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.
Gigantic structures on the front side of the moon + other 'anomalies'
page: 5share:
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
This all takes me back to this one day in college when a group of students were giving a presentation, and one of the kids got up and gave his speech, and then after he finished his speech, he cited wikipedia…….because as we all know, wikipedia is a great source.
This all takes me back to this one day in college when a group of students were giving a presentation, and one of the kids got up and gave his speech, and then after he finished his speech, he cited wikipedia…….because as we all know, wikipedia is a great source.
edit on 12-3-2014 by
Emerys because: (no reason given)
tachyonator7
so wikipedia is using fake or photoshoped photo of the moon dispite literally dozens of thousands of nasa and other photos they could've used just to mess with us? you must be a wizard, you solved the mistery.. or rather a troll.
for your information, not anyone is allowed to post anything on wikipedia especially on subjects such is planetary bodies where informations are been thoroughly checked and carefully edited with prominent sources and references.
I have no reason to believe the wikipedia picture is fake. I have faith that it is in fact a real and true image of the moon.
However the picture you are using is this one, and you are trying to zoom in to get detail. But if the image is small and has no detail to begin with, then zooming in won't magically make detail appear. When you see the better-detailed image, the "coliseum-like" structure is just a crater:
But you don't need to believe me. As someone said above, it very possible to see for yourself by going to your local university that may host a public astronomy night, or find an amateur astronomy club that is willing to show you the moon (in higher magnification than that image above, showing greater detail) and you can look at Eudoxus crater for yourself.
I'd like to find out what you discover, or maybe I will do the same. For now, I have no reason to doubt the multiple higher-magnification images from multiple amateur astronomer sources that shows Eudoxus to be just a crater with a rim.
Similarly, I do have reason to doubt that the image you used (the one above) can provide enough detail to see Eudoxus crater clearly. I'm sure you can see the crater rim, but the lack of detail may be what is making that rim look like a coliseum-like structure to you.
edit on 3/12/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
reply to post by tachyonator7
For your information.....No...I'm not a troll.....and YES anyone can post whatever they want to wikipedia, no matter what the subject, sure, it may get taken down by a wiki moderator, but wikipedia is not a valid source.....anyone with an ounce of gumption would know that.
so wikipedia is using fake or photoshoped photo of the moon dispite literally dozens of thousands of nasa and other photos they could've used just to mess with us? you must be a wizard, you solved the mistery.. or rather a troll. for your information, not anyone is allowed to post anything on wikipedia especially on subjects such is planetary bodies where informations are been thoroughly checked and carefully edited with prominent sources and references.
For your information.....No...I'm not a troll.....and YES anyone can post whatever they want to wikipedia, no matter what the subject, sure, it may get taken down by a wiki moderator, but wikipedia is not a valid source.....anyone with an ounce of gumption would know that.
Argyll
reply to post by tachyonator7
so wikipedia is using fake or photoshoped photo of the moon dispite literally dozens of thousands of nasa and other photos they could've used just to mess with us? you must be a wizard, you solved the mistery.. or rather a troll. for your information, not anyone is allowed to post anything on wikipedia especially on subjects such is planetary bodies where informations are been thoroughly checked and carefully edited with prominent sources and references.
For your information.....No...I'm not a troll.....and YES anyone can post whatever they want to wikipedia, no matter what the subject, sure, it may get taken down by a wiki moderator, but wikipedia is not a valid source.....anyone with an ounce of gumption would know that.
But the validity of wikipedia is not even the question here. I think the photo of the whole moon on wikipedia is a real image; that's not the problem here.
The problem is that the OP is using that image of the entire moon (from the wikipedia page about the Moon), and then enlarging one tiny crater in one small area of the picture, and then trying to discern details. At that relatively poor level of detail, he is NOT going to get an accurate view of what is there.
Basically the OP is saying that the many higher-magnification and higher-detailed images of that crater could be fake because when he blows up that area in the tiny image of the moon, he says the crater looks like the Roman Coliseum, but in the higher-magnification images, it does not.
