Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
its a terrible irritant when someone posts a thread, one with an interesting talking point, and then exits the site altogether. why dont they stay and discuss their points?
like everyone here i dont know what we're supposed to see in the photo's.
if the op was here we'd all be enlightened and a good debate could ensue.
why post a thread and then leave???
grrrrrrrrr




posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


Who died and made you in charge? There is nothing in this thread, in my opinion, that holds any water or credence, to which I am entitled to express my opinion.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
so are these alien trails and there skipping on the moon? Yeah the trails are strange but couldent one comet impact push those rock that direction and make a trail?
edit on 27-10-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I can see what the op is trying to convey, if you look at some of the tracks, they dead end at the ''boulder''. The ''boulder'' is quite symetrical for something that is suppossed to be natural. There is no hard proof eiher way, but i agree somewhat with the op. Wether or not the aliens are still there is still up in the air, imo.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I don't know what I'm supposed be looking at here. OP could be a little more specific, all I can see is boulder trails but other than that there's nothing of interest (or I just haven't spotted what was meant by the OP).



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I welcome the replies from members and to jpvskyfreak for posting an analysis of the top left-hand section.

This thread is not about whether or not man went to the moon but refers to the description associated with the original image. When viewing the enhanced and close-up images it can be seen that the view is full of artificiality.

There are many structural features to be observed. To break down the view into smaller viewing areas I have posted another image and have placed an ellipse round many of the interesting structures and other features (link below).

In my opinion the detail in the enhanced image shows the description to be incorrect. I get the impression that the people who view these images on behalf of NASA and the other agencies are not aware of what is really on the lunar surface at this particular location.

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by amfis

Originally posted by jpvskyfreak
I've zoomed the image on one of the small buildings ....

The building has 6 sides (Hexagon) and around the base of the building it seems to be uniformly cleared around the perimeter.

img820.imageshack.us...

Image Inverted

img638.imageshack.us...[edi tby]edit on 27-10-2011 by jpvskyfreak because: Added inverted image to the post


Good find! Itt does not look like natural rock formation, besides there are many of them.


They're all the same size, the same shape, casting almost identical shadows. I'm not saying it's alien, but such uniformity between naturally occurring Moon rocks or boulders in such close proximity to each other is highly unusual.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
What I see in the images is terrain that over time has been terraformed. If one looks closely it is plain to see that there are many structures on the surface which appear to be interlinked. There is no way I can accept the caption which describes the "dashed trail" as being caused by a rolling boulder. Also, what is described as being boulders are in fact structures of varying size.

I am sure that what can be observed are buildings that have been constructed on the surface to give the appearance of rolling boulders that have left a trail. The "dash" effect in reality is many long buildings constructed in a line to give the impression that when viewed from a distance above the surface appear as being a bouncing boulder trail. It would appear that some very clever thinking has been at work in designing the lunar landscape.

You may or may not agree with me on the points I have raised, but I am 100% sure the Moon has been inhabited for many thousands of years and it's quite possible that the ancestors of the present encumbants came from Mars before the "Great Flood" engulfed the planet - but that's another story.

Here is the link to the close view.

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
As the images I am posting in this thread are part of a serious study I would be grateful if members with a knowledge of image enhacement techniques would have a look at the original images to try their hand at enhancing them.

Here is another view from the same image strip. I have provided the original and an enhanced view. A red arrow points to the location.

There are many features on the surface that are definitely not natural.

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by arianna
 


I really dont see what you are looking at in any of the pics.


Just look like rock formations to me.

Yeah i have to go with you on this one



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It would appear that some members are having problems with reconciling what is in these lunar images.

Any there any image wizards out there willing to have a go at enhancing the original image (first image in thread)?

The original image gives the impression that what is described in the caption is correct, but from observing the enhancements I have made it can be seen that when viewing the enhanced images the description is not correct .

The enhanced images are not showing rocks, boulders or boulder trails but a vast number of built structures all inter-connected.

Are there any other members who can definitely see structures in the enhanced images, or is it just me?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
The original image gives the impression that what is described in the caption is correct


Because that is a photo taken by a sattelite, that shows the surface as it is. It's showing exactly what is there, unless you are trying to say the image has been tampered with? If so, on what basis are you making that claim?



Originally posted by arianna
but from observing the enhancements I have made it can be seen that when viewing the enhanced images the description is not correct .


