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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Agreed it LOOKS like 'dust bunnies'

But you are all forgetting the most important question that can prove this theory?

What camera did NASA use to take these images ??? I suppose they used a Canon/Nikon with a 400mm lens ? lol or satellite (imagine Hubble having dust bunnies hehe)

I get dust particles on my sensor every now and then, but they only really show up at an f/11+ aperture.




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lavenlaar
What camera did NASA use to take these images ???
See link figure 1 for one camera.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
lol, it's on the lens..
It's been shown many times and I'm one that would love to see moon bases



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.



Those specific tracks go on for miles. Same distance apart. Same width. Really odd.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
Those specific tracks go on for miles. Same distance apart. Same width. Really odd.
Did you follow my advice and look for them on the original images?

There are tracks all over the moon, lots of them. But I don't think those are tracks. My guess is those are artifacts where some images were stitched together.

The tracks almost parallel a sharp contrast in imagery over to the left which makes me suspect it's related to a photographic or mosaic effect and not a feature on the moon.

That Rille is the real fascinating part, it's amazing!
edit on 5-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think it is the identical dust mote found on the same lens of the same camera taking pictures of different areas of the moon.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There are no original moon images. The cameras used in them did not have a very wide field of focus so they have all been stitched together from several images. Most of the artifacts in question on the moon I think were these stitched areas of images. Many of the strange artifacts were simply dust motes, ice, and Sun reflection film noir.
edit on 5-12-2010 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
From the OP Source


Satanism is based on the manipulation of energy and consciousness. These deeply sick rituals create an energy field, a vibrational frequency, which connects the consciousness of the participants to the reptilians and other consciousness of, the lower fourth dimension. This is the dimensional field, also known as the lower astral to many people, which resonates to the frequency of low vibrational emotions like fear, guilt, hate and so on


Question one incited from this statement:

1. "a vibrational frequency that connects the consciousness of the participant to the reptilians"

Just what is this frequency? Is it a sound, or an electromagnet frequency, or is it a light frequency? Can you provide the spectra so that we can use this to block this frequency?

2. The fourth dimension as I understand it is time. How exactly is time divided into lower and higher dimensions?

3. Again what exactly is the frequency of fear? guilt? hate? lets just start with these. Please provide these frequencies in the Hertz scale for our reference. I need to know to deny my ignorance in this area. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
There are no original moon images.
I have no idea what you mean by that. By original, I mean not on Google Earth, but instead the original images that Google earth uses to create Google moon. Google Earth not only stitches the images together but they can get distorted and get artifacts in the process of applying the Google earth algorithms.


The cameras used in them did not have a very wide field of focus so they have all been stitched together from several images.
That's what I just said, referring to the mosaic effect. You mean "field of view" I think.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
From the OP Source


Satanism is based on the manipulation of energy and consciousness.
.
Completely off topic here and not from op source, there is no source in the OP.

I suspect you meant to post that in another thread?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I must be tired. That is indeed a cross post from several threads I had open at once. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I know I should be in bed.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by BrnBdry
 



edit on 6-12-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)




I don't think there are any new pictures of interest from the moon these days. Those that have been around for years always show things that look sort of interesting but, for some reason, not quite right. Remembering that, unlike on Mars, on the moon there is no erosional degradation. If there is a building for instance it should look pretty much new no matter how old it is and therefore no imagination would be required to see clearly what it is. This is never the case. Sometimes we see curvy lines next to some straight lines or a pointy rock and call them "ancient this or that or a "obelisk" being tricked by our earthy minds to think that anything ancient must be worn away to almost nothing. If someone parked a flying saucer on the moon 100,000 years ago it would look to us now just as it did when the last driver walked away from it. Maybe a small amount of dust moves around because of external forces but there ain't no weather on the moon except for direct solar stuff.



edit on 6-12-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SirKnightE
 


well there ya go, i just learnt something! ;-)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
It depends on the image source, a lot of the original moon images were actually digitised onto computers decades after originally taken, in this process various contaminants got onto the scanner. I've seen images like these before of the moon, looks like it’s simply a piece of lint/a thread or something, that’s why it crosses over multiple shots and is absent from other shots entirely.
This is certainly the simplest explanation.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.


Actually, it depends on where the speck of dust is located. Camera lenses have what's called "depth of field", meaning that depending on the focus and aperature setting, dust on the lens could be completely invisible except for some picture distortion, which in most cases would be unnoticable in low resolution shots such as those.

To elaborate, focusing on a distant object with a wide-open aperature would make dust on the lens virtually invisible. Shut down the aperature (such as in bright sunlight) and the depth of field increases and the dust becomes visible as a speck, but probably not as sharp as in these pictures. However, if the spec was not on the outside of the lens, or not in between lenses in the lens assembly, and was in between the lens and CCD, then you'd have exactly the effect we see here.

How a speck of dust would get into a sealed enclosure like that though, is another matter.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
reply to post by MavRck
 


Thanks for that. Too bad I'm lazy too.



Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm too lazy to star or flag a thread with minimal information. Especially one where you have to go to another webpage (or even perhaps download a program) to glean the topic of which. But, even that's not enough for this one. You have to actually plug in MORE information from this thread once you get there. Figuring I did everything correctly, I guess it's possible that I might be able to surmise what the topic of this conversation is ... but, I wouldn't know. Because I, like you, and much too lazy to do all that.
edit on 6-12-2010 by tyranny22 because: To mention that this is a classic thread fail.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO
However, if the spec was not on the outside of the lens, or not in between lenses in the lens assembly, and was in between the lens and CCD, then you'd have exactly the effect we see here.
I guess you missed the NASA explanation I posted just a few posts before yours saying this is how it happened except there's no CCD. I never suggested it was outside the lens so I'm not sure why I'm getting lesson in depth of field
I've been using SLRs since I was 12 so I know all about that!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look at the camera schematic.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Is that Earth string or space string.
Never saw the dust on lens conspiracy before.
I'm almost falling for lie in pouter space.

Say Disney and all the NASA films stress how clean everything is
before we send off a space mission. So we don't contaminate space.
Or we don't see home made Moon photos.

Space contamination I never did get with all the killing radiation out there.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
It's really great you've been doing this research, and searching for things on the moon, its awesome, but you must be open to the idea that it is dust on the lens, seems like a very likely explanation.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Creepy how it looks like a man walking with his shadow behind him (camera looking down)!




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join