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.

 

I discovered a MOON BASE!!!...so I thought till I did more research and found more photos of the are

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Well, the following is what I thought looked like some tower on the moon, or huge vacuum cleaner, lol, but I'll let the pics speak for themselves.

I've realized over time how easy I came to believe..



To me the above photo sure looked believable, till I looked for more












I find it so screwed up how light, angle and shadow can mess with the mind..




posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tayton
 

So you're one that gets it. Will you please tell this to the folks that keep posting mars rock pictures?



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
In this day & age ,, the fact Nasa cant get pictures of the surface moon under 5-10 meter resolution speaks volumes...



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Light and shadow can and does make for interesting effects when you have stark contrast. It's great that people that have the time can search for things that the majority would simply miss. However, should there be any bases on the moon they would not be on the surface. Why build there where you have to deal with direct radiation when you can have cheap protection underground. It's also easier to make a containment area in rock than trying to seal a complete structure on the surface.

Mars on the other hand is a different can of worms with a better chance of finding something. But so far they have just found rocks. I wonder if that is all NASA really wants to find...rocks.
edit on 10/28/2013 by pstrron because: grammer



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Blowback
the fact Nasa cant get pictures of the surface moon under 5-10 meter resolution speaks volumes...


No, the fact that people claim NASA cannot get pictures under 5-10 metre resolution speaks volumes - they are just not interested in facts!

www.nasa.gov...

with resolutions down to 1 meter



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   

hellobruce
www.nasa.gov...

with resolutions down to 1 meter


all those are black & white,,ya got anything that isnt all pixelated or hiding behide RGB filters



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

hellobruce

Blowback
the fact Nasa cant get pictures of the surface moon under 5-10 meter resolution speaks volumes...


No, the fact that people claim NASA cannot get pictures under 5-10 metre resolution speaks volumes - they are just not interested in facts!

www.nasa.gov...

with resolutions down to 1 meter


Pictures with resolutions of ~0.5 m/p have been streaming in for years. Over 1 million of them are available for free download here.

Back to the OP: Kudos for digging deeper and examining all the evidence - not just cherry-picking or going with a knee-jerk reaction. That's what separates the truly curious from the gullible, any-CT-swallowing types.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Blowback

hellobruce
www.nasa.gov...

with resolutions down to 1 meter


all those are black & white,


What's wrong with black and white? It gives better contrast & resolution than color, without the artifacts. That's why professionals use it!


ya got anything that isnt all pixelated


Are you suggesting that digital pictures should not have pixels when you zoom-in to the limits of resolution?



or hiding behide RGB filters


The Narrow Angle Camera does not use any filters.

You're just not going to let any facts stand in the way of the axe you're grinding, are you?



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   


You're just not going to let any facts stand in the way of the axe you're grinding, are you?


Plz forgive me for attacking the Data..I realize now it is wrong to sleep under the blanket of technology NASA provides,,& question the manner in which it is provide ,,,,I will be a good sheep from now on,,,the hamburger ya feeding me is filet mignon......more fluoride plz
edit on 28-10-2013 by Blowback because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by tayton
 


disinfo agent in operation



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Blowback

hellobruce
www.nasa.gov...

with resolutions down to 1 meter


all those are black & white,,ya got anything that isnt all pixelated or hiding behide RGB filters


Wow the ignorance. You do know how a CCD takes "colour " pictures don't you?........oh hang on you have no idea otherwise there would not be that ridiculous statement "hiding behind RGB filters"

Every single digital camera on this planet (and all the ones up there as well!) can ONLY work because the CCD is "hiding" behind RGB filters ! sheesh.......

Now once you relieve yourself of the ignorance of how a digital camera works you will then understand why B&W is better for resolution than colour. It is surely better to understand the technology before passing comment ?

There are two ways of taking a colour picture:

A. have the FILTERED pixels adjacent to one another as in the vast majority of cameras in the world. This has the benefit of taking a "colour" picture in a oner but with reduced resolution.

