"Alien Artifacts on the Moon?" - Forbes Article Points to New Credible Crowdsourced Search for ET

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Biigs
It still surprises me that we have to suffer with fuzzy images with bad definition, yet we can build telescopes that can see other galaxies perfectly.

Why is it so hard to get some clear close ups of somthing only hundreds of thousands of miles away?!

There are plenty of clear closeups here in 50 centimeter resolution:

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

I think what he is talking about is using the Hubble telescope to search. That is what Richard Hoagland wanted and was told the moon was too bright to use the Hubble; when he pressed the issue using his NASA contacts they took some photos of a few areas he wanted but he claims they purposely did it when the sun was in a position that caused glares making the images useless. I know Hoagland is a loose cannonball but just reporting what I read.

Hubble telescope can't take pictures of the Sun - that's why they have the sunshield on the top. It can take pictures of galaxies, comets, asteroids, planets in the solar system, but the Sun and the Moon are just too bright.

originally posted by: stormcell
Hubble telescope can't take pictures of the Sun - that's why they have the sunshield on the top. It can take pictures of galaxies, comets, asteroids, planets in the solar system, but the Sun and the Moon are just too bright.

According to what I read there are filters that can darken till it lets very little light in, but as I said the source was Hoagland so it is what it is....

a reply to: JadeStar

Excellent post
S&F
let the hunting begin

This is a wonderful idea... and... umm... well... I'm going to take anomalies on nearby space objects a bit more seriously now. Certain reports via incredulous PMs are going around that that wild post in the Grey Area, by Astr0, about a break away civ that is responsible for UFO sightings, has some confirmation.

Further checking by posters who hold trust just confirms it more... stay tuned. A larger investigation is being organized. I'm not all in, but the fact certain people believe it has me wondering. No other post has garnered this level of "maybe... ."

If true, there might well be remnants littering our neighbors...

OP, I was wondering why you lead off with an image of a crater on Earth? That's a couple hours from me and is amazing to stand on the rim.
I only mention that because there are a few members that will think it is on the moon and freak out about the road, parking lot and museum!!

originally posted by: CitizenJack
a reply to: JadeStar

Good stuff here Jade. I love space and anything remotly related. I've learned a lot from you and many other when it comes to space on ATS . And I have greatly enjoyed seeing the enthusiasm from our resident anomaly hunters here on ATS and getting a glimpse of their long searches.

Its exciting to see two ends of the spectrum communicating and collaborating in a constructive way rather than bashing and aggressively dismissing each others unique opinions, knowledge , and point of view. This is what ATS is meant for !!!

Thank you to you and all the others that deliver positive, quality content that us other members can discuss and view . Keep up the good work guys cant wait to see some of the stuff this thread produces.

I need to repost YOUR post, CitizenJack.

These are the right words that miss so long time on ATS.

I can't say better.

Seems the we must return to the past to the good "zorgon" old days and to the good old "Lunar Orbiter" Images....

I nominate Arken to be chained to a desk to do all the work....wait it means you'd be cheating on Mars

originally posted by: Biigs
It still surprises me that we have to suffer with fuzzy images with bad definition, yet we can build telescopes that can see other galaxies perfectly.

Why is it so hard to get some clear close ups of somthing only hundreds of thousands of miles away?!

1. Galaxies are luminous, planets are not.
2. Even though galaxies are very, very far away, they are very, very big. So big in fact that Andromeda covers a portion of the sky 4 times larger than the moon. No planet comes even remotely close to that size.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I nominate Arken to be chained to a desk to do all the work....wait it means you'd be cheating on Mars

I accept the mission. And no I'm not cheating on Mars

Thanks mate, this quick map is great!

I have already found a secret alien base that they don't want us to see

Link to map

originally posted by: ziplock9000

originally posted by: Biigs
It still surprises me that we have to suffer with fuzzy images with bad definition, yet we can build telescopes that can see other galaxies perfectly.

Why is it so hard to get some clear close ups of somthing only hundreds of thousands of miles away?!

2. Even though galaxies are very, very far away, they are very, very big. So big in fact that Andromeda covers a portion of the sky 4 times larger than the moon. No planet comes even remotely close to that size.

I did a thread on that one www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: stormcell
Hubble telescope can't take pictures of the Sun - that's why they have the sunshield on the top. It can take pictures of galaxies, comets, asteroids, planets in the solar system, but the Sun and the Moon are just too bright.

It has taken pictures of the Moon in the past BUT it can only resolve objects around 300ft across at the distance of the Moon.

originally posted by: Arken


Seems the we must return to the past to the good "zorgon" old days and to the good old "Lunar Orbiter" Images....

Really Arken is that so you can continue using images that when YOU zoooooommm in to much as always, you will get artifacts you can colour in yellow, why don't you LEARN about the limitations of using to much zoooommmm on images!!!

i found Waldo, the wreck of the Sulaco, a vintage mcdonalds sign, the fifth beatle, Elvis, a few IRS hard drives and an Ostrich ankle on the moon.

A: I was under the impression that hubble couldn't capture the moon properly because of focal lengths, or somesuch. It's calibrated to clearly image things several trillion miles away, not right up close.

Very excited to dabble with some good quality moon shots, though i worry a little about never leaving my room again.

I suppose since this is a highly relevant thread i may also make a request, though if anyone is annoyed by my including it here could you let me know and i will delete this passage and consider making a dedicated thread about it?:
i participated in a thread several years ago [under a different name] that featured one particular fascinating lunar anomaly. My girlfriend is very interested in seeing it but i can't seem to find the thread and there is a LOT of moon to search. If anybody happens to see an object, with a trail, that - due to paradoleia or who knows what - looks a little like an alien moon lander, could you be an awesome and let us know?
you'd make a couple of crazy australian girls very happy.

a reply to: continuousThunder

Do you mean this thread? www.abovetopsecret.com...

The co-ordinates are on the image, but I haven't got time to go hunting now.

a reply to: Rob48

not that one, sorry. thank you for trying though!
it wasn't on google moon, it was on an LRO or telescope image or something.
though since whatever it is it's definitely a physical thing, one must assume it would also be on google moon, ~somewhere~...

a reply to: JadeStar

Great article. Too bad there's people who point to the LRO as proof otherwise and don't consider anything else. Had the discussion many times before on here.