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.

 

Alien technology on the moon - Clementine's Secrets - This video offers a short preview

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 1967sander
 


Its called data loss, you can't restore data that was never there, you can't restore any image I will 'smudge'. Want to test that out?

Here's an experiment I did myself to restore a blurred image on Mars.




A little goofy trying to analyze internet uploads of imagery isn't it?
edit on 31-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

I see nothing



What an I supposed to see?



Seems a little goofy


So one question... why do those of you who insist you see NOTHING keep pouncing on these anomaly threads?


We get it ... your blind
but seriously do you really have the need to recite "i see nothing" over and over and over Ad nauseam ?



And its not 'semen' crater its Zeeman Crater :shk:




The area is also smudged in the other angle




My favorite one from that dataset is this one





And no I cannot post image numbers because the NAVY doesn't use them You need coordinates and a familiarity with the NAVY browser software to find the areas

For the one above Co-ordinates
Lat 64 ~ Long 265

The browser is here

www.nrl.navy.mil...

Good luck



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
And for anyone actually interested despite the Bozo Barrage


Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Reiner Gamma Magnetic Anomaly Nearside 10% scale version



Mare Marginas Magnetic Anomaly Farside


Originally posted by ArMaP

I finally found the area from which that image came (it shows the southern half of Thomson crater), and I think that it looks a little better by making the Red, Green and Blue channels use the 900nm, 750nm and 415nm, but that is subjective and still uses (and there is other way with these images) some "invisible" data.

(Click the image for the full size version)


PS: the above image was made with two different images, so it's possible (and even likely) that the join is not correct, I have not yet found a way of making mosaics with ISIS 3.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1967sander
In 1994 NASA and the U.S. Department Of Defense launched the Clementine satellite.
Clementine took pictures of the entire moon surface and on these photos it send back, there were "things" no one was meant to see.
Then why did they published the photos?


This is a preview of the two videos I will upload soon revealing the truth and showing you in full detail what is hidden behind these smudged photos.
Revealing the truth? How do you know that you are the one that knows the truth?

If you want to look at Clementine photos use the originals, not a mosaic made on the-fly by some software that averaged (or something like that) the pixels from both sides of a missing image. You can look at all the photos taken here.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


So from your Navy link, what would you call these black rectangles?


Bases? Secret covers? Underground openings? NASA/Navy hiding happy lunar communities?

OR DATA LOSS?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCorporateBeast
You should add the part from the disclosure project where people show up saying they used to work smudging moon pictures for NASA


Why bother, none of the claims can be substantiated. No one has ever provided a shred of evidence to support the claims. NEVER!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The photos on the link are not the originals but the edited versions. They even removed the headers.
The photos I have processed are the ones right after they were uploaded.The same images J.P. Skipper has and other prominent researchers. I found a lot more inconsistency with the images I have and the edited versions.
All will become clear in the first video.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Data loss. Anyone can see that.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

I see nothing



What an I supposed to see?



Seems a little goofy


So one question... why do those of you who insist you see NOTHING keep pouncing on these anomaly threads?


We get it ... your blind
but seriously do you really have the need to recite "i see nothing" over and over and over Ad nauseam ?


[snip]


Because these useless threads are really boring and if enough criticism is posted perhaps those wishing to create similar useless threads with unsupportable claims will finally dig themselves and stop wasting bandwidth. Let's face it, if it isn't there no amount of dialogue from those who are tired of being offered pablum is going to create anomalies where none exist.

Why doesn't someone offer a real, clear high resolution photo that shows something other than natural features? I'll tell you why not, 'cause no one has one or access to one if they existed. Everything that has been offered suffers from one malady or another. The photos are usually blurry, overpixelated, or colorized, but nothing clear and up front.

I wish lunar anomalists would just give up.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by zorgon
 


So from your Navy link, what would you call these black rectangles?

[snip] Bases? Secret covers? Underground openings? NASA/Navy hiding happy lunar communities?

OR DATA LOSS?


I'd pick data loss because the shapes follow a pattern that gets progressively smaller and are not irregular as would be necessary to hide something.

The old Lunar Orbiter photographs were produced using emulsion film processed in situ and as you can see in many of the photos there were processing errors. Some lunar anomaly enthusiasts think that those visible errors are alien structures!


So why couldn't a craft that's far away not also be subject to errors whether digital or not?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
So from your Navy link, what would you call these black rectangles?


isn't it obvious?



I mean they had to come from somewhere right?




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
The photos are usually blurry, overpixelated, or colorized, but nothing clear and up front.


I showed real space craft on Mars... yawl said it was just blurry rocks. What I find really amusing is that your side uses those same 'blurry' pictures to show proof of Apollo stuff on the moon
But I already did that thread



I wish lunar anomalists would just give up.


Your right time to blow this popsycile stand and leave it to you guys to pat each other on the back
I wonder how you will spend your time then?


Oh wait... here is hope for you...

Are Aliens On The Moon? Scientists Want YOU To Join The Search!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We should scour the moon for ancient traces of aliens, say scientists
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems the scientists are switching sides



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1967sander
The photos on the link are not the originals but the edited versions.

The ones from the online mosaic are obviously not the originals, as anyone that knows anything about Clementine would know.


They even removed the headers.
What headers?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Are Aliens On The Moon? Scientists Want YOU To Join The Search!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We should scour the moon for ancient traces of aliens, say scientists
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems the scientists are switching sides


Why don't you submit your results? See what peer reviewed journals have to say?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Images, all formats, contain (hidden) information. There are ways to delete this information from the image so it is no longer possible to see the original creation date and other relevant information. NASA removed everything.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
You can clearly see that the blurred portion hardly changes, yet the terrain around it does. Then, when things inside the blurred parts do change, it resemble nothing around it... Interesting! You also say that you when you release the full video, we will see it clearly. I for one cant wait to see it!

Oh, and to the paid trolls. He tells you how to do it! Why dont you lot, and the guy claiming to be an expert on the software do the same. I.E: get some of the clementine 1.5 photos, get the software, and then do it 10k times like he did....

Then you can comeback and discredit him! He has told you exactly what he did, so he has gave you a way of doing it.

I look forward to your results..!!
edit on 1-2-2012 by PlentyoTool because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1967sander
Images, all formats, contain (hidden) information.
That's not true, several formats do not have any metadata along with the real data.

The format NASA (and other space agencies) uses on the Planetary Data System has metadata before the real data, as you can see if you open any .IMG image file from the PDS with a text editor.

You can see that by clicking here.

(You can see that the images are just 288 x 384 pixels, that's because that was the size of the sensor on the UVVIS camera, and that's why those large images cannot be the original images)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlentyoTool
Oh, and to the paid trolls. He tells you how to do it! Why dont you lot, and the guy claiming to be an expert on the software do the same. I.E: get some of the clementine 1.5 photos, get the software, and then do it 10k times like he did....
Repeating what he did will only repeat the results, I don't have any doubt about it, I just think that not only he is using something that is not a cover-up, the process cannot undo any hiding done by any method and the interpretation of the results is too imaginative.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I can see clearly now, the blur is gone,
I can see all monuments in my way
Gone are the dark edits that had me blind
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
moonshiney day.


But seriously...there is nothing there as explained by other posters.
edit on 1/2/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


There are ways to hide data inside images you do not know anything about. There are ways to reveal hidden data in photos you know nothing about. In fact you know nothing at all of what "they" are really capable of. Just believe what "they" teach and tell you. I go my own way and soon hopefully you will start to see things in a different way.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join