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: 9
80
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The photo's provide minimal evidence and raise to many debatable questions...not to say it is not interesting to ponder.




posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 

well, considering those pictures were taken from roughly 2,000 km away, those structures would have to be so big, they could easily be seen from earth. with binoculars. on a clear day. at noon. from any position on the earth. not only that, they would cause such incredible reflection, the backside of the moon would appear to be covered in glowing fog. i think it's just another case of the pixelization that occurs when digital images are transmitted over large distances. i'm not saying pixels are alive, but when they can't form the image, they form random shapes. the same thing happens on cellphones, large screen tvs, computer screens, ect when the screen starts to go bad and the pixels don't know exactly what they are to be doing.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Someone previously stated that the shadows were all over the place. I remember when I played soccer back in high school that my body would cast multiple shadows. It is possible that some buildings or structures on the surface cast different shadows.

I was under the impression that shadows were cast because light doesn't bend around objects. If you watch soccer on TV you cansomerimes see multiple shadows per person.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
THAT'S no moon!
That's a SPACE STATION!



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by cd5love96
 


That's because of stadium lights aimed in different directions at different angles. On an open field in sunlight that would be impossible.
edit on 9-10-2011 by FloatingGhost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Photoshopped. I can tell and i will not say how. I don't want people to know how i know this, that way they can keep making mistakes and i will easily pick it out. FAKE, HOAX.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Here are the original (as far as I know) photos, without visible Photoshop work, available on the Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon, in the order they appear on that Before it's News article.

Photo IV_091_M


Photo IV_090_M


Photo IV_089_M


Another thing I noticed is that these photos are not from the far side of the Moon, they are from the near side, so they would be visible from the Earth and should appear on the photo below, that I took yesterday for a different thread.




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by amaster


















Yep .. confirmed~! Still all black and white .. and no stars.. ! We so living in the digital age baby !! ya!!!!




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
^ The high resolution picture of that Moon with white dots, you can see clearly the dots are not part of the terrain, they are part of the page/paper which is defect when being printed, photocopied etc. Good find above



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
there is no dark side of the moon, as a matter of fact, it's all dark



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
Yep .. confirmed~! Still all black and white .. and no stars.. ! We so living in the digital age baby !! ya!!!!

There are no stars because it's not possible to have a photo of a bright Moon with faint stars, try it, if you have a camera.

As for living in a digital age, we do, but the Lunar Orbiter missions are from 1966 to 1968, those photos were not digital and were developed aboard the orbiter, that's the reason behind all those developing problems.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Komodo
Yep .. confirmed~! Still all black and white .. and no stars.. ! We so living in the digital age baby !! ya!!!!

There are no stars because it's not possible to have a photo of a bright Moon with faint stars, try it, if you have a camera.

As for living in a digital age, we do, but the Lunar Orbiter missions are from 1966 to 1968, those photos were not digital and were developed aboard the orbiter, that's the reason behind all those developing problems.


right.. try again .. on the stars.. we're not talking about taking pictures FROM the earth .........duh

well.. there were COLOR pics back then that were taken.. so it was possible.. but they just didn't choose to .. cuz' meh .. wasn't that important....and of course it wasn't the digital age, but color was possible.. but i digress



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
right.. try again .. on the stars.. we're not talking about taking pictures FROM the earth .........duh
If you understand how photography works you will know that whenever you take a photo of a bright object in a way to show all that object's details, any darker object will appear even darker than we see it.

In this case, if you try to take a photo of the Moon from the Earth's surface you will see that a bright but detailed Moon makes it impossible to see any stars, because of the brightness of the Moon.

At more than 6,000 km (the higher altitude for Lunar Orbiter IV) from the Moon, the Moon will, obviously, reflect more light than when seen from Earth, so the chance of seeing stars on those photos is even smaller.

