Nasa forgets to smudge out an anomaly on the Moon

reply to post by Phage


Obviously, that's one o'them banked curves....like on my HO-scale car race set!

Think they have 'em all over Utah......
~~~~~

(Insert favorite "Utah" joke here:_________)

[edit on 12 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a8e90bf2c17.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 8/12/2010 by Phage]

Cool i was hoping you could of provided a birds eye view the same as the moon/dust pic in question that would of been logical and i would of given you full marks, lol that would of made better sence, ideally i was hoping you could of found another picture of the same type of dust with a shadow thats been warped on earth or mars or the moon any picture for that matter showing the same, just show one out of the billions at you finger tips, i found loads, "the same claimed issue from Nasa about it being dust" which look nothing alike and blurred, you really can't mistake them for anything else,

All we need to do is find ONE identical picture of dust in/on the camera/lense just one, and then we can put it in the hoax section, (And before this picture was taken) obviously... i find it hard to believe we can't, out of the millions of cameras on the planet & the thousands & thousands of Nasa pics with the same explanation, (can you explain this?) are we looking at some new form of dust or a completely new & previously unknown problem with dust in/on camera/lenses?.

I bet there has been more dust on a camera/lense INSIDE & OUT! than there has been pictures of cars taken world wide, FIND ME DUST CASTING A SHADOW ON ANYTHING!!! other than that i cannot alow myself to logically believe this is just dust, I'll keep looking too. But I'm pretty sure if this is indeed DUST in the camera NASA & the billions of people worldwide would have had the same problem at some point in the past and we would be able to find exactly the same thing in other pictures,

Can you please find me a picture of a car, going over a bridge, weather - raining, - color of car - red, nice wheels, has to be sporty too... which should be easyer to find right we could do the same thing with literally anything yes? a picture with thos requirements & credentials,

If i asked for that, and you provided me with a picture close to that i described everything matched... But only one problem, its a bus but everything else is right, id ask you to look again. and if you tryed to convince me it was a car i probably laugh too, im asking you to look again Phage. im asking for IDENTICAL DUST IN A CAMERA WITH A SHADOW, FROM A BIRDSEYE VIEW FROM THE MILLIONS & MILLION OF DUST PICTURES AVALIBLE TO YOU! NOT A ROAD WARPING FROM A SIDE ON VEIW WITH NO DUST!

Just put it to bed with 100% cast iron proof its dust other than a half reasonable explanations which don't add up & silly speculation, this forum is not a newspaper its neither a national news station, people don't come here to listern to that because they do not believe the official statements from there government & Nasa in the first, WHICH IS ALWAYS echo by yours truely, So it shouldn't be that hard since dust is everywhere should it? and you have a camera don't you?, can you recreat it? if your so sure you know how this happend, that means you know exactly how to go about recreating it right?, And we have all seen you try this before with atempts at debunking UFO pictures, it really should't be a problem for you at all, if its that hard a drawing will do LOL

Just give me a identical dust picture & maybe you can ask the rest of your hurd to help, and only then will i agree,

Just to clarify, this is not a rant at you (tho it would seem) AND i do not believe this is a robot/humanoid of sorts, i do not believe its dust, i don't know what it is right now... i just want to find out im in the right place i think, but to me right now, it looks more like the first than the last,

Respectfully

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

There is no shadow being cast on the surface of the moon. The dust is in the camera.

Look at the original images I posted on the first page. The "object" is exactly the same in each of them. The object has exactly the same orientation in each of them. The object is in exactly the same place on each of the original frames. If you bothered to look you would know that but you are apparently too lazy to do so, even to try an prove me wrong.

Look at the image I posted on page 3. The lighting is completely different but the "object" looks exactly the same. The "shadow" is exactly the same.

There is nothing on the surface of the Moon. There is no shadow on the surface of the Moon. There is debris inside the camera which appears on every single frame. How it looks when it is projected by Google Earth is completely irrelevant. Look at the original images, not the ones Google has manipulated.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by Phage]

Phage, why do you spend so much time in this kindergarten?
