Alien Domes On The Moon? Let’s Set The Controversy to Rest!

Ok, back on "alien structure raising above surface of the moon".

Like Phage said, the big image is a composed one, from many other individual images. It is very processed. Different slices from different individual images are croped and sticked (pasted, glued) toghether. At that time i thing they (NASA) not using Photoshop techniques, but i believe mechanical (physical) or analogic TV proccesing. I don't know. But the cropping and stitcking is there.


Let me say that that anomaly is NOT something on the surface of the moon. It is nothing real there on the moon.

IT IS AN IMAGE ARTIFACT DUE TO PROCESSING ERRORS.


Now look for the crop/stick signs here:



and here bigger version:



Now..is pretty odd that "alien structures on the surface of the moon" happened to be on the croping boundaries. Why that?!?

because there are no "structures on the surface of the moon"!
This is only a positioning error in crop/stick processing activity.

For better understanding look the following image to see how i reproduced the technique:



I've just cropped one section from image 1 (red rectangle), and pasted on the image 2, with some positioning error. Now look at the "structures at the surface of the moon". It is there!

Now this is the reason that serious people not jump instantly to "extraordinary claims" from every aparently odd picture, and remain reserved, and just want to have more information to better handle the phenomenon.

lack of information = easy to imagine everything. (pareidolia)

[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 6/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
I can clearly see gigantic purple unicorns. They are so obvious to me, I have no idea why all these skeptics are missing it. I guess if you cannot see the unicorns, then saddly there is nothing to be done for you. Denying they are there is silly. Instead, try to explain what we might be seeing.

I see your jumping from one anomolie thread to the other spouting dumb arse childish comments.

If you do not see anything in these types of discussions and can not give any positive input one way or the other then why comment at all.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by Bob Down Under]

Right, my bad. I really should only comment when I completely agree with the OP. I was thinking this was a discussion board but I have no idea where I got that from.

reply to post by depthoffield

Let me say that that anomaly is NOT something on the surface of the moon. It is nothing real there on the moon.

just because you drew some lines on the picture doesn't prove there is nothing there. you may not be able prove that it's an image artifact. your opinion does not make it a factoid.

lack of information = easy to imagine everything. (pareidolia)

lack of information can also lead to easy reverse pareidolia

maybe this is more pereidolia or reverse pereidolia ?






[edit on 6-1-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike, regarding Aristarchus crater (located northwest on the near side of the moon) I think it would be good to also look at images from a source outside of NASA. The image at The Living Moon is from NASA, and I agree that the crater looks quite strange here:



But I have found two other very good images of the crater taken by the amateur astronomer Bart Declercq, and I don't see any reason to suspect that the photos have been manipulated. This is how Aristarchus looks in his images:

This photo was taken September 30, 2007 (cropped version):

bartcentral.dommel.be...

This photo is from December 21, 2007 (cropped version):

bartcentral.dommel.be...

I think that Aristarchus IS just a crater, despite the fact that the interior of the crater reflects so much light. As you know, I am a firm believer that there are features/artifacts on the moon that NASA doesn't want us to know about. But I honestly do not consider Aristarchus to be an anomaly.

(I recommend that people take the time to look at the amazing photos at Bart Deqlerc's website, it is incredible that his astropics are taken here from earth!
bartcentral.dommel.be... )

Here is also a YouTube video provided by internos

The Hubble Space Telescope was used to gather high resolution multi spectral data of the moon's Aristarchus Crater in order to investigate the possibility of potential oxygen producing minerals on the surface. Identifying such minerals could aid in planning future sustained human missions on the moon. Initial analysis of the data indicate the likely presence of titanium and iron oxides. Both these minerals could be used as oxygen sources essential for human exploration.
This visualization starts with a view of the moon as seen from Earth using a USGS Apollo derived artist rendered texture (airbrushed). The camera then zooms into the Aristarchus Crater region. Simulated topography derived from Clementine data is used for relief and high resolution HST data is used for the area of interest. After investigating Aristarchus Crater, the camera then moves over to Schroter's Valley for a brief investigation.

(Edited because some words was missing in my post, and to include video from Internos.)


[edit on 6/1/09 by ziggystar60]

Originally posted by easynow

Just that? A little denial, and no arguments? I guess you think by yourself to be a very open mind person...And, then just posting another non related to subject detail in discussion pic/movie? what's the link between the two? What's the reason to put another pic from another place? This has to be your argument?
In fact you said nothing helpful in this case of Zond 3 picture.

Have a good look again at my lines, and tell me what is wrong there.


[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by easynow


just because you drew some lines on the picture doesn't prove there is nothing there. you also can't prove that it's an image artifact. your opinion does not make it a factoid.

The "dome" does not appear in the original frames which make up the composite.

look i already know the Anomaly does not appear in the other photos.

but that does not mean the Anomaly is an image artifact. you may not be able prove it.

i have some theory's as to why it only shows up in the one. however i am not going to post them because they are only theory's and i cannot prove them just like you may not be able to prove your opinion to be a fact.

selective interpretation ? perhaps

[edit on 6-1-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
look i already know the Anomaly does not appear in the other photos.

but that does not mean the Anomaly is an image artifact. you cannot prove it.