For some reason, he can't seem to grasp the idea that the image of the entire Moon on which he thinks he saw a coliseum is the problem, and the only reason that crater looks like the coliseum is because of the relatively poor quality of the small image he got from the wiki page compared to the higher-magnification images of the crater itself.
edit on 3/12/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
tachyonator7
so wikipedia is using fake or photoshoped photo of the moon dispite literally dozens of thousands of nasa and other photos they could've used just to mess with us?
So, we are presented with 2 possibilities:
1. Someone has edited an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Or
2. There is a civilization on the moon that, despite hundreds of capable terrestrial telescopes, only NASA can see, but they are covering it up, but doing a horrible job.
I'll go with possibility #1, since I once read on Wikipedia that owls are secretly plotting to take over the world.
edit on 3/13/1414 by
conundrummer because: (no reason given)
conundrummer
tachyonator7
so wikipedia is using fake or photoshoped photo of the moon dispite literally dozens of thousands of nasa and other photos they could've used just to mess with us?
So, we are presented with 2 possibilities:
1. Someone has edited an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Or
2. There is a civilization on the moon that, despite hundreds of capable terrestrial telescopes, only NASA can see, but they are covering it up, but doing a horrible job.
I'll go with possibility #1, since I once read on Wikipedia that owls are secretly plotting to take over the world.edit on 3/13/1414 by conundrummer because: (no reason given)
I'm going with possibility #3...
...which is that the OP is using a picture of the whole Moon from Wikipedia, then zooming in real close to a small crater looking for detail. However, the image he is using does not have a high enough resolution nor does it show a great enough amount of detail to be able to resolve objects when zoomed in that closely.
The result is that is that he thinks sees a coliseum-like building when he zooms in real close, but it is really just a crater.
I'm not doubting that what he is seeing is really there; I think what he is seeing IS actually on the Moon. I'm just questioning his interpretation of what he is seeing. Going by the higher-magnification pictures of that area taken with better telescopes (pictures the OP has decide to ignore), it looks clear to me that the object he saw is just a crater and not a coliseum-like building.
tachyonator7
i am anything but close minded. i am ignoring the better resolution images because none of those will ever show you any of these structures, it would be nasa slaping themselves in the face admiting something's there afterall after fifty years of systematic lies and deception. untill you realize they indeed do airbrush all of the space imagery, especially the close ups of the planets surfaces, how could you look into this for real. it's a futile effort to try to convince the indoctrinated individual who had not yet came to realize he's been lied too about nature of the moon and other planets and many other things.
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
So all other images are airbrushed out as part of a grand conspiracy but the didn't bother to airbrush out the images on google earth? That makes zero sense. You see distortion on when you magnify a low resolution picture and you imagine you see things there.
Soylent Green Is People
I'm going with possibility #3...
...which is that the OP is using a picture of the whole Moon from Wikipedia, then zooming in real close to a small crater looking for detail. However, the image he is using does not have a high enough resolution nor does it show a great enough amount of detail to be able to resolve objects when zoomed in that closely.
The result is that is that he thinks sees a coliseum-like building when he zooms in real close, but it is really just a crater.
I'm not doubting that what he is seeing is really there; I think what he is seeing IS actually on the Moon. I'm just questioning his interpretation of what he is seeing. Going by the higher-magnification pictures of that area taken with better telescopes (pictures the OP has decide to ignore), it looks clear to me that the object he saw is just a crater and not a coliseum-like building.
Oh come on, how could he possibly see square shapes when zooming in on a digital picture?!?
conundrummer
Oh come on, how could he possibly see square shapes when zooming in on a digital picture?!?
The OP is claiming that he would rather use this blown-up image that he enlarged from a picture of the whole moon taken through a less-powerful telescope...:
...instead of using this picture of the same craters (Herodotus on the left and Aristarchus on the right) taken by an amateur astronomer, which does NOT show that Herodotus Crater is a cylindrical structure, but is clearly just an old crater with the rim still visible:
His twisted logic for ignoring the better pictures from the more powerful telescopes is that he sees a cylindrical structure where Herodotus should be in the blown-up picture (the first image above), but since he doesn't see the same cylindrical structure in the picture taken with the better telescope (the second image above), that means that the second image MUST be tampered with or is fake.
