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.

 

Cable connected to some device on the Moon?

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowLink
I think the best answer is the most obvious and simple.
As simple as it sounds, I believe you're looking at a hair on the lens or inside the camera.


The Photographic equipment that NASA mounted on there orbiters was EXTREMELY unlikely to be so contaminated as like most of there equipment it was assembled in clean room conditions. Sorry but no?, it would be like calling some of the best technical scientific engineers of the 20th century a bunch of irresponsible idiot's, these guys were efficient and driven by national pride so I guarantee you it was no hair.
Indeed just as the poster states it is likely a cable or conduit of some kind and add's some explanation as to what the light was, it is a mining hose whose plume caught the light creating the effect we see, now who is mining and what are they mining on OUR Moon.




posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nomad451

Originally posted by Xtraeme


I'm pretty sure it's just film grain and scratches. If you look at the other strips you'll see they're all over the place.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...
edit on 13-7-2013 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)


Case closed.

No alien cables guys!



Now I could accept your answer as it is more than possible but then it is an artefact of the storage conditions as the film stock was top quality yet even the best film can deteriorate over time, aww I thought I knew something there, Drat and double drat.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowLink

Originally posted by ninepointfive
If these are hairs, then why so many? Aren't these cameras and other related equipment assembled in clean rooms?


If you read back, you'll find that it's already been established that these are scanned photos.

The hair/fibers are not in the camera, but more likely on the film or scanner.


I thought i read most of the thread over the course of a couple days. guess I missed that part. makes sense.

Is there any information about the scanning process used? Seems like they need to try try again.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowLink
I think the best answer is the most obvious and simple.
As simple as it sounds, I believe you're looking at a hair on the lens or inside the camera.


That does sound simple. However, it's impossible.
First of all, a hair on the "lens" would be so incredibly out of focus as to be impossible to see because the field that is in focus is way out in front of the lens itself. If the front element of a lens were in sufficient focus as to see the hair, you would see nothing else except a sudged out unreconizable background with a hair and some dust particles in sharp focus. A hair on the film gate, the metal frame that holds the actual film strip in perfect alignment to the lens, would, however, be in perfect focus but would not show any variation in brightness. A hair in the gate creates a silhouette on the emulsion of the film. A shadow basically. It has no light shinning on it from the camera side, so, there is no light reflected back to the emulsion to create an image. You'll only ever see a black image of a hair.
Secondly, a hair in the gate appears to be HUGE compared to the image being exposed because of it's relative size to the size of the film gate. Even on a large format Hassleblad, a hair would appear monstorously large. The aberration in this image is miniscule compared to the size of the gate given those facts.

We look for hairs in the gate everyday making movies. After every series of takes and before moving on to the next scene or set-up, the First Camera Assistant, or 1st AC, removes the lens and shines a small flashlight into the body of the camera to "check-the-gate". He then announces "Clean Gate" and we move on.

So, as simple as it sounds, a hair on the lens is just not the answer. I don't know what the correct answer is though.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I have almost downloaded the 6.6G VERSION OF THE FILE hope its worth it :]



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FawnyKate
I have almost downloaded the 6.6G VERSION OF THE FILE hope its worth it :]


wow. that's insane. wish these were scanned with a different process to exclude possible hairs in the photos.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Looks like an errant pubic hair to me.

Those things turn up in the damnedest places.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FawnyKate
I have almost downloaded the 6.6G VERSION OF THE FILE hope its worth it :]


"Holy Hairnets" That's huge! How big is that image full size?
Haha, love the username btw.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazyGuy
Looks like an errant pubic hair to me.

Those things turn up in the damnedest places.


Erm, Hmm, Hm, Erm, is that what I found in my Tesco Cheese and Onion sandwich, Blahg!.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowLink
I think the best answer is the most obvious and simple.
As simple as it sounds, I believe you're looking at a hair on the lens or inside the camera.


We can debunk that right now. The lens was most likely focused to ∞ which would put anything against the lens completely out of focus. Even a decent macro lenses focused at its closest possible point can't focus on the lens itself. You can try this at home with any digital camera, from your phone all the way to a DSLR. Put a hair against the lens and focus the camera on anything - the hair will either become a very wide, blurred and dark strip across the image without actually blocking anything, or will disappear altogether. Either way, absolutely no detail would be present. By looking at the size of the image, the winding "pipe" is far too thin to be a hair even if it was possible to focus on the lens itself (although then the moon's surface would be completely out of focus).



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Why do people keep claiming it's impossible to be a hair or fiber in the camera, when it's already been established that these are SCANNED from the photos/negatives?

Xtraeme Posted images of the same fiber anomaly throughout the images.
Nomad451 Posted a link to the scanning process and potential resulting fiber anomalies.

