Uncensored NASA Moon Images!!

reply to post by easynow


Here you go, resized to 300% with cubic interpolation (using The GIMP) and with some level adjustments without loss of data.




I posted this image of the "tower" because of the other feature on the right.



As I said before, I don't see these as unnatural features, to me they look like the result of volcanic activity, but I am not a geologist.

Of course, I saw the origination date. Easily faked.

Just so you know, I would love to believe that the moon is/was inhabited.

All of the information that has been posted could have easily been photoshopped. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's all true. However, I have not seen or read any evidence that could not be faked. And, most of it looks natural, anyway.

All of these real pictures from NASA, untouched....well, we only have the word of the OP. I don't know this person. Maybe this person is a NASA physicist. Maybe this person is a hoaxer. Who knows?

What I do know is that I have very reasonable doubts. Nothing here so far has convinced me. The attacks on my intelligence is typical from people who do not want an open discussion, i.e. if you don't believe the way we do, you are stupid. My fault. I thought we were searching for the truth.

reply to post by jamamiss


Attacking your intelligence is really a bad behaviour, and one that is not accepted on ATS, but if you read the opening post you certainly noticed that what was written there was:

According to Space Imaging expert Keith Laney, in a response to the images I posted on his web site, he says:

"Those particular LO images are from Prof. Robinson's collection, he's had them online for years and years. They are uncensored. I have found scores of anomalies on them, pretty devastating too.

But try and sell it to anyone other than us!"

So what we have is the word of Mikesingh that Keith Laney said they were uncensored.

reply to post by ArMaP



Great job on those ArMaP !

i am seeing many strange things in those photo's and will have to look at them much closer to form an opinion on them. i will get back to you on that for sure.

my question to you is, where exactly is this on the far side of the Moon ? and even though Clementine photo's are not as detailed as these is it possible to post a picture from a different source that is of the same exact area ?


the moon gets very big when you try to find one small place on it !

Originally posted by jamamiss
Of course, I saw the origination date. Easily faked.

So you are saying that ASU who works on the pictures for NASA may have faked the images on their website... in which case all the 'anomalies' we are showing are thus added in by NASA

Just so you know, I would love to believe that the moon is/was inhabited.

Then you should not be so quick to make judgment calls and actually spend a little time doing research

All of the information that has been posted could have easily been photoshopped. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's all true.

Now you are contradicting yourself... If you say the images posted here 'could have been photoshopped' that means you never looked at the original sources... You obviously are unaware that ASU works with and for NASA

You are also indicating that you indeed DO see more in these posted images than just rocks..."maybe its all true" as you say

However, I have not seen or read any evidence that could not be faked. And, most of it looks natural, anyway.

Again you say MOST of it looks natural and the rest "could have been faked" So again you are accusing NASA of faking the anomalies that you just admitted you do in fact SEE...

All of these real pictures from NASA, untouched....well, we only have the word of the OP.

No the fact that they are untouched came from Keith Laney who does work with NASA on photos and from Prof Mark Robinson and his team at Arizona State University... we merely download them and clip interesting anomalies to study

I don't know this person. Maybe this person is a NASA physicist. Maybe this person is a hoaxer. Who knows?

I know... he is an ATS Conspiracy Master ( a title earned by a lot of hard work and contribution) and a member of the Pegasus team... he lives in India and owns a huge estate and can travel the world (couldn't resist that )

Who knows? Well people who take the time to research to dispel ignorance, that's who knows...

What I do know is that I have very reasonable doubts. Nothing here so far has convinced me.

Fine no problem but you came in here to look, we did not drag you here

The attacks on my intelligence is typical from people who do not want an open discussion, i.e. if you don't believe the way we do, you are stupid. My fault. I thought we were searching for the truth.

To make a comment on "Deny Ignorance" is not an attack on your intelligence... that is the motto of this forum... and discussion on the topic has been going on for many pages (and MANY threads) with presentations from both sides , except that from the skeptic side poor ArMaP is doing all the work... the rest of the non believers only use personal attacks

We ARE searching for the truth... and enjoying the hunt... but some people feel that they need to tell us our search is useless... while claiming to be 'seeking the truth' or 'wanting to believe'


[edit on 24-8-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by ArMaP
So what we have is the word of Mikesingh that Keith Laney said they were uncensored.

