New picture of two huge weird structures on the moon

Thanks for the disgussion, many interesting theories. Personally I go for the John Lear solution, it seems the most plausible that it is the antenna from the orbiter and a case of several images glued together. A chain impact crater could have been the case. So it was (sadly for me ) not a structure on the moon, but we (the belivers) will still keep on looking

Thanks again.



[edit on 5-4-2007 by Acharya]

Originally posted by Acharya
So it was (sadly for me

) not a structure on the moon, but we (the belivers) will still keep on looking

Thanks again.

Don't feel disheartened Acharya! Keep lookin'! You're on the right track!! Remember, the truth is out there!!

Cheers!

[edit on 5-4-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If we assume the most likely cause, I think that it's probably from a meteoroid or other object landing and bouncing as it comes to rest, causing a patterned impact trail. It would come from the right to the left, making the first "bounce" the largest, then decreasing in size as it bounced to the left.

Bingo!

You win the analysis prize! That's indeed what it is, and there's a number of these on Earth and on the other planets.

What bothers me about that is the the pattern seems to be different across the top than the pattern across the bottom.

In anddition to the factors you mentioned, the object would be breaking up AND the landscape it hit is not uniform.

Good catch and good explaination.

I think good ol mike singh is the one that debunked the photo first. Thanks John for the picture that you give to support mikes finds

[edit on 5am4 30 200 by goddogo1]

[edit on 5am4 30 200 by goddogo1]

Originally posted by disownedsky

You need to provide the original unaltered image straight from NASA. Otherwise, it's not even worth bothering with. There are an unlimited number of possible faked images.

NASA is NOT the the definition of credibility. At least not in this day and age. I have seen images on their official website that have been quite obviously altered to cover up something they don't want us to see. They are not the epitamy of honesty and integrity so please stop holding them up as a beacon of truth. It just isn't the case.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by NephraTari]

I think that it's probably from a meteoroid or other object landing and bouncing as it comes to rest, causing a patterned impact trail. It would come from the right to the left, making the first "bounce" the largest, then decreasing in size as it bounced to the left.

Bingo!

You win the analysis prize! That's indeed what it is, and there's a number of these on Earth and on the other planets.

Good catch and good explaination.

OK, all you guys that continue to insist that these are impact craters after the apollo boom has been spotted in numerous other pics....I will now put you on my 'not-so experts' list!! '' )

'' For those who thought it looked mechanical!! 'Cause it was/is!!

Do you think NASA might leave some percentage of these things in their photos, either to get the 'believers' going, or to somewhat discredit any other photos that might be suspect?

[edit on 5-4-2007 by frayed1]

Originally posted by bprintz1
Benevolent,

The moon amd Mars are rife with "apparent" non-natural shapes and structures.

I did not deny this in any way. If you read my posts, you'll see that. I'm not saying I agree with you but I certainly didn't even come close to denying that.

Originally posted by goddogo1
I think good ol John Lear is the one that debunked the photo first. Thanks John for the picture FIRST!

Yes he is. And he did. Did you read the quote to which you responded? It's hard to believe that you did, as it was a totally different theory altogether than John Lear's explanation. It was my original theory, one I clearly discarded after John Lear posted. It's all on page 3.

Byrd apparently didn't read page 3 either before posting, as she agreed with a theory I had already discarded. (It was a good, solid theory, though)

I honestly wish people would read and comprehend before they post. Especially if they're planning on posting something challenging or full of incorrect assumptions.

READ PAGE 3. Please.

Originally posted by NephraTari
NASA is NOT the the definition of credibility. At least not in this day and age. I have seen images on their official website that have been quite obviously altered to cover up something they don't want us to see. They are not the epitamy of honesty and integrity so please stop holding them up as a beacon of truth. It just isn't the case.
[edit on 5-4-2007 by NephraTari]

So you're quite comfortable slandering a very large group of professionals and collaborators based on your assumptions and comically flimsy evidence? How do you make sense out of the proposition that "they don't want us to see things", with, they have "obviously altered images on their official website?"

I have seen nothing, offered as evidence in support of that position, that can withstand serious critical analysis. What I have seen is a wishful desire to project blame on an organization in order to justify the frustrating sense of not knowing.

And once more, before the lame flames, generalizations, and assumptions start flying, YES, I agree, there are very odd and bizarre artifacts in many images from space. I would also like to know what they are.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by goddogo1
I think good ol John Lear is the one that debunked the photo first. Thanks John for the picture FIRST!

Yes he is. And he did. Did you read the quote to which you responded? It's hard to believe that you did, as it was a totally different theory altogether than John Lear's explanation. It was my original theory, one I clearly discarded after John Lear posted. It's all on page 3.

Byrd apparently didn't read page 3 either before posting, as she agreed with a theory I had already discarded. (It was a good, solid theory, though)

I honestly wish people would read and comprehend before they post. Especially if they're planning on posting something challenging or full of incorrect assumptions.

