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: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by aHEMagain
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)


You're right, nothing so far has been established as FACT.

My opinion is that more evidence is pointing to something caused by the scanning process as apposed to some sort of alien tech.

Telling those of us who believe it to be something normal to move on is ridiculous.
Isn't the whole point of this place to share different points of view and debate on the evidence until some sort of reasonable conclusion can be reached?
Maybe I'm on the wrong site.

Perhaps you can use your second post to tell us all with "conclusive proof" what you think it is.




posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
A hair on the lens wouldn't follow the dark and light areas of background..so swamp gas on the lens.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 10:03 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.


LOL.. How can hair attached to the lens follow the contour of the surrounding area ?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pterra
 


At first look it does look like a hair with a follicle but after looking real close at the shadows its starting to NOT look like a hair!! anyone got some good pic procession programs to really look at it better?



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echoes

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.


LOL.. How can hair attached to the lens follow the contour of the surrounding area ?



First, it is probably not on the lens, but more likely it is on the photo print paper or on the scanner used to digitize the image. Don't forget, this was originally a print film image, which was then scanned years (decades?) after it was taken.

Second, It seems to me to not be following the contour as much as that it is bright where the background image is bright, and dark where the background image is dark. That gives it the illusion that it is going down into gullies and graters (dark parts of object) and going over top of hills (light parts of object).

This lightness and darkness goes along with the idea that this is a hair/fiber (or something else) stuck between the image and the scanner used to digitize it, because the brightness areas of the photo probably reflected some of the scanner's light onto the "hair/whatever".


edit on 7/14/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by StumpDrummer
reply to post by pterra
 


At first look it does look like a hair with a follicle but after looking real close at the shadows its starting to NOT look like a hair!! anyone got some good pic procession programs to really look at it better?




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Good find, looks authentic to me. (Meaning it's not a hoax, but a mysterious anomaly).

Not surprised either, it's pretty obvious something is going on.
I don't know any details but I realize something bizarre is afoot!
edit on 15-7-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People


First, it is probably not on the lens, but more likely it is on the photo print paper or on the scanner used to digitize the image. Don't forget, this was originally a print film image, which was then scanned years (decades?) after it was taken.


I haven't used any copy machines really since over a decade ago so please inform me of what I don't know.

When I would make copies of things, the hair that fell onto it was always shown as a very dark black line. In these scans it shows multiple colors depending on the background.

Is this consistent to see discoloration due to background? Sorry I am not an expert and don't want to crash course on printer science today just for one silly photo.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I agree with the notion that it's most likely a hair. Fact is, just like when we suggest it's a hair and we get told that it can't be for a myriad of reasons, and that it must be ET, I hope that everyone on the 'cable' side of the discussion is also thinking outside the box. A hair could be from your head. Or beard, or eyelash, or arm, or maybe it's a fibre from a piece of clothing. A lot of these things are small enough that they appear translucent under certain magnifications and lighting. All it would take would be someone processing the film, somewhere along the line, to have a thin pale hair fall from their beard as they developed the image. If they'd already viewed the image projection, and nothing was wrong, they'd proceed with the development and probably not expect to have accidentally tainted the picture. That would explain why it has similar hues and why it appears to be 'behind' some of the scenery.

I'd really love for it to be cables on the moon, Earth-made, Alien, naturally occurring.... it wouldn't really matter. I'd still be excited to hear about something like that. Especially if it was Earth made, because that would mean we're more than ready to start doing intensive space exploration.

I just.. I don't really see that it could be much more than a development artifact. So... Alien yes, but alien as in foreign, not alien as in outer-space.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
There are hundreds of fibres on that photo which must come from the cleaners before the scanning. However, I dont think this one IS a fibre from the cleaning cloth.

If you stretch the photo making the blacks less black and the whites less white, it seems like this does follow the contours of the ground and not something introduced later. Also there seems to be a kind of 'well-head' at the lower end which is rectangular and lighter in colour. If this was a lighter-coloured hair follicle 'root' it would be wrapped around the hair-end and this is not.

If you are going on probabilities, then yes,, it is more probable that this is another fibre, but I just dont think it is. Of course, I could be wrong.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
LoL - Do people really believe that "aliens" would use power cables,? Maybe it's an extension lead to power their UFO's when they visit earth


Honestly.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People


First, it is probably not on the lens, but more likely it is on the photo print paper or on the scanner used to digitize the image. Don't forget, this was originally a print film image, which was then scanned years (decades?) after it was taken.


I haven't used any copy machines really since over a decade ago so please inform me of what I don't know.

When I would make copies of things, the hair that fell onto it was always shown as a very dark black line. In these scans it shows multiple colors depending on the background.

Is this consistent to see discoloration due to background? Sorry I am not an expert and don't want to crash course on printer science today just for one silly photo.


I was not necessarily informing you, but informing 'Echoes", who asked:

quote by Echoes
How can hair attached to the lens follow the contour of the surrounding area


Furthermore, a copier and a scanner are different. You're right -- a hair or fiber on a copier may leave behind a dark mark, but a SCAN of a hair or fiber (or whatever) would leave behind a better reproduction of the hair or fiber -- more or less "taking a picture of it" (not exactly, but more so than a copier would).

This photo was scanned, not copied, so it we may see what amounts to a picture of a hair or fiber on the image of the moon -- and if the hair was translucent or reflective, it could look darker and lighter on the scan if it was adjacent to lighter and darker patches on the picture being scanned.


edit on 7/15/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
I've NEVER seen one string of hair to be that thick ! Has anyone else ? To me it looks like some kind of hose or cable. No where near to being a hair, though .



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
If it was following the terrain, shouldn't it look darker in the areas pointed by the arrows in the image below?




posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
NASA calls such blemishes "Blemish Artifacts".
From a website of the Arizona State University (scroll down to the paragraph with the heading ""Blemish Artifacts"):

"Prior to exposure, the film in the Apollo mapping camera system (a schematic of which is reproduced below) was held by pressure against a glass plate containing the reseau marks.

Subsequent analysis during image reprocessing revealed that foreign debris was present in the optical path of the camera system, and can be seen in the photographic exposures. Selected examples of blemish features of this type are shown in Figure 2. A movie showing blemish movement can be seen here. While the image processing steps undertaken as part of this effort may have removed some of these blemish features, users should be aware that blemish features exist in many of the images."

(boldface formating mine).
See similar hair-like blemishes in photos taken by the Apollo Lunar Mapping Cameras here .



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It can be artifacts but definitely not hair... lol hair. A hair would not be shadowed differently, it would look like one dark color object. That is kind of ridiculous explanation.
edit on 15-7-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If it was following the terrain, shouldn't it look darker in the areas pointed by the arrows in the image below?



No ArMaP, not necessarily so if the object is a large light-coloured pipe.

Maybe it's a temporary installation. Have a look at the lower end where it seems to be connected to something that runs under the surface.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


I agree with what you are saying but it is well known that some of the blemishes are in fact surface artifacts. What we have to do being explorers and researchers is make an educated evaluation of what are blemish artifacts and what are real objects on the surface whether it be the moon or Mars, which sometimes is not an easy task.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pterra
 


In all honesty it looks like a hair with a follicle at the end, that is what it reminded me of.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by ArMaP
If it was following the terrain, shouldn't it look darker in the areas pointed by the arrows in the image below?



No ArMaP, not necessarily so if the object is a large light-coloured pipe.

Maybe it's a temporary installation. Have a look at the lower end where it seems to be connected to something that runs under the surface.


Which begs the question:

If this is a cable or pipe, why didn't they just run it in a straight line, rather than going over hills and craters?




top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join