NASA Moon Anomalies III - Other Peoples Work

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Gotta hand it to Disney, they're almost everywhere nowadays!!!

"That Darn Cat!"

www.imdb.com...

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Look at this strange thing on the print... No it isn't Worm-Sign.

I wonder what it is made from? Any guesses?

That is amazing - what the heck is it!? Great find!



*I wish those that on this thread that have nothing to add apart from bickering would leave. Mods?

Other similar"Anomalies" in different location




[edit on 9-1-2010 by Imagir]

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Imagir]

reply to post by Imagir


Those look exactly like the one posted by Exuberant1, only less wide.

reply to post by ArMaP


Perhaps in your infinite wisdom () you could explain why the number assigned to the photo by ?: AS-15-M-2354 - AS15-M-2354 triggers the following from Google Images: Your search - AS15-M-2354 - did not match any documents.

The same for AS-15-2354.

I should have asked the Imagir but if you know...

I prefer to look at the original source whenever possible.

Originally posted by The Shrike
Perhaps in your infinite wisdom (

) you could explain why the number assigned to the photo by ?: AS-15-M-2354 - AS15-M-2354 triggers the following from Google Images: Your search - AS15-M-2354 - did not match any documents.

Probably they are not indexed with those names as images.

Searching for those names as web pages shows some pages.

I prefer to look at the original source whenever possible.

So do I.

I suppose this is what you want:
AS15-M-2354 - thumbnail size (135 x 135 pixels)
AS15-M-2354 - small size (1.012 x 1.012 pixels)
AS15-M-2354 - medium size (4.048 x 4.048 pixels)
AS15-M-2354 - large size (16.193 x 16.193 pixels)

If you want the original size version (22.900 x 22.900 pixels) you need a program capable of reading .cub files (or just ask me ).

PS: I don't know how I can send you a 500MB PNG, but I have that photo as a PNG file, converted directly from the 22.900 x 22.900 pixels .cub image.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP

[edit]

Thanks for the links to the images. I've previously seen them but I've not been able to find the anomalies pointed out in the other photos. However, after saving AS15-M-2354 - medium size (4.048 x 4.048 pixels) to my hard drive and looking around with the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer which, as you must know, allows almost infinitesimal zooming I found a strange "anomaly" on the left edge of the photo. I took 2 640x480 photos to show it and I don't usually look at lunar photos (at least not anymore) trying to find alleged anomalies, this did catch my eye. I offer no explanations as I have no idea what could have caused this image and since there is no photo stitching visible I'm at a loss for words.

Thanks for offering to send me photos but I'll pass on it.

I placed the cursor on the left edge outside of the photo where the "anomaly" is located and which I show larger in the second photo.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75c42635cd6e.jpg[/atsimg]

I do not see any source for the shape.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce4cfb1e778d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by The Shrike


And what is the anomaly?

reply to post by The Shrike


There a lot of manufactured anomalies located in this photo. The large crater

bottom left has been constructed it is way too perfect. If you will go about 2/3

of the way upward toward the top of the photo starting point being the top part

of the large constructed crater bottom left you will see an Alien Grey face

statue. There is a half moon designed anomaly overlapping a humanoid

statue facing to the right just below and to the right near the Alien Grey

statue. ^Y^





[edit on 9-1-2010 by amari]

Originally posted by amari
The large crater bottom left has been constructed it is way too perfect.

Here you have that crater at the full resolution (from the 22.900 x 22.900 pixels image).

As it's too large to post as an image I just it as an external image.



If you can post an image showing where do you see the "Alien Grey face statue" and the "humanoid statue" I can post those areas from the large version.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by The Shrike

 

And what is the anomaly?

I wasn't as clear as I should have since I didn't mean a lunar anomaly but a photo anomaly. It's just a curiosity.

Originally posted by amari
reply to post by The Shrike

 

There a lot of manufactured anomalies located in this photo. The large crater bottom left has been constructed it is way too perfect. If you will go about 2/3 of the way upward toward the top of the photo starting point being the top part of the large constructed crater bottom left you will see an Alien Grey face statue. There is a half moon designed anomaly overlapping a humanoid statue facing to the right just below and to the right near the Alien Grey statue. ^Y^

[edit on 9-1-2010 by amari]

I do not see what you're referring to so in this case arrows would be a big help. I do not agree that the crater you mention "...has been constructed it is way too perfect." When a meteorite hits the lunar surface at a perpendicular angle it'll make a "perfect" looking crater similar to the one seen when a drop of milk hits the surface from above.

You are not the first to claim a perfect-shaped crater should be unnatural but they are natural. Fred Steckling pointed out such craters in his book "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON" claiming they looked like tube ends and could be entrances for underground hangars (Plate 53)! Another "nut" claimed on a website that crater Plato was artificial because it has a perfectly-looking flat bottom!

Above all, keep a level head.

Tycho Crater

reply to post by Imagir

I know that the most likely thing to happen is for this to be ignored once more, but I am going to say it again.

Stop using Google Earth zoomed in to exaggerated levels to try to find anomalies, that way you only find software anomalies or image artefacts.

Originally posted by ArMaP
]Stop using Google Earth zoomed in to exaggerated levels to try to find anomalies

How else do you expect them to find moon anomalies if they cannot zoom in to exaggerated levels?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by ArMaP
]Stop using Google Earth zoomed in to exaggerated levels to try to find anomalies

How else do you expect them to find moon anomalies if they cannot zoom in to exaggerated levels?

Exactly - and as we all get a little better at using our eyes, (as anyone that will spend enough time gawking at Moon imagery) - these anomalies stand out more and more. Just because one person thinks it is google compression, does not mean they are correct!

ArMap - you have yet to talk about this image: img156.imageshack.us...