READ PAGE 3.

Please.

Ah huh!! Jeepers creepers!! You guys are really slugging it out as to who blew the lid first!

Sorry guys, it was I who debunked it first!! check out my post before the one john posted! That's on page 2. Not to take away any credit of course, from John!! He posted a very good pic of the Moon showing the same boom in the next post! That corroborated the fact that it was the boom from the Apollo module.

Modesty me!!

Cheers!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bprintz1
Benevolent,

The moon amd Mars are rife with "apparent" non-natural shapes and structures.

I did not deny this in any way. If you read my posts, you'll see that.

I'm not saying I agree with you but I certainly didn't even come close to denying that.

Originally posted by goddogo1
I think good ol John Lear is the one that debunked the photo first. Thanks John for the picture FIRST!

Yes he is. And he did. Did you read the quote to which you responded? It's hard to believe that you did, as it was a totally different theory altogether than John Lear's explanation. It was my original theory, one I clearly discarded after John Lear posted. It's all on page 3.

Byrd apparently didn't read page 3 either before posting, as she agreed with a theory I had already discarded. (It was a good, solid theory, though)

I honestly wish people would read and comprehend before they post. Especially if they're planning on posting something challenging or full of incorrect assumptions.

READ PAGE 3.

Please.

I think you need to read page 2 that is where the person before John replied debunked it first. As for you telling me to read the post first I have. As it clearly seems that you have not. I just could not remember the persons screen name and when I went back to look I seen Johns post thinking that is the one I read. I was not even trying to be taken offensivly.
Sorry but WE WERE WRONG ABOUT JONH DEBUNKIN THE PHOTOS ANY WAYS. READ PAGE 2

[edit on 5am4 30 200 by goddogo1]

[edit on 5am4 30 200 by goddogo1]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by goddogo1
I think good ol John Lear is the one that debunked the photo first. Thanks John for the picture FIRST!

Yes he is. And he did. Did you read the quote to which you responded? It's hard to believe that you did, as it was a totally different theory altogether than John Lear's explanation. It was my original theory, one I clearly discarded after John Lear posted. It's all on page 3.

Byrd apparently didn't read page 3 either before posting, as she agreed with a theory I had already discarded. (It was a good, solid theory, though)

I honestly wish people would read and comprehend before they post. Especially if they're planning on posting something challenging or full of incorrect assumptions.

READ PAGE 3.

Please.

Ah huh!! Jeepers creepers!! You guys are really slugging it out as to who blew the lid first!

Sorry guys, it was I who debunked it first!! check out my post before the one john posted! That's on page 2. Not to take away any credit of course, from John!! He posted a very good pic of the Moon showing the same boom in the next post! That corroborated the fact that it was the boom from the Apollo module.

Modesty me!!

Cheers!

Your right. I am sorry, i was tring to remember your screen name when i was doing the reply and could not remember. So when I went back to check I read the wrong post srry.

Mikesingh debunked the photo first and took all of my fun away.



This thread and original photo was brought to my attention that morning and as I read through it I came up with some hilarious ideas to have some fun with those who didn't see what it actually was.

I had to make another scan of the Apollo 16 photo to get it the perfect size. Then I composed a sarcastic (but funny) post and then quickly double checked that nobody had figured it out yet.

HORRORS. Mikesign had already nailed it! How could you do that to me mike? You took all my fun for the day away!!!! Anyway I had to modify my post and in my despair at mikes having clearly beat me to the punch by about 5 minutes I forgot to thank him for a job well done!!!

Thanks mike! I just wish you hadn't been so quick on the trigger but excellent job of identification.

tomra needs to be given some credit, don't 'cha know......From page one, 13th post down....

Originally posted by tomra
They are a mechanical part of the satelite. I can´t remember which thread this images used to be discussed in but it was on here a couple of months back.

...And page two, three post above Mike's.....

Originally posted by tomra
I´m pretty sure (not 100%) this is the low/high gain omni antenna on one of the orbiters/surveyor. Searching for pictures including the "moon" on ATS is pointless as you have to spend days to dig through the material, sorry, i´m just unable to find the correct thread.

It appears in two places due to image stiching.

Maybe Zorgon remembers as he seems to be pretty updated on the moon. John?

[edit on 4-4-2007 by tomra]

I still think NASA might leave these oddities in, and wait for someone to think they are proof of aliens.......I'd be tempted to, especially if I were hiding something else.....

Not even a good fake... kind of a piss poor copy paste hack job...
if you look at the whole image look for the shadows and the angles of lighting from the sun...
If you look first at the hills you'll note the sun?lighting source comes from the right side of photo...shadows are cast towards the left!
now look at the blow up...
the shadows on the smaller objects are cast on the lower side while the shadow on the large object casts to the right.

