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.

 

Alien Building On Dark Side Of Moon Discovered

page: 8
80
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by BrnBdry
 


If those were buildings they would also be measured in miles themselves. Common sense should prevail, in this case just a photo defect. Or maybe its just nutbag talk.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrnBdry
How are you to know that the dot buildings themselves in question dont have a reflective surface on either side of them causing shadows? That would explain why only they cast double sided shadows, and not the craters.
Also even if that wasnt the case, the dot and craters are hundreds of miles apart. Now lets say (for arguments sake) and for example, that the shadows to the left of the dots, AND the left craters are caused by the sun. Surely you dont suggest that whatever is to the left of the dots causing shadows to the right, should also cause shadows to the righ of the craters...... thats just nutbag talk.

I can prove (if i really need to) that you can have an object cast 2 shadows, and another cast 1 within the same surface. But just take my word for it. Its common sense.

They are not shadows but are image defects caused by the development and transmission process. The things that look like shadows are sort of like a "burn-out" caused by overly-bright white things in developed picture. Here is a picture of Earth taken by the exact same spacecraft as the OP's images (Lunar 5) with the same sort of artifacts that look like shadows (but aren't):

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Lunar 5 spacecraft developed the images on board the craft, then scanned them and transmitted them back to earth. There are some obvious flaws in that developing and transmission process.


edit on 6/10/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
IF you look at google earth or wwt... you will notice all most every part of the moon is smirred except some parts



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
(snip 'cause no photos were visible)


I was looking at some Lunar Orbiter photographs when I came across a few that I had not see before. They partially reveal the dark side of the moon, or almost dark side because Earth cannot view this part of the moon, but a little sun light does hit part of it.

The white dots, which so many inexperienced people have called photo flaws, are real. My proof is the shadow. Look at the shadow covering them. Moon shadows would not affect photo flaws, however if they were structures on the moon, it would logical. To argue that photo flaws would disappear in the shadows is ridiculous so I will not acknowledge such foolishness.


Not Sure if these have been posted yet. Pretty interesting photo's, not sure what to make of them. Any thoughts from the Ats community?

Cool shots none the less
Found this on ______beforeitsnews/story/688/480/Alien_Building_On_Dark_Side_Of_Moon_Discovered,_White_Ceramic_Structures,_UFO_Sighting_News..html

edit on 8-6-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)


While the photos did not reproduce for one photobucket reason, I'm glad you included the link to your source, Before It's News for that allowed me to see the photos in question. You have some nerve starting this thread without doing proper research and saying "The white dots, which so many inexperienced people have called photo flaws, are real." NO THEY ARE NOT REAL, YOU ARE DELUDED!

Unnecessarily, this thread is running 3 pages longer than it should have. I haven't read every reply because I doubt that there will be common sense, reasonable and logical answers provided. I could be wrong and some intelligent person(s) might have set you straight. Intelligence on this forum is a rare commodity.

You are obviously inexperienced in proper research for the explanation for those white dots and a ton more similar photo processing flaws can be found at: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Start at Introduction and find IMPERFECTIONS. This is what it says:
"Certain imperfections may be observed in some of the photographs. These imperfections are directly traceable to the method of film development, the readout system, the video data, or the GRE system.

Most photographs are not perfectly rectangular. This distortion was caused by a misalinement of the line-scan tube with respect to the mechanical scan direction. When the projected line was not perpendicular to the scan direction during readout, and the kinescope trace in the GRE system was perpendicular to the edge of the 35-mm film, then a noticeable tilt could be observed when successive framelets were laid side by side to reconstruct a complete frame.

Many framelets appear to have light and dark stripes running parallel to their edges. This effect was due primarily to an inherent nonuniformity in the light output of the scan system in the spacecraft that caused a variation in light intensity and affected the video signal level during a scan across the width of a framelet. Ideally, the level should be constant for a constant film density.

In some photographs small-scale streaks appear as bright white lines (see plate 297) parallel to the framelet edge. This condition was caused by phosphor granularity in the GRE kinescope tube.

The Bimat technique introduced several development imperfections that are scattered throughout many of the frames. Bimat stop lines (shown in plate 75) and Bimat pull-off lines (shown in plate 144) result from anomalous development conditions which occurred at the entrance to and exit from the development system. Two oval-shaped spots (shown in plate 92) appear near the center of the film and are associated with the location of the Bimat stop line; they follow it by about 10.7 cm (4.2 in.). "Lace" (shown in plate 116) appears as a spotted area of unprocessed film arranged in a random manner. The areas vary in size and location on the film and do not follow any pattern. Because of overlapping photography, the amount of data lost by these processing defects is small; their main effect is the spoiling of the appearance of the photographs.

Various other minor imperfections are scattered throughout the photographs. Occasionally, momentary dropout of the video modulation on the transmitted carrier caused extremely fine white lines to appear in the framelets (shown in plate 573). In plate 2 there appears to be an area of double exposure. This condition was caused by a failure of the film to advance completely after a photograph was taken; as a result, a medium-resolution image overlaps a high-resolution image. A few photographs (such as plate 344) have a blurred or out-of-focus appearance that was a result of water vapor condensing on the camera window. Once the problem was recognized, it was eliminated by closer control of the window temperature."

Now, make your first stop PLATE 29, there you'll find black dots. Then PLATE 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 38, then if you don't feel like a fool by PLATE 38, look through the 675 PLATES where you'll find a ton of similar photo processing imperfections. Alien buildings, my ass!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


ahah, Well with the proper research you would have discovered that I was quoting the source, I never said such things, merely presented a piece I stumbled across which I thought people would find interesting.

You should probably direct your attack at the guy who wrote the article......?

