Nasa forgets to smudge out an anomaly on the Moon

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by theregonnakillme

And, Phage, i would draw your attention to the fact that while a speck of dirt is the most obvious answer in THIS case, NASA has a long history of LYING, they just can't seem to tell the truth. Ever. (Never A Straight Answer)

So, NASA is telling the truth in this case, even though they NEVER give a straight answer, never tell the truth.

Except this time.

Which means you shouldn't use hyperbole like "never." It just looks silly in context.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0e3377e9d4a9.jpg[/atsimg]

It DOES look like someone standing there.. it looks wierd because the shadow mixes with the feet. But it definitly looks like someone, or something.. perhaps an astronaut?

It DOES look like someone standing there.. it looks wierd because the shadow mixes with the feet. But it definitly looks like someone, or something.. perhaps an astronaut?

btw, sorry for the double post, my internet connection failed, and I thought the message wasn`t sent. sry again.
feel free to delete it.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, what is the distance from the 'cough cough' dust to the camera? Miles? How many? I'm asking because they same people you are taking your info from are using particle arguments to send a probe to Pluto to save it's reputation by proving Pluto has dust rings 'you cannot see with the naked eye'! So, lets just look at it this way, you go shoot some dust bunnies and lets see what you get. Wait for it - from a plane 35000 feet up. You get the dust bunny, you got my vote.

Wot no giant robot footprints?
film artefact

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Zouler
It DOES look like someone standing there.. it looks wierd because the shadow mixes with the feet. But it definitly looks like someone, or something.. perhaps an astronaut?

Isn't this an aerial shot?!
So how could it look like someone standing there?
Wouldn't someone standing there look similar to this perspective?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99d13ced0661.jpg[/atsimg]

Instead we have this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29afd262834c.jpg[/atsimg]

So are we to assume this robot is trekking the terrain while laying on his
back?

Or is he just laying down making dust angels?!

If that were a "robot," it would be in the neighborhood of 500 feet tall.

reply to post by m0r1arty


While your explanation makes total sense, and I do believe it. I also foster the opinion that if NASA were photographing space robots, wouldn't they intentionally center the camera on the object they're photographing? Which is why its center frame every time.

Originally posted by nataylor
If that were a "robot," it would be in the neighborhood of 500 feet tall.

And laying down dead or napping.

Originally posted by Phage
"Ok. Here is where your "robot" came from."

"Here he is in the image before that one"

"Here he is on the image after that one."

This just clearly shows that the robot moves with great speed!

reply to post by dbloch7986

It is not centered in the frame. It is centered in the crops I posted. It actually appears near the upper left corner of the original images.

reply to post by Phage


Oh ok. Well then space dust it is. Thanks for the explanation and embedding the photos.

To OP thanks for the thread too. I'm always interested in this stuff.

Did anyone read my post about it being a shadow of the satellite that is taking pictures of the moon?

Its not real, but if it was it would be an amazingly large robot.

Originally posted by dbloch7986
reply to post by Phage

 

Oh ok. Well then space dust it is. Thanks for the explanation and embedding the photos.

To OP thanks for the thread too. I'm always interested in this stuff.

No -- not space dust.
Rather, it could be dust on the scanner that was used to digitize these photo prints or on the negative itself.


EDIT TO ADD:
I see Phage is saying below that the dust could be in the camera... I suppose if these photos were NOT scanned images of printed photos, then it could have been on the camera.



[edit on 8/10/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by dbloch7986

Nope. Not space dust either. Earth dust inside the camera.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8/10/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by playswithmachines
And, Phage, i would draw your attention to the fact that while a speck of dirt is the most obvious answer in THIS case, NASA has a long history of LYING, they just can't seem to tell the truth. Ever. (Never A Straight Answer)

By "lying", an "inability to tell the truth" and "Never A Straight Answer" you mean that NASA is not giving you the predetermined answers you want, so therefore they must be lying.

Come on already - off with this nonsense!

Do you REALLY REALLY think that NASA would "forget" to edit a pic????

Jeez...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dbloch7986

 

Nope. Not space dust either. Earth dust inside the camera.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8/10/2010 by Phage]

I suppose all those NASA pics with large images that have been "air brushed" out are nothing more than petroleum jelly the NASA tech was using to get the camera in place before lanuch. Right?
...