In doing my morning perusal on another forum, I came across this.
Ordinarily I don't like taking other people's material but I really want to hear knowledgeable opinions regarding these photos.

My mind remains open especially seeing I have no knowledge of the Moon's landscape or camera trickery. So it's very hard to refute this and/or give alternative explanations. And seeing I wholeheartedly believe there's activity on the Moon as we speak, this wouldn't come as any surprise if genuine.

I'm hoping our friend Zorgon can stop by and weigh in seeing he's fairly versed with the Moons surface.

Date of discovery: January 8, 2012
Location of discovery: Earth's Moon

Since the diameter of De Moraes crater (orange words near base in photo) is about 45-46 km across, we can assume since the alien structure covers 1/3 of that crater, then the alien base is 15-15.3 km across or 9.32 miles or 564.1 yards across.


Uploader says i was looking over some moon maps and I came across an unusual building near De Moraes crater. This crater is located on the northern part of the moon's far side. This object looks like a moon base of some sorts and has definite shapes that tell us it was designed by aliens. Most likely this object could also move from place to place, landing where convenient. I took three screenshots on my Galaxy Note and the moon map program is downloadable for free called "Moon Maps." It is a 2D atlas that uses Clementine mission photos and Lunar Orbiter mission photos

Nice find man,

I'm no expert at all on digital photography so can't comment too greatly. All the pixelated lines are interesting. I wonder if those have been touched up manually or just a processing artefact.

Either way, they do seem to make the 'structure' above it stand out. Again, really good find. God, I love the moon and its possible mysteries

Peace

note: flagged for now; i'll be back to check the analysis later

The "object" is clearly digital in nature and the resolution of it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the resolution of the terrain it is supposedly on.
If it was in fact photographed at the same time as the terrain, its resolution would be the same as that of the terrain.
But it isnt.

Originally posted by alfa1
The "object" is clearly digital in nature and the resolution of it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the resolution of the terrain it is supposedly on.
If it was in fact photographed at the same time as the terrain, its resolution would be the same as that of the terrain.
But it isnt.

What are you saying? It's superimposed? Why would a supposed artificial object have the same characteristics of its natural background?
I mean, if you took a picture of a beer can on a beach, wouldn't the resolution be different and stand out?

I'm not quite understanding what you're inferring. Please explain. Thanks

It's nothing more than a glitch in stitching the images together. This same image, and same theory is available on a few other web sites. This image is the only one in question. I bet if we found another image we could clarify this.

I find it funny that of all the things in this image a smudge caught everyone's attention. Meanwhile there is a big geometric (square) shape at the top left side.

Originally posted by samlf3rd
It's nothing more than a glitch in stitching the images together. This same image, and same theory is available on a few other web sites. This image is the only one in question. I bet if we found another image we could clarify this.

I find it funny that of all the things in this image a smudge caught everyone's attention. Meanwhile there is a big geometric (square) shape at the top left side.

Thanks. I appreciate your comment. I always found the word 'glitch' to be a super big band aid covering a super big wounded area though.

I think it only fair that someone start explaining 'glitch 101' and how they occur.

I can allow for a smudge, a spot, a streak, a line, a dot, a discoloration, an impurity and motion blur but how does an 'object' appear in a glitch? How does a 'glitch' put something 3D into a photo?

If this is going to be a constant bone-of-contention and an on going problem (excuse) then how does NASA ever expect to find artifacts on the Moon?
What's that? They have already? And this is just a Dog and Pony Show? I see. Carry on...........................