Are you some NASA employee hired to kill the stupid conspiracies in here?
Or maybe you do it for personal gain? I like your posts, but I don't understand why anyone would waste their time doing what you do.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

There is no shadow being cast on the surface of the moon. The dust is in the camera.

Look at the original images I posted on the first page. The "object" is exactly the same in each of them. The object has exactly the same orientation in each of them. The object is in exactly the same place on each of the original frames. If you bothered to look you would know that but you are apparently too lazy to do so, even to try an prove me wrong.

Look at the image I posted on page 3. The lighting is completely different but the "object" looks exactly the same. The "shadow" is exactly the same.

There is nothing on the surface of the Moon. There is no shadow on the surface of the Moon. There is debris inside the camera which appears on every single frame. How it looks when it is projected by Google Earth is completely irrelevant. Look at the original images, not the ones Google has manipulated.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by Phage]

Yes i know i have seen it, i have seen all the pictures in this thread & know which was first & last, so im not going to get tangled up in other intentionally reapeated Nasa pics with you also keep repeating, i'm trying to make a point but you already kew that,

Can you show me other pictures of dust like the dust pic Nasa put out, even after the Airbrushing Fail... just some more identical dust on/in a camera, again "other than this run of Nasa pics" all dust looks the same this is why its not dust, if i said i see a UFO and posted a picture, someone may identify it as a plane and its no longer a UFO, and then said person admits its a plane, you see where im going with this?

It doesn't look remotely like dust on the lense therefore regardless of your repeated Nasa explanations for 20 pages, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU EITHER you have proved nothing other than provide a easy to believe option for people who don't care,

Come on knock it out the park i want a dust picture im not as easy & gullible as the rest of the hurd of sheep

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
It doesn't look remotely like dust on the lense therefore regardless of your repeated Nasa explanations for 20 pages, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU EITHER you have proved nothing other than provide a easy to believe option for people who don't care,

No one is saying it's on the lens; these cameras had reseau plates directly in front of the film that could collect debris, especially as static charge built up on the plate; you can see evidence of this static as discharge events occured in some of the pictures. What we're talking about here is debris internal in the camera, not on the outside of the lens.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
It doesn't look remotely like dust on the lense therefore regardless of your repeated Nasa explanations for 20 pages, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU EITHER you have proved nothing other than provide a easy to believe option for people who don't care,

No one is saying it's on the lens; these cameras had reseau plates directly in front of the film that could collect debris, especially as static charge built up on the plate; you can see evidence of this static as discharge events occured in some of the pictures. What we're talking about here is debris internal in the camera, not on the outside of the lens.

I know what your both saying, but its not the first time its ever happend is it?

I don't see any other pictures of the same problem looking like this, logic tells you if it doesn't look like a car, it probably isan't.

I would just like to see a picture thats identical of this problem that has happened a million times allready, but the problem is every other looks the same as each other and this doesn't, its the most logical & simple way we can go about proving its dust or its on the moon is it not?

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

If you haven't seen other pictures then you didn't look at the other threads and you didn't bother looking at the original images. I you had, there are many other examples which you would have seen
Here's another: Here's what it looks like when Google is finished with it.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ac7a8fb6a78a.jpg[/atsimg]
Giant Moon bug?

I'll help with an animation of from these four images, in 4 different locations. Different looking, but still dust.
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
apollo.sese.asu.edu...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d84fa289706e.gif[/atsimg]

Yes, the appearance changes a bit when the brightness of the background changes.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

There is no shadow being cast on the surface of the moon. The dust is in the camera.

Look at the original images I posted on the first page. The "object" is exactly the same in each of them. The object has exactly the same orientation in each of them. The object is in exactly the same place on each of the original frames. If you bothered to look you would know that but you are apparently too lazy to do so, even to try an prove me wrong.

Look at the image I posted on page 3. The lighting is completely different but the "object" looks exactly the same. The "shadow" is exactly the same.