I notice too many 'skeptics/debunkers' that just won't touch certain images presented, perhaps their false reality of "nothing untoward" or "ignorance is bliss" is threatened? A real humble human is one that WILL accept openly what they can not explain as an "anomaly". Their ain't that many debunkers on this site that are.

The interesting progression I have seen lately is these career debunkers - are NOT being listened to - and a more open minded and fluid ATS consciousness is evolving.

So I thank all those like this that are actually helping people such as myself understand that what I once 'thought' was maybe odd, now becomes a reality of odd. If that's the best you guys got, it affirms these are what we have been saying they are. Why? Because they JUST ARE!

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Just because one person thinks it is google compression, does not mean they are correct!

Dude, Armap is right. Google Earth/Moon sucks for anomaly hunting.

It is good for identifying areas of interest, but it isn't as good as using actual moon images.

Personally, I think Imagir and that eye of his are going to find some very interesting things once he starts using sources other than googlemoon.

It is only a matter of time before he finds a real nice high-res gem for us.


Check this out: Crystal mountains speak of moon's molten past

Crystal mountains speak of moon's molten past


SUPERMAN'S sparkling Fortress of Solitude they're not, but giant outcrops of crystals, found on the moon by India's Chandrayaan-1 probe, prove that a roiling ocean of magma once engulfed the rocky body of our satellite.

The moon is thought to have coalesced more than 4 billion years ago from the molten debris of an impact between the Earth and a Mars-sized object. Models suggest that heat from that impact, as well as from material compressing to form the moon, created a sea of magma that lasted for a few hundred million years. Heavy, iron-bearing minerals should have sunk through this magma to form the moon's mantle, while lighter, iron-poor minerals called plagioclases should have crystallised and floated to the surface.
www.newscientist.com...

Edit: The crystals are in the Orientale basin.


Turns out that data from the Clementine orbiter hinted at the presence of plagioclases in the basin back in 1994:

In 1994, the US orbiter Clementine found regions inside Orientale that seemed to be virtually iron-free, hinting at plagioclase. But Chandrayaan-1 was able to detect the light absorbed by the crystal itself. It found that the rock containing the crystal spans at least 40 kilometres and is quite pure - less than 5 per cent of it is composed of iron-rich minerals.

*Thank You Majorion for bringing this to our Attention with your update.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Exactly - and as we all get a little better at using our eyes, (as anyone that will spend enough time gawking at Moon imagery) - these anomalies stand out more and more. Just because one person thinks it is google compression, does not mean they are correct!

OK, you don't have to agree with my point of view, at least without looking at the original Kaguya photos.

Evening view (click for full size)


Morning view (click for full size)


Composite image made with the two photo, to try to show more detail
(click for full size)


Any image with an apparently higher resolution is the result of software manipulation (like resizing or resampling), and as such it will show signs of that manipulation, either by having larger pixels (a result of pixel resizing) or a more blurred look (a result of resampling).

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Just because one person thinks it is google compression, does not mean they are correct!

Then why should we accept the opinion of another person that what looks like obvious image artefacts are "Moon anomalies"?

Doesn't that system work both ways?

ArMap - you have yet to talk about this image: img156.imageshack.us...

I didn't knew that I had to talk about any photo.

Yes, it shows something strange, but something that looks like it's on the photo and not on the Moon, like all other things that get that slightly diffuse look common to translucent things on the scanner glass.

I don't have any idea of what that may be.

I notice too many 'skeptics/debunkers' that just won't touch certain images presented, perhaps their false reality of "nothing untoward" or "ignorance is bliss" is threatened? A real humble human is one that WILL accept openly what they can not explain as an "anomaly". Their ain't that many debunkers on this site that are.

First of all, I can only speak for this sceptic.

I don't "touch" some images for several reasons: I don't have the time, I don't think them interesting enough, I forgot about it, etc., but never because they threaten anything, I don't see how an image can do that.

And no, a really humble person is the one that will accept what they cannot explain as an evidence of their own ignorance. If something I do not know (like the one on that photo you talk about) appears on a photo that doesn't mean it's an anomaly (meaning that is something that is not normal on those conditions). Even if it was something on the Moon, how can I know what is and what is not normal to state that just because I do not know what it is then it must be an "anomaly"?

That's why I have said that the things that I thought were strange on Moon photos are just that, things I think are strange. I do not have enough knowledge to judge if they are anomalous or not.

So I thank all those like this that are actually helping people such as myself understand that what I once 'thought' was maybe odd, now becomes a reality of odd. If that's the best you guys got, it affirms these are what we have been saying they are. Why? Because they JUST ARE!

If you could rephrase that I could try to answer, as it is I don't understand it, sorry.

i quickly browsed through some of the footage and images here and i must say..... to anyone interested, i suggest reading Nasa: The Dark Mission

it is by hoagland/bara

im not quite sure of the overall opinion on either of these two men on this site, however, the evidence is quite shocking.....

I find one of the more shocking principles to be the fact that we bombed the moon to look for water......

why are we looking for water where, according to science, we know it doesnt exist?

Maybe something else going on there?

I watched the actual footage of the mission.....

At the very end, the man closest to the camera swivels in his chair to another man and presents him with a "high five"

The other man does not high five him, yet gives him a "are you kidding me" look..... as if the celebration may give something away......

Just a thought

Originally posted by C-Reilly
i quickly browsed through some of the footage and images here and i must say..... to anyone interested, i suggest reading Nasa: The Dark Mission
it is by hoagland/bara
im not quite sure of the overall opinion on either of these two men on this site,

Hoagland goes by Hoaxland, he makes things up all the time...

the evidence is quite shocking.....

no, the "evidence" is faked!

why are we looking for water where, according to science, we know it doesnt exist?

What makes you say that? How does science know it does not exist?