B. Take three seperate pictures with a filter over all the pixels. This requires three black and white (!!!) photos to be taken but the resolution is much higher. You then stick these B&W images back to together by applying a colour to each using a computer. Although I suppose technically possible using coloured foils but that would be very sixties.

NASA chooses B. This gives them the flexibility of applying many more different filters tuned to specific frequencies in the EM spectrum. Thus their "B&W" camera can be used to take pictures of light at frequencies we can't see or of specific interest such as a chemical spectrum analysis.

It does not take a genius to work out that if colour is less important than resolution then taking a picture with a camera without any filters ie a true spectrum wide B&W image then this can be done with one picture and thus save memory for storage and time or bandwidth needed to transmit the image.

Now this does not mean that NASA hasn't doctored colour photos of , for example, Mars. But you can only argue for or against this point if you understand the technology used first.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

hellobruce

Blowback
the fact Nasa cant get pictures of the surface moon under 5-10 meter resolution speaks volumes...


No, the fact that people claim NASA cannot get pictures under 5-10 metre resolution speaks volumes - they are just not interested in facts!

www.nasa.gov...

with resolutions down to 1 meter


Hell, why not give us military grade
resolution down to inches ?

Any interesting analmolous moon photos
have long since been scrubbed censored and repackaged .
So why would resolution matter ?
Of course NASA would never ,ever, censor photos, right ?

edit on 28-10-2013 by sealing because: sp



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Can someone tell me, where that tower is supposed to be. I don't see anything but rocks and craters. And there seems to be short "flood channel" too. But I don't see any "moon base".



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Thebel
Can someone tell me, where that tower is supposed to be. I don't see anything but rocks and craters. And there seems to be short "flood channel" too. But I don't see any "moon base".

That's exactly the purpose of the author of this thread: he thought he saw "moon base" on low-res photo, but then investigated further, using higher resolution images, and saw that it was just a trick of shadow and light and his imagination.

The Moon has been imaged at resolutions down to 25 centimeters per pixel, we can see individual boulders, small craters, and even the Apollo equipment left on the Moon. featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu...

But the conspiracy believers will maintain that NASA images are doctored (a blind argument), and there's no persuading them otherwise. I guess we will have to wait for the Chinese to photograph the Apollo sites and the rest of the Moon in high-res, hopefully that will persuade them.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
For any area of the moon there is a range of photographs taken by a wide range of space agencies from a number of countries, including China.

Some of the photos date back nearly 50 years and were done by the Lunar Orbiter probes. It doesn't take a massive trawl of the internet to find original copies of these (I have two of my own) and their resolution in places is on a par with the current probes. There is no RGB profiling in these images!

I would have a good browse at www.moonviews.com..., as well as the Lunar Orbiter pages of the Lunar and Planetary Institute.

Claiming 'NASA censored them' is too easy a cop out. Prove it. Compare the images from every agency and every probe, get yourself a telescope, show us the proof.

I for one congratulate the OP for having the courage to a) do their own research and b) admit when they were wrong about something.

The moon is an amazing enough place as it is. It doesn't need aliens or bases to make it any more fantastic.
edit on 28-10-2013 by onebigmonkey because: corrected address



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Blowback
In this day & age ,, the fact Nasa cant get pictures of the surface moon under 5-10 meter resolution speaks volumes...


Maybe YOU should look at the LRO images at 0.5 mtr per pixel!



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Blowback
In this day & age ,, the fact Nasa cant get pictures of the surface moon under 5-10 meter resolution speaks volumes...




Oh and learn something about optics and resolution !
edit on 29-10-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Fine, your photo is of rocks.

But, are are similarity dismissing the "Castle" and the "Tower" on the Moon as natural objects?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GNOarmy
 


Hello ! There will be one more "folk" in a few hours, I'm in the waiting room !

Have a good day !




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join