There is nothing on the surface of the Moon. There is no shadow on the surface of the Moon. There is debris inside the camera which appears on every single frame. How it looks when it is projected by Google Earth is completely irrelevant. Look at the original images, not the ones Google has manipulated.

[edit on 8/12/2010 by Phage]

I have been thinking about what you said about the artefact being dust and in other images. Well if this was the case then every frame that was taken would also have this artefact and the surface of the moon would like the terracotta army in China!

The strip of images were all taken by the same camera yet only this frame has the artefact. So even though you posted other images which you claim show that the DUST is always in the same place you must be claiming that the DUST was there one minute fell off the lens and then returned the the exact same position for later pictures?

reply to post by Phage


exactly it doesn't look like dust outside or inside the camera does it but this one above does and this is my point, it does and never would look like its on the surface of the moon... and why not? forget the shape even if it looked the shape of a donkey...

Where is the shadow? & its not symmetrical either no symmetry like the object in question which is from the shadow of course, didn't you say it was a shadow on the film? well then wheres the shadow on that one to?

Just look at the difference, this object (the one below/original) is in the same contrast & brightness as its surrounding on the moon, your new pictures "above" of apparentely the same thing does not have that shader effect, suggesting its not under the same conditions as on the moon and not on the surface of the moon, anyone in graphics & design with a know how in making things look real to belong in there surroundings would & could tell you this, its res is much better & clearly defined because its closer to the lense, its not being distorted by glare/distance, we do not see the same shade of black in the moon shadows/creaters as the object in question and to yours above,

now look at them both very carefully again... does dust blend into its surroundings in pictures when its in/on camera & have a symmetrical shadow???

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c36933e6ae76.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/62f5e3a5aee0.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c265edc63adb.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1bfe9f31c8cb.png[/atsimg]

No No it does not

[edit on 14-8-2010 by BRITWARRIOR]

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Sat Aug 14 2010 by Jbird]

reply to post by theregonnakillme

Did you not see the other frames I posted with the dust in them? Did you not see the other images from Google Moon which I posted in which it appears? There are 2,148 images from Apollo 15. It is visible in every one of the original images (which I looked at) which has a light background in that location of the frame. I told you the source of the images so you could look for your self. But you didn't. You didn't do any research, you just said "No. It can't be dust." Don't use Google Moon. Google manipulates the images to fit the terrain and also fiddles with the contrast and brightness levels. Google overlaps images. Google selects one of several images which cover the same terrain. Go to the source of the images, Arizona State University. See if you can find an image in which it does not appear.


Now, if you would bother to download the "Large PNG" files you will find that particular piece of dust at pixel location 4230,2620 in each frame. You can use the online viewer if you don't want to download the images but you won't get the pixel coordinates that way. If you don't do that, then don't call yourself a "researcher". Researchers look at everything they can find. Researchers go to the original source whenever possible. Then, if you still think it can't be dust, at least you won't be arguing from a point of ignorance.


[edit on 8/14/2010 by Phage]

[edit on 8/14/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
...I have been thinking about what you said about the artefact being dust and in other images. Well if this was the case then every frame that was taken would also have this artefact and the surface of the moon would like the terracotta army in China!

The strip of images were all taken by the same camera yet only this frame has the artefact. So even though you posted other images which you claim show that the DUST is always in the same place you must be claiming that the DUST was there one minute fell off the lens and then returned the the exact same position for later pictures?

After Phage made the observation that the dust is in all of the Apollo 15 Metric Camera images, I looked at a few dozen of those images to confirm Phage's observation -- and that spec was in every one of those images at the same location (at least all of the images for which the background is light enough for the spec to be visible).

Granted, I did not look at all 2000+ images, but only a sampling that ranged across all of the images. Can you please tell me the specific image sequence you are talking about in which the dust is there/not there/then there again? That would be easier for us rather than if we were to look at all of them.

[edit on 8/14/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Of course I did!

I took screen shots from Google Moon not a NASA website. If the camera that took the image as used on Google Moon had dust on it, then every frame used on Google Moon would also have that artifact! The entire surrounding area has NO similar artifacts which means the frames used either did not have the piece of dust on it or they were altered. Your theory that all the shots have this artifact would be supported if EVERY frame as used on Google Moon had this artifact which they do not. if they went to the bother of removing them for the other frames then they would have also done it for this one.