His logic is backward. Instead of using the evidence to form his opinion, he has already formed an opinion (e.g., that Herodotus Crater is not a crater, but is really a cylindrical building), and any evidence he finds to the contrary, such as a better image of the crater than he originally used, MUST be false evidence -- because it does not fit his pre-conceived notion that it's a building.
edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
reply to post by conundrummer
Because Pixels are squares.. The image is digital.. Magnified greatly.. I'm sure you can connect these dots, or squares if you like.
Soylent nailed it also.
P.S - Why in the hell is everybody spelling Colosseum wrong ha
Because Pixels are squares.. The image is digital.. Magnified greatly.. I'm sure you can connect these dots, or squares if you like.
Soylent nailed it also.
P.S - Why in the hell is everybody spelling Colosseum wrong ha
Sparta
reply to post by conundrummer
Because Pixels are squares.. The image is digital.. Magnified greatly.. I'm sure you can connect these dots, or squares if you like.
True. The final 5 images in the original post are zoomed in so much that the squareness of the pixels is making the object (which looks to be only a crater) seem to have a a geometric shape with right angles.
P.S - Why in the hell is everybody spelling Colosseum wrong ha
Either spelling (coliseum or Colosseum) is acceptable.
In the U.S., the proper noun "Colosseum" is usually reserved for the building in Rome of that name. However, the word "coliseum" is preferred when taking about an arena-type or amphitheater-type building in general.
edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
i am not using "twisted logic", i openly admit the photo from wikipedia is the ONLY ONE that shows the structures in question, i just wonder why is
that so. we could came to conclusion that wikipedia photo is faked to show the structures and other images are real, but is that the case? or that
structures were visible only at that particular time when wikipedia photo was taken? i don't know.
Soylent Green Is People
conundrummer
Oh come on, how could he possibly see square shapes when zooming in on a digital picture?!?
The OP is claiming that he would rather use this blown-up image that he enlarged from a picture of the whole moon taken through a less-powerful telescope...:
...
(post by tachyonator7 removed for a manners violation)
ALL of the images from google earth show buildings and ships, not pixelization illusion as you claim (and sadly others who agree with you). they are
blurred because that's the max resolution we are given, but still only a blind fool can claim these to be craters which i claim all of you debunkers
to be > a blinded fools. it's sad, but please remember this post and come back in a few years if these things ever get declassified, check these
coordinated and you may see how dumb you were to reject these finds.
and here's another one from the same location..
and here's another one from the same location..
Soylent Green Is People
Sparta
reply to post by conundrummer
Because Pixels are squares.. The image is digital.. Magnified greatly.. I'm sure you can connect these dots, or squares if you like.
True. The final 5 images in the original post are zoomed in so much that the squareness of the pixels is making the object (which looks to be only a crater) seem to have a a geometric shape with right angles.
P.S - Why in the hell is everybody spelling Colosseum wrong ha
Either spelling (coliseum or Colosseum) is acceptable.
In the U.S., the proper noun "Colosseum" is usually reserved for the building in Rome of that name. However, the word "coliseum" is preferred when taking about an arena-type or amphitheater-type building in general.
edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because:
(no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7
because: (no reason given)
(post by tachyonator7 removed for a manners violation)
tachyonator7
pretty sure you are a brain-dead virgin who's only satisfaction is to say 'fake' or 'pixels'.. just another sad lonely wannabe troll on ATS.
Ad hominem.
tachyonator7
ALL of the images from google earth show buildings and ships, not pixelization illusion as you claim (and sadly others who agree with you). they are blurred because that's the max resolution we are given, but still only a blind fool can claim these to be craters which i claim all of you debunkers to be > a blinded fools. it's sad, but please remember this post and come back in a few years if these things ever get declassified, check these coordinated and you may see how dumb you were to reject these finds.
