It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unexplained objects leaving the moon video

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:08 AM
Space particles, pixel bleeding or an alien ship ... who knows

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:16 AM
The pixels are static in the field of view of the camera.

They do not move with the moon or the stars and are therefore happening inside the camera, not in space near the moon.

I'd say it is a digital artifact, probably from some sort of image compression algorithm, but also could be a CCD array (surface electrical) effect, or something on the lens (some sort of irregularity like a scratch) that lights up slightly and then is overemphasized by the CCD.

edit on 8/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:20 AM
stars behind the moon showing up as it moves out of their way.


posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by haven123

you now what these remind me off? small explosions with dust clouds, well they would if the moon had an atmosphere ! but I can't think of anything else for the reason why they expand then fee out like that

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Sorry but if you actually watch the video clip in full screen and 1080 quality. Look at objects 3,4,5,6 and 8 in particular, they are white.. correct? Well replay objects 3,4,5,6 and 8 and look at the exact spot on the moon where they would originate from, they are in fact black. Then when they are seen in the the background of space they become white and proceed to disappear. What you are seeing is defiantly not a imaging problem with the equipment used to record, but are actual objects leaving the surface of the moon.
edit on 8-1-2012 by descendedstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:34 AM
makes me wonder why we havent been back to the moon.

i think theyres more then what nasa says and the budget.

deff count be a resting area for aliens from a different universe to enter earth.

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 03:44 AM
Maybe that's where the orbs are originating from.

They look like orbs.

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:03 AM
Well now I am glad ATS is on top of it and we have come to a conclusion...

elvenwizard "Space particles, pixel bleeding or an alien ship"
chr0naut "I'd say it is a digital artifact"
BohemianBrim "stars behind the moon -- obviously"
k0mbination "small explosions with dust clouds"
descendedstar "actual objects leaving the surface of the moon."
Manhater "They look like orbs."

Oh wait....

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by zorgon

That is the most constructive comment I've ever seen on ATS.. Thanks so much for your input on the op's video

edit on 8-1-2012 by descendedstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:21 AM
it moves with the camera. Try this. Put your finger where it points right before the object appears. Then watch the distance between the object and your finger and it doesnt change. the camera is moving with the object its something on the screen like flashlights.

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:03 AM

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by haven123

My guess on this? Those are stars.....stars that were occluded, and appear as the Moon moves on its orbit.

I second that guess, and would add "possible orbiting debree". After all the collisions the moon has had, there should be some debree around it.

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:50 AM
Not so much in the OP's vid, but in the youtube vids linking off this thread, the "stars" clearly move in front of the moon. Also, some objects are moving slightly leftward while others hover rightward and seem to change direction very slightly - if not speed.

Plus, they appear to be very close together in time - which would rule out human activity. Who would "launch" such large expensive objects (reverse engineered UFOs or black op rockets - which IMHO is a rubbish egomaniacal idea, but that's IMHO ) in close proximity and moving in different (contradictory and dangerous) directions. I really don't think the military would take such a risk with expensive equipment.

No. To my mind these are either UFOs with non-humans or (less likely to me and this IS my opinion) wayward space debris.

The moon. Yeah. If I wanted to observe a seeded planet (or supply planet) I'd also build a geosynchronous moon and hide on the far side of it. If we knew what they were up to, we'd somehow put a stop to it. So it's probably nice that we suck on the blue pill for the rest of our lives and die - having lived a relatively innocent, happy life.

All IMHO naturally.

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:03 PM
With all the high-tech equipment up there looking lightyears into space, we should be able to make Frozen Planet-like images of the Moon. I'm sure "they" have, but the fact we only get to see the fuzzy black and white images leaves me to think there is SOMEthing up there, we are not supposed to know about.

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by haven123

I just don't see why it would disappear once out of its area.

I think more likely it's technical stuff. It is on the 45degree. anti aliasing?

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:11 PM
Put the video at 1080p and fullscreen it, then look at 1:13 in the video. The camera shakes as he moves it.
I noticed just as the shaking began there were a few whitish dots near 7 o'clock on the moon, near where the other "objekts" are that he points out.
I don't know much about cameras. Is that an artifact created by the camera movement?
And could it have something to do with the other "dots" that we're seeing?