There are photos from Moon orbit in which we can see stars, but those photos were taken just before the artificial sunrise created by the orbiting craft, so there was no ambient light to make it difficult to get the stars.


well.. there were COLOR pics back then that were taken.. so it was possible.. but they just didn't choose to .. cuz' meh .. wasn't that important....and of course it wasn't the digital age, but color was possible.. but i digress
Colour was possible, but not only not really needed for a mapping mission (that was the reason for the Lunar Orbiter missions), it would make the automated processing of the film more difficult and more likely to fail, as anyone that has done photo lab work can tell you.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
right.. try again .. on the stars.. we're not talking about taking pictures FROM the earth .........duh


It doesn't matter if the picture is taken from earth or taken from space. It's about camera exposure times. When the bright Moon is the subject of the picture, the camera exposure time must be low, or else you would get an over-exposed white blob of the Moon without any detail (it would be so bright that the craters would not be able to been seen). Those low exposure times are too low to pick up most stars, although Venus is visible in a few Apollo Moon images.

It's basic photography, and has nothing to do with space.




well.. there were COLOR pics back then that were taken.. so it was possible.. but they just didn't choose to .. cuz' meh .. wasn't that important....and of course it wasn't the digital age, but color was possible.. but i digress


The pictures on the Lunar probes were photographed on film, then that film was developed automatically in the spacecraft onto a print, and then those prints were scanned and transmitted by radio the 240,000 miles back to Earth.

Perhaps the technology existed to scan and transmit color images by radio, but if it did, then that technology may not have been advanced enough to send back the quantity of info required to transmit the high amounts of color data with the limited bandwidths that they were working with in 1965.

And considering that all they were doing was mapping the surface looking for potential landing spots, I don't think they really needed the additional complexity and expense of color image transmission. Black and white was all that the mission required.

*
*
*
...by the way, speaking of digital, you may be surprised to find out that digital cameras (NASA's and the one you probably own) are essentially color blind.

The light sensors that pick up the image in virtually ALL digital cameras can only see in grayscale. Your camera and NASA's cameras actually view each image through a series of three color filters. When viewed through these filters, the various colors that were present are seen by the image sensor as different intensities of gray.

Each color gives a certain intensity of gray when seen through these filters. Science knows enough about these intensities that it can "guess" at what the real color is by looking at a combination of these three grayscale images. A computer in your camera (or a computer at NASA) takes these grayscale images and returns a "color" image that is actually the computer's best guess at what the color is actually supposed to be.

Your camera does this inside the camera in less than a second -- you never realize what is happening because all you ever see is the finished "color" image (which would best be described as an "approximate true color image", since the camera censor is actually colorblind). You never see what the camera is doing to give you that color.

NASA's usually does it slightly differently. The images that are returned to Earth from -- say -- Mars from the digital cameras on the Mars rover are ALL in black and white (grayscale). However, each image is transmitted as three grayscale images seen though different filters, then the color information is interpolated from those three grayscale images by computers here on Earth rather than computers on the rovers themselves.

That's why the raw images that come back from the Mars rovers are all in black-and-white.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Just wanted to say that those pictures still facinates me today..
edit on 2-2-2012 by Vandalour because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vandalour
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Just wanted to say that those pictures still facinates me today.. and I been reading this thread and I see in the end its still a mystery, what ever it was, im sure they are gone now


It isn't really a mystery, and it never was. It's been known since these photos were first see in the 1960s that the cause of the problem with these images was with the photo developing system on board the spacecraft.

Here are some other examples. These "objects" are clearly not on the Moon, but rather on the photographic print.








edit on 2/2/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It isn't really a mystery, and it never was.
You're right.

It's very clearly on the film. Thank goodness too, because it would have been quite an invasion fleet if it was really UFOs!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
If you look at the dots 'supposedly' around the equator, factor in the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter, copy your best swath of the whole diameter and see what the pixel count is to figure miles per pixel and measure a typical dot near the equator you will find they are on average at least 14-15 miles in diameter, (since the dots don't recede in the perspective of the lunar surface ones near the poles would have to be magnitudes larger). We don't have any kind of infrastructure on earth 500th the size of one of those dots so if they are alien in nature I'm quite sure those folks could do anything they wanted to us and we couldn't do a damn thing about it.

Logic paints a very clear image to me about those dots. It really should have had the same immediate logic signals to anyone who views them.

common, REALLY!?
edit on 2-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Mods please remove this post
edit on 2-2-2012 by PlentyoTool because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Logic paints a very clear image to me about those dots. It really should have had the same immediate logic signals to anyone who views them.


www.angelfire.com...

Spock: To hunt a species to extinction is not logical.
Gillian: Whoever said the human race was logical?

~ The Voyage Home
Not me.

I never said the human race was logical.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join