As I recall we also have ArMaP who has compared them to copies (larger ones 25 meg tifs) at USGS and has mentioned he sees no difference

So either both sets are 'altered' or both sets are 'uncensored'

Originally posted by easynow
my question to you is, where exactly is this on the far side of the Moon ? and even though Clementine photo's are not as detailed as these is it possible to post a picture from a different source that is of the same exact area ?

You can go here...
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

There you will find a map of where each LO Mission flew and image numbers to match location...

Then pick the coordinates of lat and long and enter them into the NAVY Clementine mapper
Version 1.5 (easy to use)
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...
Wersion 2.0 (harder to use0
www.nrl.navy.mil...

If your familiar with the moons surface you can just visually compare and pick a spot at Clementine with the mouse and zoom in

If you have a high speed modem I would suggest you save a copy of the full size color map at ASU FARSIDE NEARSIDE and GLOBAL

Warning they are 60 megs and larger but well worth it to any LUNATIC

ser.sese.asu.edu...

One crater on those color maps has this....



That gives you a sample of how big the whole file is

And on Mare Crisium where the famous glass dome is supposed to be according to Hoagland, John and many others (that's why its the 'famous' glass dome ) there is this... on the exact location of the 'dome'




[edit on 24-8-2008 by zorgon]

I am not implying that NASA faked photos. But hoaxers can and do fake them. The very fact that Mike Singh is a conspiracy master makes me doubt even more. Have you seen all his threads? To me, he seems fairly fanatical.

No. I do not see any buildings. I only see rocks and shadows. Also, possible volcanic activityfrom long ago. I do see some pictures that have been airbrushed. Supposedly by NASA. First of all, being airbrushed, I am unable to tell what is behind them. Secondly, I do not KNOW NASA airbrushed these. Someone else may have done it.

But I do believe that you really believe all this. I just don't. Too many other, simpler explanantions.

Keith Laney has a fancy website. He is a master imager. Do I think he is faking all this? Actually, no. To me, he honestly interprets images as he sees them, as a believer, not a skeptic. I am a skeptic.

reply to post by zorgon


thanks Zorgon for that info and i will try to find it.

last time i tried to find an exact location on the Moon i spent two day's looking and never was able to pinpoint the spot. wish i was better with the co-ordinates part of it.

anyhoo i will give it a go and see what i find. thanks again

edit to add...that kinda of a download would probably blow this old Dell up

[edit on 24-8-2008 by easynow]

i dont know if its been mentioned but what if they already sent during the 20s some sort of "droids" over there to build
structures as domes tubes that became towers and sqare housings such as warehouses and living quarters,

i recall some of thouse earlie nasa ideas of moon populating not being that expencive , only in the regions of millions,

now these links below are only ref material for the " idea of " from our modern way of seeing things ,
i tend to belive that all this was thinkable years before the 60´s and even 2000.

findarticles.com...
technology.newscientist.com...
www.engadget.com...

we who are not envolved tend to hear about these toys when they are already old.

Originally posted by zerbot565
already sent during the 20s some sort of "droids" over there to build
structures as domes tubes that became towers and sqare housings such as warehouses and living quarters,

Well I cannot address the 20's though in the late 1800's there were several articles in the newspaper about colonies on the moon, supported by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (inventor of the liquid fuel rocket) and Johan Hansen, a respected astronomer of the Royal Society... He was the one that proposed the atmosphere on one side theory that John speaks about... and it was accepted at the time... there are scientific papers on this and the gravity being off center..

It was Simon Newcomb of the US NAVAL Observatory that 'squashed all that... So almost 50 years before even NACA was created the NAVY was already involved with the Moon and space

we who are not envolved tend to hear about these toys when they are already old.

Simple solution to that BECOME INVOLVED I did and now I know...
I presented two years ago the Triangle Craft with Plasma actuators instead of ailerons being develpoed by the AFRL... and that was on a public press release site... and still people call them 'Alien UFO's

Originally posted by jamamissI am a skeptic.