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:15 PM
Awhile ago I read this article:

The differences between the two hemispheres could not be clearer. While the facing side of the moon features vast, dark plains of cooled lava — which the ancients assumed were seas — the far side is mostly an expanse of tens of thousands of impact craters. It is the tug of the Earth, astronomers believe, that is responsible for the different topography. Earthly gravity pulls with greater force on the dense, iron-and-magnesium interior of the moon than on the lighter upper layers. This causes the core to shift slightly earthward, thinning out the crust on that half of the moon. Volcanoes or meteor impacts on the near side could thus cause more copious lava bleeds, which spread out across the surface and form plains. The far side had a tougher hide and was thus less easily damaged. That, in any case, is part of the story. But when the Lunar Prospector spacecraft orbited the moon in 1998, it found something curious: a bright bull's-eye of radioactive thorium on the far side of the moon between the craters Compton and Belkovich — a formation that seemed suspiciously volcanic. Now the next-generation Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has turned its optical cameras on the site and has indeed discovered a vented mountain in the center of the thorium field, suggesting that not only is volcanism responsible but a particularly rare type of volcanism — at least on the moon — that produces lighter silicas instead of heavier basalts. What's more, while all lunar volcanoes were assumed to have last stirred 3 billion to 4 billion years ago, this one appears much fresher — just a billion or so years old. Read more:

just an idea but could the moon become more active in volcanic activity,and be seen from earth?

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Misterlondon

Originally posted by Phage
A lot of opinions, speculation, and guesses offered in this thread.

a brief overview of the opinions and theories would be helpful.. rather than reading through a 14 page thread..

Since you can't be bothered to read all 14 pages of the thread for the information to make your own decision and instead need others to rehash what was said and their opinions so you can then make an uninformed decision or not based on 1 persons instead of a whole threads......

A few people think it is most likely some distortion due to water droplets on the lense of the camera or telescope. A few people disagree with those people purely out of reflex because the first group of people often try and offer well thought out and reasonable explanations, and that just isn't fun.

The second group of people also claim that the first group are paid debunkers and did a poor job of debunking this video and must be getting bad at their job, while most of their cohorts remain inactive or sleeping on the job instead of debunking the video. This leads group 2 to believe they must be winning the battle for the truth...or something...

The second group of people don't really offer any explanation or theory themselves, they are just certain that the first group of people are incorrect.

Then there is a third group of people that are willing to buy the explanation from group 1 if only they can exactly duplicate the effect; Not closely or almost exactly, they insist it be reproduced absolutely 100% exactly to the OP video including the amount of spots and degree of moment and timing. However failure to reproduce this 100% results in the only explanation being U.F.O.s.

I hope that gives you enough information to now make your own decision. At least you now know what the experts and non experts think...

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Human_Alien

How come the 'objects' don't move then?

They stay perfectly still while the moon moves.

Try it yourself.

This says to me it's a camera issue.

Pixel's bleeding is the best explanation I have right now.

Ya or maybe the object is under intelligent control?

edit on 8-1-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

Under intelligent control which knows somebody in the back yard is watching them and is able to exactly match the tracking of their telescope. That's pretty damned intelligent.

Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the telescope itself.

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by Phage

I have gotten to the point now where I am more entertained by the discussions and dialogues that happen in these threads than the actual topics themselves. I have to hand it to you phage, you are one cool kat ( I would have preferred to use MO FO, but I am an all or nothing guy). I love watching you keep a level head and I don't think I have ever witnessed you go down to the level most of your haters operate at. Seriously you are a model poster, your ability to keep your emotions in check is either on a unprecedented level, or you have no emotions. In case it is unclear, I am complimenting you. Not in a backhanded way, in an honest and upfront way. I have no idea if you are as smart as you seem to be, I don't care. I don't love you, but I do love your doggie style. (snoop said that first)

Jobs I think Phage would be good at:
Cult leader
Professional Debater
Forum Moderator
Leader of violent street gang
Leader of violent revolution
Paid Debunker
Artificial Intelligence
Contributing member of ATS in good standing

*edit* added wizard to the list

edit on 1/8/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in