Moon cities buildings evident near Tycho crater.

Can anyone provide a current working link to Chang'e 2's full moon image? Its around 800GB all in.

([[I see pixels.]])

Better resolution would make it undeniable rocks or undeniable structures.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

It's not BLURRED out it hasn't been taken at the highest res possible so when an adjacent image is at a higher res the other appears pixilated.

Do you have any links with this explanation?

Of course I do I posted it a few posts up!

Look for Youself


Click on the link zoom in and move around the scale is shown on bottom left move about zoom in and out and you will see it happen, not all the Moon has been pictured at 50cm/ pixel yet.

DiskDoktor
Can anyone provide a current working link to Chang'e 2's full moon image? Its around 800GB all in.

Why ?

The photos have a resolution of about 23 feet (7 meters)

reply to post by wmd_2008

Click on the link zoom in and move around the scale is shown on bottom left move about zoom in and out and you will see it happen, not all the Moon has been pictured at 50cm/ pixel yet.

I don't need a link to lroc quick map, genious, how do you think I obtained the pic I posted previously.
For the moment I thought you were serious how you did explain the process of taking images on LROC.
Now, this is ridicilous.

You said:

it hasn't been taken at the highest res possible so when an adjacent image is at a higher res the other appears pixilated.

I'll ask you again, can you post any official links describing what you said in the quote above?

Don't know about those images. There is definitely structures on the moon though and also Mercury like these:

I can clearly see the structures eventhough the image quality is terrible. There is lots of blur added intentionally as noise. You wont get any high quality images from the never a straight answer agency that has actual artifacts. Such pictures would be classified extremely high.

Thanks for the thread OP! star and flag for you.

EarthCitizen07
I can clearly see the structures eventhough the image quality is terrible. There is lots of blur added intentionally as noise. You wont get any high quality images from the never a straight answer agency that has actual artifacts. Such pictures would be classified extremely high.

But where exactly are you seeing the buildings, considering EVERYTHING in those pictures is so heavily-laden with compression blocking artifacts that even the boulders look like square and rectagular buildings.

I suppose I'm asking how are you discerning the boulders that simply look square (due to the image being heavy with compression blocking artifacts) from the things you are calling structures?

JadeStar

hurdygurdy

Sakrateri
Come on with the moon people already! The moon is a massive ball of dust and rock there is absolutely nothing for anyone to eat so how would anyone or anything survive there?? Nothing, Nada, Zilch, there is not one living thing on the moon.

You're kidding, right?

Jose Escamilla: Moon Rising

Jose Escamilla? The known proven hoaxer?

UFO Hall Of Shame : Jose Escamilla : Moon Rising 2012

See also this ATS thread: The implosion of "JOSE ESCAMILLA": THE UFO HOAXER

Want to know why most credible scientists stay as far away from this subject as possible? Because of crap like that.

edit on 28-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

Want to know why many people think NASA are a bunch of liars?

Because people like you give them a bad name.

Let me ask the obvious question, since you practically beg for it, is there a single alternative science figure according to you that believes in the spaceship moon theory that isnt a known hoaxer? I mean just one would suffice for now.

Otherwise I will assume, like any reasonable person, that you actually have zero interest in ufology and 100% interest in pushing the official NASA lies that every single planet and their respective moons in the solar system are inhospitable to life.

Soylent Green Is People

EarthCitizen07
I can clearly see the structures eventhough the image quality is terrible. There is lots of blur added intentionally as noise. You wont get any high quality images from the never a straight answer agency that has actual artifacts. Such pictures would be classified extremely high.

But where exactly are you seeing the buildings, considering EVERYTHING in those pictures is so heavily-laden with compression blocking artifacts that even the boulders look like square and rectagular buildings.

I suppose I'm asking how are you discerning the boulders that simply look square (due to the image being heavy with compression blocking artifacts) from the things you are calling structures?

edit on 11/28/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

There is plenty of contrast to see there is a geometric anomaly present in relation to the surroundings. I can make out pathways with square structures in that block of data.