The image you posted in an animation (looks like a hole in the ground in some images) clearly is either bad data or a foreign object on lens or inside the camera! if you told me that was DUST, I would be debating on your side. The images I posted are very clearly a totally different situation, and can never be claimed to be dust. You actually proved a point I made in an earlier reply that dust/object would show up as a solid mass of pixels on a negative, which is exactly what your posted images show. Mine show a complex shape with depth that is not anywhere near the camera.

[edit on 14/8/2010 by theregonnakillme]

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
I took screen shots from Google Moon not a NASA website.
[edit on 14/8/2010 by theregonnakillme]

That would only work if each frame of Google Moon = 1 picture from the Apollo 15 metric Camera (which it does not).

As Phage mentioned, even on the Arizona State Unisersity website, the inly way to get the full images in single image files is by downloading the png file. Even the ASU viewer -- just like Google Maps -- breaks up each original image into a mosaic of smaller image files.

I imagine this may be done to allow for faster page loading when zooming in -- i.e., only the visible parts of the image need to load rather than the WHOLE image

The bottom line is this:
One frame from Google Moon does not equal one Apollo 15 picture.

reply to post by theregonnakillme

Why use Google Moon? Google used the images from Arizona State University. They don't have some special access. You can see right on the copyright stamp on each Google image; ASU.

Look at the original images. For every area of the Moon imaged, there are several images from the metric camera which cover it. Google does not use every image, they select an image of a given area. They then select an image for the adjacent area of their mosaic. Sometimes when the two images overlap the artifact is covered by the overlap, sometimes not. It depends on which images are selected and which part of the image is used. Do you know where the overlaps are on Google Moon? And I did show you examples of where the artifact is repeated.

Here are 1155 (with artifact) and 1156 (without artifact). Notice the slight change in parallax as the CM moves over the Moon. 1156 was taken 24 seconds after 1155.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f29b3af72179.gif[/atsimg]

So where did the artifact go in 1156. It's right here, the exact distance to the west which the CM has moved across the surface. Notice the faint grid cross to the upper left of the artifact. Like the cross, the artifact is associated with the camera, not the surface.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5aebfc6a8e17.gif[/atsimg]


And with that I'm finished. Either you understand or you don't. Either you think that every one of the images was cut and pasted with your robot or you understand what you are looking at. It is dust inside the camera. The "shadow" does not change with the angle of the sun. It is in exactly the same location in each frame.

[edit on 8/14/2010 by Phage]

Sweet mother, this is the gold rush of the moon! AWESOME find! I'm definitely saving this!

Definatly interesting, an object with a clear shadow - possibly humanoid. Have you got any idea of the scale?

reply to post by Havick007

Have you got any idea of the scale?

Difficult to say...a few millimeters, at best?

Oh...wait!! You think this is a real "thing", photographed on the Moon's surface?

Well...if one wished to go down that road, one could estimate its apparent "size" by comparing to known selenogical markers in the photos, such as crater diameters, and so forth.

Off-hand, based on that assumption, the "thing" would have to be many, many many kilometers in size....length, width, etc.

Odd, though, that something like that hasn't been noticed by thousands of amateur astronomers, with their backyard telesocpes, eh? Oh, right....that's because, it doesn't exist!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Are you saying it's fake?? It doesnt look fake but yeah hard to say. If it is in the order of kms in size then yeah could be anything from a rock formation to a monolith but yeah hard to say with only one photo of area and limited data provided

reply to post by Havick007


No....I am NOT saying it's "fake"....I happened to have read through this entire thread, all ten pages, and know what "IT" is....it is something IN THE CAMERA...dust, debris. something small (since it's so close to the film's plane of exposure).

It has been thoroughly explained in thread (heck, might even be a piece of therad ( ).....

It is NOT a photograph of something on the surface of the Moon......