OK. Lets go back to one of your images in the OP:
To me, that image looks as if each pixel is huge, which in turn gives you an extremely low-resolution image -- one in which the square shape of the pixels will be causing the objects in the image to look square.
Plus, the bright white part of that object is the sunlit part of the inside of the crater and the crater rim, and the black part is the area of the crater in shadow. There is another lighter part within the black that I don't know what it is, but the image is so pixelated, it could be anything -- or just compression artifacts.
Here is that area again, this time zoomed out to show some context (also, in the below image, North is "up", while in your above image, North is to the left):
In the image above, you can see where the "object" (which I say looks like a crater, but you say is a building or spaceship) is in relationship to some other areas of the moon. The object is directly below the pin marker. Given the context of this image, I thing the object is looking more like a crater.
Now, here is another image using higher resolution photos. I marked the object in question with an arrow:
In the above image, the object in question looks like all of the other craters around it.
Here is that object again (which is the same object in your image from the OP, which I reposted as the first image above in this post):
If you look to the left hand side of the crater on the rim (the west rim), you see that the rim may be at a bit of a higher elevation, like a small mound. Going back to you original image (the first one above), that may help explain those lighter-colored pixels in the dark shadow (on the bottom of the crater on your rotated view). Perhaps a part of those lighter pixels is this raised rim area being lit by the sun -- along with compression artifacts due to the very low-resolution of your example.
...By the way, why are you using those low-resolution NASA images when higher-resolution NASA images of the same areas exist?
edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
These looking interesting but what we are going to need is the exact coordinates of each anomaly location and high resolution picture to go with it.
Been through this before without that info the debate will become stalled.
first of all, the object in question looks like a buldoger to me, not a ship or building and your debunking is rediculous. in first two images you
show a far zoom out of the already small object (~80m wide as we can see from the scale bottom-left..) so it would look like a crater from the high
altitude. and i'm not even going to ask what the hell is that third picture and what it has to do with the object in question.
Soylent Green Is People
tachyonator7
ALL of the images from google earth show buildings and ships, not pixelization illusion as you claim (and sadly others who agree with you). they are blurred because that's the max resolution we are given, but still only a blind fool can claim these to be craters which i claim all of you debunkers to be > a blinded fools. it's sad, but please remember this post and come back in a few years if these things ever get declassified, check these coordinated and you may see how dumb you were to reject these finds.
OK. Lets go back to one of your images in the OP:
To me, that image looks as if each pixel is huge, which in turn gives you an extremely low-resolution image -- one in which the square shape of the pixels will be causing the objects in the image to look square.
Plus, the bright white part of that object is the sunlit part of the inside of the crater and the crater rim, and the black part is the area of the crater in shadow. There is another lighter part within the black that I don't know what it is, but the image is so pixelated, it could be anything -- or just compression artifacts.
Here is that area again, this time zoomed out to show some context (also, in the below image, North is "up", while in your above image, North is to the left):
In the image above, you can see where the "object" (which I say looks like a crater, but you say is a building or spaceship) is in relationship to some other areas of the moon. The object is directly below the pin marker. Given the context of this image, I thing the object is looking more like a crater.
Now, here is another image using higher resolution photos. I marked the object in question with an arrow:
In the above image, the object in question looks like all of the other craters around it.
Here is that object again (which is the same object in your image from the OP, which I reposted as the first image above in this post):
If you look to the left hand side of the crater on the rim (the west rim), you see that the rim may be at a bit of a higher elevation, like a small mound. Going back to you original image (the first one above), that may help explain those lighter-colored pixels in the dark shadow (on the bottom of the crater on your rotated view). Perhaps a part of those lighter pixels is this raised rim area being lit by the sun -- along with compression artifacts due to the very low-resolution of your example.
...By the way, why are you using those low-resolution NASA images when higher-resolution NASA images of the same areas exist?
edit on 3/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because:
(no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tachyonator7
because: (no reason given)