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.

 

Moon Bases in De Moraes crater?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
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




edit on 8-1-2012 by Human_Alien because: grammar




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
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
edit on 8-1-2012 by Thundersmurf because: grammar



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I think I found the original source. It apparently comes from a blogger and I am pretty sure I'm allowed to disclose this information. Here you'll be able to enlarge the photos



Alien Base On Moon Surface Discovered on Jan 8, 2012, Photos.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

That's where I found it too.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I mean, if you took a picture of a beer can on a beach, wouldn't the resolution be different and stand out?



No, the resolution of the beach will be exactly the same as the resolution of the beer car.

Theres one for you here...



Note how the sharpness of the blades of grass (near the can) are exactly the same as the sharpness of the can.



edit on 8-1-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

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...........................



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
As far as I know, the object should have an identical resolution with the background because of the distance from the camera that took the picture. Notice how the bumps on the surface are almost indistinguishable from the rest of the terrain. Even if that would be a mega structure it wouldn't be shown in pixels of that size.
This thing alone would scream "FAKE".
Also, notice how only the object is of different resolution.

Here is an example of another subject in different resolutions:




This should explain why different resolutions aren't possible in the same image without them being put on intentionally.
edit on 8-1-2012 by flk1331 because: modified some words to avoid confusion

edit on 8-1-2012 by flk1331 because: (no reason given)



Zoomed in:



edit on 8-1-2012 by flk1331 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Here's another image of the De Moraes crater , it looks to me as if the Base is just another crater .




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I mean, if you took a picture of a beer can on a beach, wouldn't the resolution be different and stand out?



No, the resolution of the beach will be exactly the same as the resolution of the beer car.

Theres one for you here...



Note how the sharpness of the blades of grass (near the can) are exactly the same as the sharpness of the can.



edit on 8-1-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)





Okay great job
Perhaps I gave a bad analogy. Maybe the object needs to be millions of miles away from here in order to have contrasting pixelation?

Oh who am I kidding? I can't argue this. I don't know anything about film, photography, pixel, contrast or the development thereof.

So, I'll gracefully accept your information and keep it in mind. Thanks again!



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Exactly. Thanks for finding this image. Someone should send this to that guy who has an entire web site dedicated to this image.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


That guy from that web site doesn't have a clue.

No, problem. Sometimes the editors do a bad job of patching or stitching images together, and there are a plethora of them out there.

I do know they airbrush a lot out too. But, this doesn't look like anything special.

This is what NASA would do if they wanted to remove that area:



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Basically, the problem is, once more, that people use Google Moon/Mars/Earth/Sky and other products like these to look for anomalies. Because of the way Google works, people will always find anomalies that are the result of making a mosaic with several photos taken at different times and resolutions.

That's why I always look for specific photos of the areas presented instead of looking at a mosaic.

I will see what I can find on this area.
edit on 8/1/2012 by ArMaP because: added "and other produtcs like these", Google is not the only one using mosaics.



Edited to ad that in this case, even Google Moon is better than the images from that blog...

I have found a Kaguya/Selene image that shows that area and I will post it soon.

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



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Here's the image from Kaguya/Selene, resized to 10% of its original size.


As the blog says that one of the source for that image is Clementine, with nothing wrong showing.
(the area from the images from the blog is at the bottom of the image)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join