You dont have to be an image expert to see any of this imo, just common sense and a little experience. Richard Hoagland specialises in reverse engineering crappy pictures and I got some hints from him.

reply to post by exogenesis


That could be the fusion reactor aristarchus that john lear made mention of years ago.

It does seem like a powerplant to me.

Oh God, this thread, my sides.

The one that really got me was "triangular shaped rock...hole in center " *presents pixelated blown up photo*
I swear, you guys need to learn to do your research before you post threads, because unlike 'that other site' you will get torn asunder if you can't provide a substantial argument or significant evidence. You know, how everything else works in science.

reply to post by mr10k


i don't understand your argument sorry?

winofiend
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

Roads? Why would they have roads on the moon? The cars would float. Floating cars don't need no roads.

I should know, I've seen back to the future.

Ask the Doc.

Ha ha ha brilliant.

reply to post by Sakrateri


Your theory only has merit if you consider that these residents are stranded there and have no ability
to resupply! There is one thing that the moon does have and this is the proximity to the earth and a
lack of human beings! These two things are important to ET for some reason! Why this is I do not know.
I do know that this is some good evidence for a city on the moon but only if these are indeed pictures
of the moon! I have learned to never deny anything and to never believe anything, at least not for sure!
My beliefs only come in forms of probabilities as all critical thinking beings should consider all the facts
and possibilities!

zilebeliveunknown

reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Click on the link zoom in and move around the scale is shown on bottom left move about zoom in and out and you will see it happen, not all the Moon has been pictured at 50cm/ pixel yet.

I don't need a link to lroc quick map, genious, how do you think I obtained the pic I posted previously.
For the moment I thought you were serious how you did explain the process of taking images on LROC.
Now, this is ridicilous.

You said:

it hasn't been taken at the highest res possible so when an adjacent image is at a higher res the other appears pixilated.

I'll ask you again, can you post any official links describing what you said in the quote above?

FOR tha hard of learning when you ZOOM in on the lro quickmap the scale is on the bottom left of your screen when you zoom in beyond the max res of a picture block it pixelates not all the Moon has been photographed at the max res of the lro yet if YOU are not sure how to use it look here.

LRO ACT-REACT Quickmap

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by exogenesis

 

That could be the fusion reactor aristarchus that john lear made mention of years ago.

It does seem like a powerplant to me.

Hoaxland & Lear have NOT got a clue!!!!

Say there was a civilization at one time that inhabited the moon. There would not be any surface cities.
The surface of the Moon is an unsafe place to live. Meteors of all sizes bombard it constantly, with no resistance. The Solar Wind and CME's scour it continually. The high surface temperature swings from daylight to night are enormous.

The only thing that makes sense are underground developments that can be provided with an artificial atmosphere and tunnels rather than roads. There would be a few surface features, but very minimal. Probably for antennae and portals to the sub surface. Perhaps mining operations and mounds of debris containing waste materials.

Large topical cities analogous to cities on Earth just do not make sense in a hostile environment like that . IMHO, but I would think that these would be the features to look for, not sprawled out surface cities.

I realize there is tends to be a huge amount of distrust of NASA from people who want to believe outlandish tales on this forum but ask yourself this...

Why would other space agencies like for example India's cover it up?

Besides NASA, ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), CNSA (China), and ISRO (India) have all sent probes to the moon.

India sent a probe to the moon called Chandraayan-1 which carried a sensitive Synthetic-Aperture Radar which could image the moon.

Don't you think if these pixelated rocks were actually a "city with roads" that they would have imaged them, held a press conference and the principal investigators collect a Nobel prize?

The Mini Synthetic-Aperture Radar (SAR) on the Chandraayan-1 Mission to the Moon

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Ha ha ha ha ha ... oh I love people on ATS. They make my day!