This is not in doubt... Being a skeptic is fine but at least be sure of the source of the images before commenting that they are photoshopped or the presenter is a fanatic


[edit on 24-8-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zerbot565
we who are not envolved tend to hear about these toys when they are already old.

One thing on robots...

Look at the new robot arm on ISS Dextre...
Look at the Russian Progress cargo ships ... robotic they can undock and land in three and a half hours... the shuttle takes days
Look at the ESA 'Jules Verne' Fully automatic with AI 'learn' capability

Lego made this 'toy' for the kids on Mars... Its being promoted by the RUSSIANS because NASA has a 'no commercial' policy



Look at the company statement regarding these 'toys' I am willing to bet you won't see these at Toys-R-Us...

"The Lego Company, being active in the non space area, in co-operation with Intospace, a space industry service provider, developed a space education project aimed at developing, launching and operating a Lego Robot on the Space Station. This series is a highly sophisticated assembly set with programmable microchips and advanced reaction systems such as light-, touch or rotational sensors. The space environment of the ISS was perceived as the right scenario for this hi-tech project."

Toy my a....

A Lego Robot on the ISS: Chronicles of a Successful Space Outreach Programme
adsabs.harvard.edu...

You will notice it says Space 'Outreach' Programme

If you want to get 'involved' and learn about the 'toys' use that hint as a starting point... if you get stuck U2U me... but at least try

[edit on 24-8-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by easynow


I often see faces grouped together looking at camera,when there seems to beno logical explanation. You would think that Moon pics would be devoid of faces.Sure I turned the pic upside down....but faces? What gives? I look for symetry,and that pic is loaded with symetry every way you turn it.One part looks like a big 3 finger/one thumb hand. Sure everyone says I see things that aren't there.Yet I think I'm way ahead of the pack in seeing things before most others. That makes it harder to discount what others see that I can't see.So I'm more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait awhile for afew trials to see if I can later figure out what they are seeing. These facesare fuzzy and i have very little explanation.

reply to post by easynow


The images I posted above are from image lo5-125-h2a, and as the ASU site has the location for that image, latitude: -42.9°, longitude: -11.7°, you can use it to find the place in other sources.

Using NASA Worldwind (I think it's the best way of finding things on the Moon and it uses the Clementine data set) I could see that that place had a crater, and using the Lunar Orbiter Photo Gallery for image lo5-125 it shows the same crater, Tycho.

The high resolution image (in this case h2) is from the inside of the crater, more or less where the red rectangle is.

i found some images i think havent been posted if they have i apologise im still pretty new and haven had tim eto go though every single moon pic thread just yet it may be nothing but hey i found it weird

i got the pictures from this site
www.keithlaney.net...


here are the marked areas to take a look at


close up for red square on the left with a blue glow in it



close up on square on the right with a metallic looking cog or disc that look to be poking out of the long dust covered rock object in the middle of the picture



well thats what i found but on a later immage from the same site
www.keithlaney.net... the blue glow has gone but you can just make out the metallic object

enjoy

Originally posted by jamamiss
I think they are rocks for the simple reason that they look like rocks and /or shadows. One truism in science (and life) is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanantion.
...

I agree with jamamiss here, the tracks are the only thing I see here that are strange, otherwise I also only see rocks and natural formations, sorry. I also is not convinced that these are uncensored, this is purely speculation until someone can find a censored lunar orbiter image and compare it to an uncensored one, imho the word "uncensored" is only used in this thread to make it more popular and sensational.

A great find, I could spend hours looking at these. The "anomalies" are interesting; without more evidence, I'd put most down as geological formations.

The tracks, though, need explaining: the chances of them being natural are pretty small. Can the Lunakhod be completely ruled out?

reply to post by Veritas76


Yes, these photos are from 1966 and 1967, Lunokhod 1 was sent to the Moon in 1970.

reply to post by Amitsumikaboshi


Those blue marks are relatively common on the Apollo photos, and I don't see what do you mean by "metallic object", nothing looks like metal in that image.

Hi! I just want to post on 33!!!!!!

Yay! Mike Bara and Richard C. Hoagland!


Ghia