Others, including ArMaP who sound like they are in the industry have also explained it pretty well I think.

Honestly, what seems to make more sense?
Alien tech of some sort, with nothing else around it(Possible) such as buildings, holes, roads/tracks, whatever.
Or
A fiber or hair transfered onto the photo paper during the scanning process.

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe there are things on the moon we are apparently not privy too.I also fully believe we are not alone out here.

I would however bet my next pay check this is nothing more than hair\fiber on the photo paper or scanner.

Several comparable examples HERE for those not willing to scan through the above link.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Weird that just yesterday I found a similar object, though slightly different, in the same area on the moon on Google moon (earth). I was searching for the object in the other recent moon image thread. What I found was that these objects, trails, hairs on the lens or whatever are all over the place. Could be the camera or just natural. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
It could not be "dust on the lens" because the dust would be so out of focus as to be essentially invisible. However, it could well be a small impurity or scratch in/on the film emulsion; or possibly an impurity on the film as it was being scanned and digitized.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowLink
Honestly, what seems to make more sense?
Alien tech of some sort, with nothing else around it(Possible) such as buildings, holes, roads/tracks, whatever.
Or
A fiber or hair transfered onto the photo paper during the scanning process.


I was only replying to the "x on the lens" statement as it is not possible, something picked up while scanning is much more plausible.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pterra
 


As a guy who has used both analog and digital SLR's, I can definitely say that's a hair. I'm sorry guys, I believe in E.T.'s and that there's more to the moon that we're lead to believe. However this isn't it.

And people saying otherwise are those who will blindly follow their own opinions without reason. Not cool guys.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Seeing as how we've never actually made it to the Moon, and that was a fat hoax, I would highly doubt that there has been a long cable installed on the Moon- and if there was.. wouldn't it be laid relatively straight?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
To all people saying that it couldn't be a hair because "The camera's are assembled in a clean room"
-This is simply not true, EVERY time that the camera is opened to put a new roll of film in, The camera is exposed to hair getting on the gate

-Every time the astronauts changed the lens, the camera gate is exposed to hair.

-The hair would be sitting RIGHT on the focal plane and would be completely in focus regardless to where the lens is focused at (even at infinity)

Yes, this could have been apart of the scanning process but it is also JUST as likely to happen while the photos were been taken.

I find it really interesting when people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about chime in with an opinion that they feel so strongly about.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I like this post. Very interesting picture you have presented.
I would agree to the thought that the "Cable" is not a thread of hair on a lens, I would first wonder how possibly hair can even get on the lens in the first place. Not like any other ordinary piece of hair on your Samsung camera or anything. But I believe this is entirely different. If whether or not the "cable" is really physically there or just some fake photo.
But nice post, very interesting. Keep it up!



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by playernumber13
 


It's definitely not a space hair but I don't know. Not rocks either. you can see it has form



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowLink
Why do people keep claiming it's impossible to be a hair or fiber in the camera, when it's already been established that these are SCANNED from the photos/negatives?

Xtraeme Posted images of the same fiber anomaly throughout the images.
Nomad451 Posted a link to the scanning process and potential resulting fiber anomalies.

Others, including ArMaP who sound like they are in the industry have also explained it pretty well I think.

Honestly, what seems to make more sense?
Alien tech of some sort, with nothing else around it(Possible) such as buildings, holes, roads/tracks, whatever.
Or
A fiber or hair transfered onto the photo paper during the scanning process.

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe there are things on the moon we are apparently not privy too.I also fully believe we are not alone out here.

I would however bet my next pay check this is nothing more than hairfiber on the photo paper or scanner.

Several comparable examples HERE for those not willing to scan through the above link.


Why do you people keep using the word IS and HAS. It IS a hair in the scanning process that HAS been established.

What is true is that you and others have THEORIZED and SPECULATED that it's a hair picked up in the scanning process. Just like those who have THEORIZED that it is a cable,.

Certainly there may be hairs present, there may be many hairs. That doesn't mean that they ALL are hairs.

I've noticed on this board that many people like to use declarative statements. The truth is though that when you make declarative statements you turn off your own thinking, because the mind thinks it's been figured out.

Nothing on this thread has been established as fact. Those who are interested should pursue it further. Those who think it is MOST LIKELY a hair or camera/scanning artifact are welcome to stop participating, or to continue to GATHER EVIDENCE to support their theory. Why don't you go find out exactly the procedure used to scan the film if your so convinced that this occurred during that process? Then you would have EVIDENCE and FACT as opposed to speculation presented as conclusive proof.

aHEMagain
edit on 14-7-2013 by aHEMagain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join