That's because you are enhancing the image. You are making things appear that don't originally exist, by adding contrast and depth where there isn't any. YOU are creating something, when there is nothing.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Maybe I need glasses, but where the hell is this "evidence".

Don't people know what they're doing when they post this stuff?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Is there any proof that excerpt from the NASA transcript is real?



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOven
Is there any proof that excerpt from the NASA transcript is real?




Click on the link below to view the full description.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violence
Maybe I need glasses, but where the hell is this "evidence".

Don't people know what they're doing when they post this stuff?


If you can see fine detail you do not need spectacles.

Yes, I do know what I am doing when I post this stuff as you call it.

There is important detail contained in the images that I believe should be shared with others. If you, or any other members are having problems recognizing the detail, I will post an image highlighting some of the surface features. As many of the features on the surface are small you have to concentrate on the view for a while before they start to become apparent.

As a matter of interest I estimate the viewpoint above the surface to be approximately 750 - 1000 meters but I cannot be absolutely sure of this. Full zoom in the image viewer was used before capturing the view.
edit on 30-10-2011 by arianna because: text added



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
As many of the features on the surface are small you have to concentrate on the view for a while before they start to become apparent.


Hahahah... I had a look again at your original post and you're the one who actually needs glasses I think. There is nothing in these pictures that points to any evidence of an Alien civilization. By all means if you wish to grasp some more, upload the other pictures of whatever you're talking about, you're only going to cement my opinion even more.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
A degree of controlled enhancement was applied to the original image to see if there was anything else on the surface. You may be surprised at what the enhancement revealed.
There's where the problems start, the enhancements enhance some parts of the image and hide others, so while some things may become more visible, some disappear.


The intermediate enhancement starts to reveal some surface features.

i985.photobucket.com...
Or enhancement artefacts...


The full enhancement. (No scientist will confirm or validate what can be observed in this image.)

i985.photobucket.com...
No scientist will confirma or validate what can be observed in that image because you were the one creating the image, although it was originally based on a real (as far as I know) photo.


Do you think a global conspiracy exists by the scientific and educatonal establishments to suppress important information as to what is really on the lunar surface?
No, just some people that think that by applying filters to an image can extract information that was not there in the first place.


 

What I see in the images is terrain that over time has been terraformed. If one looks closely it is plain to see that there are many structures on the surface which appear to be interlinked. There is no way I can accept the caption which describes the "dashed trail" as being caused by a rolling boulder. Also, what is described as being boulders are in fact structures of varying size. What attributes does those "structures" have to make you think of them as structures instead of boulders? Or what attributes do the boulders have to make you think of structures?


I am sure that what can be observed are buildings that have been constructed on the surface to give the appearance of rolling boulders that have left a trail. The "dash" effect in reality is many long buildings constructed in a line to give the impression that when viewed from a distance above the surface appear as being a bouncing boulder trail. It would appear that some very clever thinking has been at work in designing the lunar landscape.
The track is carved into the ground, so does that mean that the "buildings" are holes instead of buildings?


And I don't think they look like buildings at all, they just look like rocks to me.

 


As a matter of interest I estimate the viewpoint above the surface to be approximately 750 - 1000 meters but I cannot be absolutely sure of this.
According to the information for that image, the photo was taken at an altitude of 61.48 km.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I remember reading somewhere that there are long cannals and tunnels in the crust of the moon along with huge underground caverns.

I'm too lazy to search online for it right now but the reason I'm posting this is I remember the author quoting some scientists saying that....

It should be possible to "block" the end of theses tunnels with inflatable devices and live on the inside, safe from radiations and the whole list.

Strangely, theses "evidences" that you post look like sorts of flat devices that stand in the middle of craters and on some craters you can see holes in the middle.

I'm feeling lazy and won't bother researching this online... But it's a funny coincidence.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
There is no way I can accept the caption which describes the "dashed trail" as being caused by a rolling boulder. Also, what is described as being boulders are in fact structures of varying size.


There are boulders at the end of trails all over that photo (most likely due to the boulders being blown that direction after an impact event). Considering all of the other trails that are probably caused by rolling boulders, don't you think that the dashed trail could have also been caused by one? (or -- more specifically -- a rolling and bouncing boulder).

What specifically makes you think they CAN'T be boulder trails? What specific information makes you feel that you "can't accept" that caption?

edit on 10/30/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join