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.

 

Vector shape UFO on the moon

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


I think he meant more to the fact that he tried to "Tweek" it. You know, bring it out in better detail. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to play games.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by onehuman
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


I think he meant more to the fact that he tried to "Tweek" it. You know, bring it out in better detail. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to play games.


Yes, he tweaked it. To show what he wanted it to show.

Do you not, for one moment, suspect someone who says he has not altered an image using Photoshop (lets leave Paint out of it because that's just laughable!) to prove the verity of his 'analysis' yet in the same breath says he has used other image-processing software as just slightly suspect?

He knows if he says he used PS he would be ripped apart because lots of people have knowledge of it so instead he says he used software used by scientific professionals. Still doesn't say which software he used BTW!

People need to stop wanting to believe and start to want to question.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


If you watch the video,he IS using NASA software,the same software that they use to edit out that kinda thing.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


If you watch the video,he IS using NASA software,the same software that they use to edit out that kinda thing.


If you actually listen to the commentary on the video at 1'10" there is no mention of NASA software and he claims he is using software used by microbiologists.

At no point does he mention the name of this software (NASA or not) so I can only assume you are hearing what you want to believe rather than what is being said.

He altered this shot by his own admission then told everyone he didn't use PS to alter the shot.

There is a distinct smell of fish around here. Am I the only one not wearing nose-plugs?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


Well, since the gentleman has actually taken the time to join our little madhouse of Ats, perhaps he can speak for himself and answer your points you are trying to make. I would certainly not consider it my place to answer being the OP of the thread.

I will be curious to the answers though I must admit, but more for so I can learn...



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


Also welcome to ATS and I hope you are ready for what is ahead. Great work too.

I have some questions. How sure are you about these objects being the real thing? How did you discover these photos?
Why do you think this anomaly did not show up on the other images.?
If it is real...those things are absolutely gigantic in size!

edit on 13-4-2011 by ellieN because: added a word



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ellieN
 


I meant to thank you earlier for you open mindness about this video. Some folks are just so quick to judge or assume or debunk just for the sake of it. I have no problem with a good debate about something, but really, both sides need to keep a open mind I think.

I dont feel I am a person that wants so bad to believe, I feel I am a person that feels the odds are in my favor that there is more out there then we will ever know in this lifetime.

It is people like the poster of this video that have brought us down the road to our futures. So sad they have to take so much mud in the process really.

Anyhow, thanks again




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by onehuman
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


Well, since the gentleman has actually taken the time to join our little madhouse of Ats, perhaps he can speak for himself and answer your points you are trying to make. I would certainly not consider it my place to answer being the OP of the thread.

I will be curious to the answers though I must admit, but more for so I can learn...

I would absolutely like him to speak for himself.

I'd like him to state why he thinks NOT using Photoshop to tweak the pictures means he adds credibility to his claims yet ADMITTING he used other (undisclosed) software to tweak his pictures adds to his credibility.

I'd like him to state exactly which software he was using.

I'd like him to show an unadulterated image and ask others to see what he sees.

I'd like him to ask others to use the software of their choice to come up with their own interpretations of the image.

I'd also like people to stop making excuses for this person by claiming he was using NASA software when he made no such claim.

I'm getting really very tired of this type of hoax. Its right up there with Chinese lanterns and airplanes coming in to land on this site.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MiTS1965

Originally posted by onehuman
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


Well, since the gentleman has actually taken the time to join our little madhouse of Ats, perhaps he can speak for himself and answer your points you are trying to make. I would certainly not consider it my place to answer being the OP of the thread.

I will be curious to the answers though I must admit, but more for so I can learn...

I would absolutely like him to speak for himself.

I'd like him to state why he thinks NOT using Photoshop to tweak the pictures means he adds credibility to his claims yet ADMITTING he used other (undisclosed) software to tweak his pictures adds to his credibility.

I'd like him to state exactly which software he was using.

I'd like him to show an unadulterated image and ask others to see what he sees.

I'd like him to ask others to use the software of their choice to come up with their own interpretations of the image.

I'd also like people to stop making excuses for this person by claiming he was using NASA software when he made no such claim.

I'm getting really very tired of this type of hoax. Its right up there with Chinese lanterns and airplanes coming in to land on this site.


You have issues,don't you.

You can get the pic yourself,and check it out yourself.
I found it,now you go look for it.

And I apologize cause I thought I saw a NASA program running on his computer during the vid.
He does state a couple of times of not using photoshop or paint but a program that is used in the astronomy and microbiology world.
And it's a whole lot better the some bus or train behind some nuclear plant in japan that is claimed to be a "huge ufo".
There are plenty of fakes out there,but if you pay close attention to the details you can sort them out.

