Huge Tower-Like Structure Near Copernicus!

wow,..this site is amazing..
keithlaney.net...

John, was the Apollo picture below ´photoshopped´?
this seems strange..




looks like vegetation?


( some guys in 1900 would have given something just to see what we can see now. GREAT fotos..)

[edit on 23-8-2007 by anti72]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by anti72]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by anti72]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by anti72]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by anti72]

Originally posted by Thousand
Now you can jump on these figures all you want as evidence stating how massive this alien structure truly is, but one detail is left out. How could a structure, a massive, half mile high drilling complex, not cast a shadow in a flat-bottomed, well-lit crater?

I have the NASA book titled " Exploring Space With a Camera" circa 1966 that has these pictures in them. It was given to me from a friend who purchased two identical books from a garage sale. There does seem to be some strange man made looking objects in the Copernicus crater. But the area is so large in scale that I agree, these buildings and such would have to be more than huge. I have found a sqare object and another object that seems to have two openings in the front. I'm going to try and have these pictures scanned and uploaded ASAP. But anyone can go to NASA's website and download Copernicus Crater images all you want.

Those anomolies by the horizon are just film artifacts. You can see them in Lears original photos.

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
keithlaney.net...

"Astounding!" It not only shows a big old UFO on the horizon, slightly to the lower left center, there's a huge, green pole sticking up on the side of a crater. But if you look at other versions, those things aren't there.

Wow! But some may say that's a photographic anomaly, pixellation etc. I've enlarged the portion where the pillar is. That's mind blowing!



I think there's a small shadow of that pillar towards the right, as the sun apparently is at the 11 O'clock position. But heck, it could be a dirt on the lens or dust on the pic! Occam's razor?

Cheers!

But aren´t the pics in black and white?

How can it be a green pilar if the pics are in bw?

Originally posted by Orion437
But aren´t the pics in black and white?

How can it be a green pilar if the pics are in bw?

The pillar itself isn't green. The whole pic has a false color that is showing more in that part of the image where the pillar is. One can convert an image into any color.

But hey! What is the true natural color of the Moon? John could throw some light on this!

Cheers!

I am medium red green color blind so I can't appreciate the colors of the moon that people with normal vision can. Here is a color photo of the moon taken by Galileo.

This is a strange one I think there are areas that have been edited but the one thing that has been untouched is probably natural.

Central to the image is a weird shaped rock that looks like a semi buried spacecraft.

Originally posted by sherpa

This is a strange one I think there are areas that have been edited but the one thing that has been untouched is probably natural.

Central to the image is a weird shaped rock that looks like a semi buried spacecraft.

This is a cropped, edited and airbrushed version of AS10-32-4819. The area to the lower left is "Los Angeles" or arcology row. The area with your 'weird shaped rock" is Rima Hyginus. You are looking northwest over the Mare Vaporum. In the extreme lower left there is a perfect 'square' area. Can you spot it? On top of the mountain just behind this 'yard' is where the "Crystal Palace" was found and then subsequently airbrushed out.

Hey, whats that light in the sky? No, its not earth.

That crater a little more than midway up the right hand side? Thats Manilius.

I gotta take a nap. I'll be back with more as the original of this photo held many secrets.

reply to post by johnlear


John, I thought this was a famouse one but I didn't know where the editing had taken place.

I thought there looked to have been some airbrushing done over on the horizon but it was difficult to tell.

I knew where Archeology row was but had not heard of the Crystal Palace behind the square, it's funny we have a place called Crystal Palace here in the UK only it burned down amazing since it was mostly glass and cast iron.

I have put a ring round where I think you mean.

Originally posted by sherpa

I have put a ring round where I think you mean.

The circle is where the Crystal Palace was. I think there is a photo on enterprisemission.com.

I don't what the perfectly square yard is for.

reply to post by johnlear



Yes I see, do you have a better copy of the original uncropped image ?

Hmmm, I wonder what makes Copericus crater so interesting to utilize Hubbles limited resources. Sort of telling in itself.

Has anyone heard those arguments against the possibility of some of the supposed manned Apollo missions be conducted during a period of intense excitation of the Van Allen belt?

Did we run out of pictures, am I too late?

How much could one see, if any, of these anomolies with a store-bought telescope, lets say a ~$500 dollar one?

LOL

Im curious as to what software was used to "blow this image up" or where it came from....because when I blow it up in Photoshop, the image I see is very different. It looks like someone did some editing to create something that wasnt there

Originally posted by s_barrett
Did we run out of pictures, am I too late?

How much could one see, if any, of these anomolies with a store-bought telescope, lets say a ~$500 dollar one?

Welcome to ATS s_barrett.

To be honest $500 dollars is not going to be near enough although I would not want to discourage you from a new hobby.

Aristarchus crater might just be discernable particularly if it is in one of it's bright phases, but personally unless you want to commit a lot more money than no you are not going to see any anomalies.

You have to remember it is not just money or equipment it is also time and commitment with the added vagaries of the weather so not an idea I would recommend.

reply to post by sherpa

I bet i can snag some anomolies by just letting a video camara film the apparent empty sky. Much of the commentary that goes with these outstanding UFO pictures i see(diff. sites) , is along the lines that the photographer never sees anything until the picture is developed/downloaded; perhaps they are 'vibrating' too fast for the eye to see.
There is some theory by Woodward that if a varying mass is given impulses at a high enough frequency, negative mass energy densities can be created; his derivations are based on Mach's equations.
As soon as i can get my ass off the couch, perhaps i'll rig somthing up with a cheap video recorder.

reply to post by johnlear

Mr. John Lear, what are the chances that superman's fortress of solitude was based on this crystal palace?

Originally posted by s_barrett
Did we run out of pictures, am I too late?

How much could one see, if any, of these anomolies with a store-bought telescope, lets say a ~$500 dollar one?

$500 telescope? Heck! You'd have to do much, much better than that!!

OK. Here's some calculations which will put things in perspective...

The Moon's Angular Diameter at perigee (when it is closest to the earth) = 33' 28.8" (33 min. 28.8 sec.)
Lunar Diameter in feet =11,404,199.48
Total Angular diameter in Arc Seconds = 2008.80
Lunar Surface per Arc Second = 5677.12 (ft.)
For a 10" telescope, Dawes Limit is 4.56/10 or 0.456000 Arc-Seconds.

So, the resolvable Distance with a 10" telescope is (5677.12)/(.456), or: 2588.77 ft.

The Hubble Space Telescope can resolve .005 Arc Seconds, or about 280 Feet

So, s_barrett, even with the Hubble on your patio, you may just be able to make out a football field 100 meters across on the Moon! Anything less and it's a blur. Considering you have a 10" Tscope, you'd be lucky if you can pick out any crater even a kilometer across! By the way, what's the diameter of your scope?

Cheers!