Appreciate the reply and the effort put into your analysis, people have stated that the dots/marks are developing flaws in the film when they were printed/transmitted from space.
edit on 13-6-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Velvecorp
IF you look at google earth or wwt... you will notice all most every part of the moon is smirred except some parts



Just
plenty of other places to see BETTER images if you bother to look for them!!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Could you re add the photo's as Photobucket has removed them and I would like to have a look



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by lifttheveil
 


If you click on the link in the OP or just after you should be able to see them, I accidentally exceeded my bandwidth on photobucket so I can't get them back up for a little while unless I do it with imageshack which is a bit of a pain ey...



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by The Shrike
 


ahah, Well with the proper research you would have discovered that I was quoting the source, I never said such things, merely presented a piece I stumbled across which I thought people would find interesting.

You should probably direct your attack at the guy who wrote the article......?

Appreciate the reply and the effort put into your analysis, people have stated that the dots/marks are developing flaws in the film when they were printed/transmitted from space.
edit on 13-6-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)


You did not quote the source. Later on in one of your replies you include the title of the book and a link and said link doesn't mention anything associated with your thread. I did a search for the title of the book on that link and it said "No matches found".

You started the thread with these comments, meaningless as far as the result of any lack of research:


Not Sure if these have been posted yet. Pretty interesting photo's, not sure what to make of them. Any thoughts from the Ats community?

Cool shots none the less
Found this on beforeitsnews.com...


Then you replied to dadgad, again meaningless:

reply to post by dadgad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure actually.

The dots would be pretty big on the surface I'd imagine, would love to hear some idea's. Looks like the edges have been painted over or blotted out


Then you supply the source without any guidance to where the information is to be found, useless mention:

SOURCE: Book called, "Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Near Side of the Moon."

scottcwaring.blogspot.com...

I'd be really interested to know where the originals are from too. I agree as far as the sources are concerned, although it'd be good to see what is made of this. Cheers for all the responses!


You may not agree but you have a responsibility to ATS members to not just start threads willy nilly. You should have done some basic research and if you had you would have found out that the article you quoted should not have been written and then you would not have contributed what is just pure b.s.

You owe us an apology.




edit on 13-6-2011 by The Shrike because: To correct typos.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yeah, this picture looks like somebody took a photo of bateria culture and superimposed it over a photograph of the moon ...



... so, yeah ... I'm counting this as Hoax.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 





You have some nerve starting this thread without doing proper research and saying "The white dots, which so many inexperienced people have called photo flaws, are real." NO THEY ARE NOT REAL, YOU ARE DELUDED!


Again, I was QUOTING THE SOURCE, not my words buddy boy.
______beforeitsnews/story/688/480/Alien_Building_On_Dark_Side_Of_Moon_Discovered,_White_Ceramic_Structures,_UFO_Sighting_News..html

Not once did I say that I think they are real, I said that I think the photo's are INTERESTING. You can sit here and nit pick all you like mate, but the simple fact is that I know nothing about photo manipulation and was genuinely puzzled by these photos, so I posted a thread with the original article title to see what other people thought about it.

I understand what you're saying about having a responsibility to Ats, but if you had read all of the thread you may have realized that we discovered they were errors in the film and not alien bases on page 3 or something, case closed, since then you may have noticed I have pretty much stayed out of the discussion.

Try not to be so grumpy Shrike.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator
Yeah, this picture looks like somebody took a photo of bateria culture and superimposed it over a photograph of the moon ...



... so, yeah ... I'm counting this as Hoax.

Not a hoax, but not real "buildings" either. It was problems with the development/data transmission of the images. Read the thread.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Very strange and very interesting if it is a fake they've done well to fake the shadows as well, prehaps the reason we haven't been back to the moon is because we have already established a base there and we have no need to go back!! just food for thought



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
I often wonder if threads like these are just here to discredit the subject by making us all look pretty foolish. And the folks that not only think this stuff is worth discussing, but ignorantly defend it because they either don't know any better or are just here to cloud the waters.....

The only thing I know for sure is that the government doesn't have to spend any time covering up UFO's if they were real, thanks to ignorant silliness like this we can't be taken seriously anyway.

Buildings on the moon......bah! What a joke!



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeeperOfGenisis
Very strange and very interesting if it is a fake they've done well to fake the shadows as well, prehaps the reason we haven't been back to the moon is because we have already established a base there and we have no need to go back!! just food for thought

They aren't shadows, but instead -- as has been explained on this thread a couple of times already -- a problem with the on-board development of the pictures, along with problems with the transmission of the data back to Earth.

Here's a picture of the Earth transmitted by the same spacecraft (Lunar Orbiter 5) that shows the same "shadow" effect, which aren't shadows at all, but streaks of black associated with over-exposed areas on the film.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Most, if not all, of the pictures from Lunar 5 have this black streak problem associated with the data transmission, and many of the pictures from Lunar 5 also have the white blotch issue associated with problems with the on-board development process.



edit on 7/3/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Damn... that's all I got to say. GREAT post!



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Cheers mate im kinda thinking that if there was a genuine base on the dark side of the moon i very much doubt any photos of would be made public!
So on that theory alone i'm leaning towards the faulty camera theory




posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
faulty camera's processing errors, its like looking for a needle in a haystack studying pictures from Nasa,
Thought i had found somthing on the moon (my avatar) butapparently it was a speck of dust.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
That looks like flaws in the photographs. Honestly it appears to be a photoshop job. Not necessarily saying you did it but the shadows clearly show a brush. The white objects look burned into the photo. The shadows appear to be a blur or wind effect.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The arguments about the white spots being burned in or a problem with the camera seem sound, but what really caught my eye is the huge box that seems to be hiding something. I don't know how to send pictures, but it is at the bottom of the first picture, to the right of those white dots. You can clearly see the outline of this box as it doesn't go with the other pixels at all.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join