier to maintain your fantasy if you ignore the evidence and speculate what the images look like instead of downloading them and looking at them, right?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
Actually, theres nothing to get over. I mearly was wondering what they were. He says dust. I disagree. Im pretty sure I never said they were alien crafts.

So why post this in the UFO forum? Did you think it was a cryptid and clicked the wrong button? You knew exactly why you posted this here and are now trying to backtrack.


Originally posted by BrnBdry
BTW, you see this all this time in you field? Got any personal examples? Show me a photo you took of the moon nice and upclose, that has lint showing from being within the camera on the developed photo.

I work for a national broadcaster.I don't bring copies of my work home with me. I have, however, seen many examples of film where small particals have come between the lens and the sensor. It happens all the time.


Originally posted by BrnBdry
Oh, I happened to be a technician at Precision Camera in Enfield CT. Have been for many years. The amount of lint in those 7 photos alone, I'd have a hard time finding in a dozen cameras, let alone it all being in one.


Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And those 7 photos are only those you have highlighted from several thousand which didn't exhibit any 'anomalies.' Trying to say the artifacts are evident in all 7 photos is manipulating statistics in a very biased way.
edit on 5-12-2010 by MiTS65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
Here's just a few dust particles NASA somehow allowed to get into their camera.


apollo.sese.asu.edu...


Prior to exposure, the film in the Apollo mapping camera system (a schematic of which is reproduced below) was held by pressure against a glass plate containing the reseau marks.

Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the metric mapping system. Note glass plate in lower left of the diagram. (Reproduced from NASA SP-362, Figure 6)

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.
I called it dust. NASA calls it "foreign debris".
Perhaps NASA's description is more accurate since some objects may not be dust particles but other small objects.
edit on 5-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
For Christ’s sake, pllllleassse STOP using Google Earth for alien/UFO anomaly hunting!

For your info, there are different satellites primarily used to form the images we see on satellite pictures. They do not carry cameras, but instruments that record different types of radiation (infrared, mircowave and visible), which are beamed back to receiving stations on Earth, which digitise the information into images.

And then, electronic problems with orbiting satellites are pretty frequent when the environment has been bombarded with energetic particles called cosmic rays. These charged particles impact sensitive electronic circuits and cause 'glitches'.

At times, some data is lost, leaving gaps in the mosaic resulting in unusual shapes on Google Earth. Other times the image processing from the data is the cause, leaving gaps and blurred images which is what you see in many of these digitized images and what resemble alien spaceships/constructions on the Moon as well as on Earth.

Add to this the phenomenon called paredolia, and unjustified assumptions…….Oh well, you can’t ever convince the believers can you?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Looks just like all the fuzz, hair and other tiny things that show up on old movie reels.
Like others have stated numerous times, lenses take external light and bring them into focus on the film (or sensor).
Or you can skip all the focusing, and be right up against the film. That will also be a pretty sharp image.
If you went in a darkroom, and laid a penny directly on a piece of film, then exposed it to light. You'd have a very sharp circle on the film.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Wow, so many posts about tiny dust flecks and minute hairs..

C'mon people, All Brits know that The Clangers live on the moon and its bits of their hair.

Seriously peeps, Moon string monsters, please oh please don't allow us to go that low....



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I will accept dust, hairs, lint and the like as the answer I was looking for.

I just found it odd that NASA would allow so much of it to be encased in it's camera.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
BTW, what do you make of these 'tracks' going over this hump?





posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
I will accept dust, hairs, lint and the like as the answer I was looking for.

I just found it odd that NASA would allow so much of it to be encased in it's camera.
Glad to see you have some rational thought (though you were hard to convince)!


Regarding the clean room, I'm not even sure the Apollo cleanroom procedures were as good as this more recent NASA cleanroom video demonstrates, but even this procedure allows for some contamination:

NASA - Into the Clean Room [HD]


Notice how the eyelashes and eyebrows are exposed? People shed both eyelashes and eyebrow hairs, so even this procedure doesn't eliminate all possible sources of contamination.
edit on 5-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
BTW, what do you make of these 'tracks' going over this hump?


First and most importantly, you can't do any analysis on images from Google moon.

Google moon is a fun way to browse the moon images so there's nothing wrong with that, I do it too.

But, if I find an image that looks interesting, and I'd like to research it further, then I try to locate the source image that Google used to put into the composite. When you do this, you will find that the source image, and the Google moon image don't always look the same.

The source image is correct, and the Google moon image isn't.

At first glance it looks to me like tracks going over the edge of a cliff (actually going down the side of a steep hill) but I can't trust the Google moon image so I'd have to locate the source image. You might also do an ATS search on something like [moon tracks], it's possible there's an existing thread on your question about the tracks.

Cheers.
edit on 5-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The "tracks" are obviously parallel, so using the GE ruler at the given height of near 7000ft will give some idea of the distance between the two single tracks, and so more likely a kilometre or more. Just to add, had a look and most like much less than a kilometre, but still not a small distance apart, around a hundred metres. I don't know how accurate the Google tools are, best take Arbit's advice.
edit on 5-12-2010 by smurfy because: Add text.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Contamination may not always be in the camera remember there is a development stage and of course copies are made from the original negatives and positives and even copies of copies so lots of opportunities for foreign objects to be included on the image.
I think maybe some of the people involved at these stages may even have had a sense of humour, like this for example.




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 

Why do you say that? What do you think it is? I have no idea.

It reminds me a little of a seed pod, not this one but something like it, just one of the individual "floaters" of a dandilion:

www.shutterstock.com...



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It does not appear to be a natural shape to me, almost as if it had been manipulated in some way.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BrnBdry
 


That's not a hump, it's a canyon (or, to use the correct terminology, a rille). The eye gets faked-out because we are used to seeing things lit from above. In this image, we interpret the brighter north slope as a well-lit rise, which partially shadows the south slope. In fact, the sunlight is coming from the south (the bottom of the picture), so it's shining directly on the northern downslope, and obliquely on the southern slope.

It helps to see it correctly if you flip the image upside-down, so it appears that the light is coming from the top of the frame.

Hope this helps.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 
I don't know how accurate it is, but I noticed that Google Moon also provides an elevation at each location. When I first saw those tracks, I was looking at the Google Moon elevations and it looks like something rolled downhill from those.

But you're right, the lighting can be tricky.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join