Also I have to point out the objects in the smaller of the two do not follow the terrain...you could say this would mean they are floating? if that was the case then again were missing a ground shadow...

The funny thing is when I teach photoshop retouching this is the first thing I cover...matching lighting and shadows! oh well maybe they'll sit in on one of my classes next time

Its ironic how people who tend to view skeptics with, dare I say, disdain....are falling all over themselves attempting to establish which of them gets credit for the debunk.

Maybe its just me, but I find that funny.

Edited to add: DaddyBare, did you even bother to read the thread?



[edit on 5-4-2007 by MrPenny]

Tomra,

Please accept my apologies and let me fall all over myself for Mr. Pennys enjoyment in awarding you the "First To Debunk The Towers".

I missed both of your posts but thanks to Frayed they have now been brought to my attention.

So instead of being irritated by mikesingh for spoiling my day I am going to be irritated at you.

Nice catch Tomra and sorry for the delay in recognition.

There's a difference between debunkers and open minded people.

The debunkers were the ones who when they first saw the image claimed 100% for sure that they were impact craters (even though they were not) just so they can piss away the possibility of something in the realm of unidentified...

The open minded people were the ones who remained open to ALL POSSIBILITIES including impact craters.

So i would class ''debunkers'' as people who will say anything just to dismiss anything that is in the realm of unexplained no matter what it is, they will jump to conclusions and that conclusion won't be extraterrestrial that's for sure.

When a debunker see a ufo thread it's like they get this urge to just jump in blind with out looking at anything and DEBUNK it right away regardless of how silly their explanations is.

So i ask all of you debunkers, what is your grudge against the unknown?



[edit on 5-4-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by NephraTari
NASA is NOT the the definition of credibility. At least not in this day and age. I have seen images on their official website that have been quite obviously altered to cover up something they don't want us to see.
[edit on 5-4-2007 by NephraTari]

So you're quite comfortable slandering a very large group of professionals and collaborators based on your assumptions and comically flimsy evidence? How do you make sense out of the proposition that "they don't want us to see things", with, they have "obviously altered images on their official website?"

I have seen nothing, offered as evidence in support of that position, that can withstand serious critical analysis.

And once more, before the lame flames, generalizations, and assumptions start flying, YES, I agree, there are very odd and bizarre artifacts in many images from space. I would also like to know what they are.

Firstly. I find your response angry without cause.
I say exactly what I mean. I have browsed images on the OFFICIAL nasa website and found images where there were obvious copy paste of a portion of terrain over an area that didn't fit. some areas were blurred with the same look you get from photoshops blur tool. It was almost insulting that they did this thinking that people were so ignorant that they could not tell when something was edited.
I do not have a link to the exact images that I saw this on but I am sure if I had the time to poor over them for hours I could find them again. Although I do believe that some of them are linked somewhere here on ATS if I am not mistaken in memory.


one more thing, you say I am making an assumption when I state that these things are covering something they they dont want us to see but by logic alone you must deduct that if someone covers something the purpose is so that you do not see it.
I dont understand your argument.



[edit on 5-4-2007 by NephraTari]

Originally posted by MrPenny

So you're quite comfortable slandering a very large group of professionals and collaborators based on your assumptions and comically flimsy evidence? How do you make sense out of the proposition that "they don't want us to see things", with, they have "obviously altered images on their official website?"

I can't answer for NT but as for me the answer is "Yes". I am very comfortable slandering (although you have used the wrong word here as slander is 'spoken'. What you probably mean is libel which is written). Check the dictionary you'll see what I mean.

But yes, I would be comfortable with slandering and libeling the very large group of professionals and collaborators (such an appropriate word, thanks) based on the evidence we have seen here.

And I would assume that you are calling 'exposing the airbrushing and over contrasting of 90% of all the photos from space and substituting bogus data for real data' slander and/or libel.

Yes. Comfortable I am! Thanks MrPenny for your 2 cents worth. It was worth every penny.

Originally posted by NephraTari
obvious copy paste of a portion of terrain over an area that didn't fit. some areas were blurred with the same look you get from photoshops blur tool.

Yes, I do get annoyed. I, and others here are accused of being 'closed minded'....while others post tripe like 'obvious copy paste'....when there is nothing obviously copy/paste about it other than your assumption.

one more thing, you say I am making an assumption when I state that these things are covering something they they dont want us to see but by logic alone you must deduct that if someone covers something the purpose is so that you do not see it.
I dont understand your argument.

For cryin' out loud.....in this context, your "someone covers something" is an assumption. Commiting the error over and over again doesn't make it O.K.

Oh to hell with it.

Your right John, libel is written, slander is spoken. And you sir, admit your willingness to commit both. A hero indeed.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by johnlear
Here is one of the towers sticking out of Apollo 16.

Wow that really looks like some sort of tower, doesn´t look like impact craters because they arn´t round shaped like in the excellent example pictures which were posted.