Building in Apollo 12 photo AS12-51-7507 ?

There is a building present in the top left corner of this photo from NASA. The photo is numbered AS12-51-7507 and can be downloaded from a public nasa.gov server here and ano ther copy here:

AS12-51-7507 with building in left top corner Sou rce

Magnification of building

Now here is where it gets strange; all other images of AS12-51-7507 than the above I've seen online the building is not present - can it have been deliverately edited out? See here for a higher resolution picture.

AS12-51-7507 without building Source

Animation showing differences

Both source photos are available on public nasa.gov server her e and here.

-MM

I'm sorry, I see no building.

But I am happy you do.

Or the much more likely explanation is it is an image defect, dust, something else on or near the lense.
No no, a building seems more logical.
Occam salutes you.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

1) how did you identify the anamoly as a building?

2) do you really think NASA has edited a "building" out but then went ahead and posted the pic with the building? Like they forgot that the picture they just edited had a reason to be edited and posted it then forgot they posted it?

I see the thing you are talking about but calling it a building will create negativity, would it be better to call it an artifact of object?

Could you provide more links to ther images for clarity please?

See above posts for my reasoning, be happy keep posting.

It's the building where the moon troops keep the bodies from the crashed EFO's (Earth flying objects). They call it.....Crater 51.

On that second higher res photo, you can see a road leading to that ghost building or something.
Interesting...

I am assuming that is a shot of the Moon

If that were a building relative in size to the Moon ... It would be gigantic and also cast a shadow

Look at the direction of the Sun hitting the craters ... and then the dark area surrounding the bright shape.
It does make sense only as has been stated an image defect

Though I do see a McDonalds on the horizon

a reply to: zilebeliveunknown

Dang they just can't get it right. First they edit out the road but not the building, then they get the building but not the road.

As Opeth pointed out, Occam's Razor is hard at work here

There has been a trend now for some time where it is somehow deemed hip or trendy to insantly mock any of these kind of threads.

It is almost like the first one in with a cutting remark or standard dismissal wins.

In my opinion keep with it and see what happens.

Oh by the way,

Pics or it didn't happen.

It's just a rock.

aliens, just saying.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

a reply to: Shamrock6
Occam doesn't apply for things we do not know.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Sit in the corner with your dunce hat on, OP. How dare you entertain such ideas!

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.


On topic: It could be an image artifact, and most likely is, but we could all be wrong too. We may never know for sure on many of these images.

a reply to: zilebeliveunknown

That's actually exactly what it applies to: hypotheses. Theories. And any variation of the word.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: zilebeliveunknown
That's actually exactly what it applies to: hypotheses. Theories. And any variation of the word.

Yeah, to keep you safe from fear of the unknown.

a reply to: nonspecific

I, for one, haven't mocked anything. I asked two questions, neither of which have been answered. Stuff like this is what brought me to ATS to begin with.

It's kind of hard to accept that NASA messed up and put a building and a road in a picture, then edited the road out but not the building, then took the building out but put the road back in, then posted both the unedited and edited pics and forgot to keep caring about it.

So without any compelling evidence other than pointing at something and saying "that's a building," yea I dismiss it. Not to be trendy or hip or cool, but because it NOT being a building is a good bit more plausible than it BEING one.

originally posted by: opethPA
Or the much more likely explanation is it is an image defect, dust, something else on or near the lense.
No no, a building seems more logical.
Occam salutes you.

Did you not notice the question mark in the title? I'm not saying it is a building but rather I'm asking a question.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes, and then in your text you present it as a statement, not a question.

It was certainly not directed at you but just a positive at the OP not be shot down with the negatives.

I appologise if you felt my post was directed at you but without open thought sooner or later no one will dare to post in fear of mockery and embarresment.

Everything should be taken at face value in my opionion and not based on previous opinion to remain open.

Merry christmas/happynew year.

a reply to: Shamrock6

a reply to: zilebeliveunknown

I would suggest those who believe we aren't capable of some degree of space exploration are the ones with more to fear than those who believe we are

a reply to: nonspecific

No worries. Just explaining my position on it. I can see how some of the posts can be perceived as mocking and dismissive. I'm all for debate, even spirited debate.

So if I came across as mocking anybody I apologize for that.

Same to you and everyone else.