So go find your pic and dissect it yourself.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


sander, welcome. I wonder if you might address a point I made, on Page #2. I will quote it here, in its entirety:



Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well.....why has no one taken my suggestion? I looked it up, there is a nearly identical image of the Moon, taken in the frame just before the one used in the video. (Video used AS11-38-5673)

Here is AS11-38-5672


Anyone up for comparing the two?? IF you have the software, and computing power (I don't). This will either settle (or not) whether the "anomaly" seen in #-5673 is also seen in #-5672. (AND, you can also look at #-5674, too).



So, in summary: AS11-38-5673 is bracketed by at least two similar images, and taken within a reasonable time period of each other (view the thumbnails to see the sequential progression of that magazine of film).

  • How can one account for the lack of the same anomaly on the other photos?

  • Also, given its apparent size....surely something that large can be resolved by even some amateur-level telescopes?

  • How can something so obvious have been "overlooked" for so long?



Do you see why every possibility must be investigated, before jumping to such rather hard-to-believe conclusions first?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Very good! I don't see it there,but I see it on AS11-38-5674 and AS11-38-5675,as if it is moving away from that spot.
But also there seems like alot of specks on those pictures.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
SINCE this shows more detail than others videos,seems to me that is authentic,and looks like we even can see the chambers or rooms that are conected to each 'leg' of this building/.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


When I saw the final result, I also thought that there was a slight possibility that the object may be digging into or out of the moon surface or that it throws dust into the moon's atmosphere (although the moon does not seem to have an atmosphere ... hum).

Sander



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Good morning!

Yes I also noticed the two small white lines on AS11-38-5674 and another one on AS11-38-5675. It appears to me that we than look sidways so the object turned. I have started with enhancement already of these two but as I said in the beginning, I always take my time doing these things. On little mistake and I ruin the entire project. So yes I will show you the other two as well.

Greetz,

Sander



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
very interesting.

does indeed look like the vector in the nasa logo.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


OK ... I use special software I found / find on the net but have not paid for because these prices are out of my league. I therefore will not give away any names of these products. I am not afraid for normal consumer software manufacturers but my software is not exactly what you would call standard. I do however make a lot of use of ImageJ. (freeware ... google for it)

No, I do not want people to believe me instantly. You do not know me so why should you trust me at all and not be hesitant in accepting that I found something no one found before.

I would react in the same manner and do not blame you or anyone.

Greetz,

Sander



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
You have issues,don't you.

You can get the pic yourself,and check it out yourself.
I found it,now you go look for it.

And I apologize cause I thought I saw a NASA program running on his computer during the vid.
He does state a couple of times of not using photoshop or paint but a program that is used in the astronomy and microbiology world.
And it's a whole lot better the some bus or train behind some nuclear plant in japan that is claimed to be a "huge ufo".
There are plenty of fakes out there,but if you pay close attention to the details you can sort them out.

So go find your pic and dissect it yourself.


Yes I do have issues. Mainly with people who are so desperate to believe in some fantaasy land that they switch their brains off and make claims which are totally unsubstantiable.

The gentleman in question says he did not "edit" his picture and then goes on to say he is "enhansing" his picture.

What does that say to you?

I'll tell you what it says to me: he has manipulated the picture to show us what he wants us to see.

End of argument.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ellieN
 


Hello,

Thanks for the nice welcome!

Why should this be real? Because it is. I follow NASA imagery since the beginning of the internet and I have always had my doubts about the Apollo missions. Too many photos have been edited. Too many audio-tapes and videos have been spliced and interesting parts removed. Meanwhile I have hundreds of pictures with anomalies from the Apollo missions. Strange colourful objects floating over the moon. Yes ... when you pay attention to these photo's you will see them even without zoom! Just no longer start to look for objects that look like a flying saucer or a moonbase with a rectangular shape. We, humans, think too much that alien technology should like what we want it to look. Think in different shapes. The object I found has been critized because people say that it is not symmetrical, the structure not solid, half burried, to fragile to be a spaceship ...
What do we really know? Nothing! What withstands pressure better? A solid object or a soft and bendable one? Is it metallic? Or is it made of a substance / material we do not know? Why should it be too big? We, humans are giants when we compare ourselves to insects, but small when we compare ourselves to let's say a whale.
Alien life could therefore be much bigger and in this case we are the tiny insects. Just food for thought!

Questions, questions, questions and no answers I am afraid.

Greetz,

Sander



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MiTS1965
 


Hi there,

I do not understand your frustration. Finding these images is a piece of cake. Just Google for them. When I make my videos I am always showing you the link to the images and / or tell you exactly where I found them. I do not have any secrets about the sources. Just watch the video again, pause it and than look in the left corner. As I said before I will never ever give away the names of the software.

Good luck,

Greetz,

Sander



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Yes I am using NASA software too. Have not used it in this case though. It is called NASAVIEW.

Downloadable from their site. It is used for showing FITS and Raw formatted images. The kind of photos normal viewers are unable to open.

Greetz,

Sander



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join