Lunar photo-enhancements reveal alien civilization evidence.

It is unfortunate but I am of the opinion that some members do not have a clue as to what the enhancements are showing.

Here's another view I just picked at random from the catalogue for this image strip.

I have mildly enhanced the image to maintain a reasonable greyscale gradient.

I suggest you look very carefully to observe the finer detail.

Who's being dellusional now?



Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

Here is the full enhancement of the above image.

The amount of detail showing in the image puts the face at Cydonia in the shade..... but is there a link?




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

reply to post by arianna


You should try a comparison as an experiment. Find a satellite photo of some place in a desert on Earth. Somewhere very remote, and with absolutely no signs of Human habitation of influence.

If it's in color, convert to B&W (grayscale). Then apply the same techniques as used on the Lunar photos.

Hopefully the Earth example will have very irregular features, not just smooth sand dunes. Because of the effects of erosion, we don't have many places with numerous craters, as seen on the Moon's surface.

Also, this same technique might be used with some photos of Mars, ones that contain boulders and craters.

Other members with access to the proper programs may wish to try it, and then post the results side-by-side, as a "test" and challenge, of identifying the original source planet. Could be illuminating..........

Originally posted by arianna
I am sorry to disappoint all of you who say that the large object in the lower left quadrant of the image is a large rock or a crater. it is neither.

No need to be sorry for that, someone else's opinion about something like that doesn't disappoint me.

I have examined this particular area of the image in some detail. I will post an explanation of what I think it is in due course.

I will be a little disappointed if you don't.

Originally posted by arianna
What you are seeing in this particular image is completely false. I will say that again - what you are seeing in this image is completely false.

How can you be sure of that?

I have spent many hours researching this particular image, which incidentally is a supplementary image as the original image I posted at the beginning of the thread is at a different location.

The time you spend is irrelevant, what I want to know is why do you say that the image is fake. In what you base your opinion?

The NASA/GSFC/University of Arizona original has been 'masked' to conceal the valuable detail that exists on the surface. Fortunately, modern technology has made it possible to remove the 'mask' and reveal the surface detail. The detail can be evidenced by what is showing in the enhancements.

That's not true, because if anyone masked anything, it wouldn't be some dodge/burn process that would "unmask" it. The dodge/burn or any other filter/processing are only able to use the original data, they cannot "unmask" anything, so what you see was already there, as you can see if you compare my GIMP enhancement with the original.

The enhanced images show that the surface is littered with many built structures.

Do you have any explanation for such a (according to your opinion) large number of structures on a crater wall?

Therefore, a race of technically advanced beings must have built the structures, but how were they able to achieve the task in what we are being told by scientists is an environment where no atmosphere exists?

You are not thinking about all the possibilities. There are some structures on the Moon, send by the people that live on Earth, and those were built in an environment with atmosphere, then sent to the Moon.

The fact (although I don't think that the existence of structures on the area shown on the photo is a fact) that some structures exist in some place doesn't mean they were built there.

The only explanation I can think of is that there is an atmosphere of unknown density and composition which is suitable for the residents to survive in and also build their structures.

If you do not limit your imagination when analysing the images, why limit it when thinking about the possible explanations for the existence of the structures you see?

I am fully aware that many members and visitors will not agree with me on this point.

Regardless of what we say, there will always be someone that will not agree.

Some even believe that everything the space and scientific institutions tells them is the gospel truth.

Now you are your imagination again, you have no way of knowing what other people think.

You should question everything you are being told or shown by the scientific institutions in order to determine the real truth for yourself.I do that, not only with the scientific institutions, but also with what people post on the Internet, and, mostly, with what I think and feel about any thing.

I can assure you that many hours of research may have to be put in to determine what the real facts are but that is what is expected of anyone who embarks upon genuine scientific research. There are no shortcuts.

Spending many hours of research is not a sure way to determine what the real facts are, specially when we do not have enough information to get to those.

We may spend hours and hours studying some subject and never be able to know the real facts, because the real facts always existed, regardless of our interests or the time we spent studying them.

And, most important of all, we can never really know if we are looking at the real facts or at what we think are the real facts, that's why I never studying something just because I reached a conclusion with which I am happy.

Originally posted by arianna
If you cannot see what's in the enhanced version of your image, that's not my problem.

No, it's not your problem, but why don't you try to explain what you see? The discussion would benefit from it.

As a matter of interest, some of the structures are cylidrical or spherical and are constructed on a what appears to be a solid base whilst other structures are of a block formation. Many of the roofs are made of some type of white eflective material. The structures vary in size from small to very large.

Could you be more specific? Instead of saying "some of the structures are cylidrical or spherical", could you point to one of those and say "this structure is cylidrical, see how we can see the light shinning on its side" or something like that?

Thanks in advance.

Anyway wmd_2008, it would appear this image of yours has hijacked the thread so I don't think there is much point in making any further comments on it.

I think there is, because you say that you see the same type of thing that you see on the other photo, and because you said that you have examined this particular area of the image in some detail and that you would post an explanation of what you think it is in "due course".

Let's all get back to discussing the image I posted at the beginning of the thread.

OK, but I hope you explain what you see, instead of just saying that you see it.

Originally posted by arianna
It is unfortunate but I am of the opinion that some members do not have a clue as to what the enhancements are showing.

The fact that you do not explain what you see doesn't help either.

Here's another view I just picked at random from the catalogue for this image strip.

Could you point to where did you got that view from?

I suggest you look very carefully to observe the finer detail.

Sorry, not without seeing the original first.

Who's being dellusional now?

I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, so I cannot pronounce myself on that subject.

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMaP asked, "Could you point to where did you got that view from?"

Here is the capture from the main image strip with reference to the last two images.

The location of this view is in the same area as other images shown in the thread.




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

I looked through a bunch of the pictures and i don't see ONE THING, zero.
There is also a whole bunch of over-processed images...but not even in the over-processed images i can see anything of interest.

I am still puzzled and ask what the OP is seeing talking about "detail which puts the face of cydonia in the shade" etc...where i do indeed see NOTHING.

Originally posted by flexy123
I looked through a bunch of the pictures and i don't see ONE THING, zero.
There is also a whole bunch of over-processed images...but not even in the over-processed images i can see anything of interest.

I am still puzzled and ask what the OP is seeing talking about "detail which puts the face of cydonia in the shade" etc...where i do indeed see NOTHING.

edit on 6-12-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

Do you not see anthropological shapes (faces) in the latest enhanced images?

Here is a different version of the base image shown above minus the window.

Using Photoshop the following adjustments were made.

Brightness....... -20
Contrast..........+60




Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...