I've just argumented a theory that confirm pretty well the cause of the anomaly.
This cause (processing artifact) has much more probability than alien theory.

can i demosntrate there is 100% processing artifact? Never.
I can show you tens of my personal photos taken in holidays or whatever, without hunting at all for UFO's, which show all kind of anomalies, which situates very well in the UFO field (the web is full of this). But they are just insects or birds. Can i prove to you they are insects/birds 100% ? No. There can be secret ships or ET spacecrafts in the sky. But beeing insects it is very very likely (an ordinary claim), and beeing "extraordinary think" is just a big improbable. The links are here, ignore the text because beeing in romanian. See only the pictures, are self-explanatory:
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...
www.freewebs.com...


Returning to Zond 3 photo in discussion here, I just found a solution that explains all the aspects in that photography, and this solution is not an extraordinary claim. In fact is very boring. Very anti sex-appeal. And not entertainmening at all. It is not in your goal I deduce.

I don't understand why defend this picture, allegedly beeing something in the surface of the moon, without any serious reason.



[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

can i demosntrate there is 100% processing artifact? Never.

thank you

I don't understand why defend this picture, allegedly beeing something in the surface of the moon, without any serious reason.

i am not defending the picture for the simple reason that it may not be possible to prove anything either way.

the point i am trying to make is things are not always as they seem and until there is 100% proof on either side of the discussion there is no reason to dismiss any possibilities about this photo.

is it a structure ? i don't know

is it a image artifact ? i don't know

this is the last post for me about this image and if you decide that it is an image artifact then great...that is ok with me.

edit to add the needed disclaimer...lol

if someone posts something further into this thread evidence that i am not aware of, that proves this is in fact an image artifact i will concede to the the obvious.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by easynow]

There are various features on the Moon that appear to be roughly dome shaped.

The question remains, however, if they can be attributed to "aliens," as opposed to natural processes such as lava upwellings, crater ejecta covering subsurface features, etc.

So far, after all these pages, I haven't seen anyone come up with any reasonable proof that these are alien structures. Of course, it might be helpful to first prove that there are in fact aliens to which we can attribute these formations. Good luck with that.

Otherwise, "they look like alien domes," is just attributing one curious unknown to another unknown. Which you all know perfectly well doesn't fly too good around here.

If you can't prove to me that aliens built these domes, then I'll have to go back to my first assumption, which is that they were built by leprechauns to mine their gold. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Nohup
If you can't prove to me that aliens built these domes, then I'll have to go back to my first assumption, which is that they were built by leprechauns to mine their gold. Prove me wrong.

Well, you weren't completely wrong...







[edit on 1/6/2009 by chapter29]

Hi Mike,

As always, love the post. As for the picture, can't say for sure it's real or a reflection and I'm no expert by far, but logic and science have always kiss one another if applied properly.

I guess the only real question to ask ones self after reviewing as much material as you have....


Do you believe there really is other species out there that are and have been observing us from afar? My answer chills me to the bone only because I've had experiences that aren't explainable at this time.

Your searching is as deep is mine is for more answers, but, how much evidence do we really need to believe?

Only other factor involded is: it is the goverment(s) in some fashion that are holding centuries old high tech from us. So far, I've ditched this theory long time ago. )

nice find my friend, I just with other photo experts would come forward and either debunk some of this or not.. it would give me a little more peace of mind.

Regarding the Kopff crater on the moon, allegedly being some kind of glass dome. (a big one).

I've found another 2 pictures, taken from Apollo orbiters:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Unfortunately, they don't reveal nothing more on that allegedly little bright crater inside the Kopff, as suppossed by Internos a little earlier here.

But now we have 5 pictures with Kopff crater, all of them showing a crater, and one of them having a bright orb (thus the "dome" speculation), but being maybe some kind of artifact in the recorded image, or maybe a little bright crater inside the big one.

We talk here: look! the glass dome. Now, where is that glass dome? (in our minds?)

[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 6/1/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by merka


merka, i did notice the brighter area too: yes, it comes from the area in question and it's a good observation . I will try to explain what did lead me to the hypothesis that what we see in Clementine images wasn't there when LO took the photo that we are using for our comparison:
the following animation is composed by:

1- LO frame

2- LO frame, in which i've outlined the network of narrow depressions inside the crater

3- Clementine UVVIS Ratio Map (which appearance is not affected by the brightness unlike the multispectral one, so the features are more discerneable)

4- Clementine UVVIS Ratio Map with the features outlined in LO image super imposed, unedited, just copied & pasted the unaltered layer.

Basically, we can compare what was visible in both images and what was only in Clementine one, in the area in question.

Please pay particular attention to the area that i've circled here:

Differences between Clementine UVVIS 'Natural' Color Composite Mosaic

and Clementine UVVIS 'False Color' or Color-Ratio Image

Clementine UVVIS 'Natural' Color Composite Mosaic

The Clementine 'natural' color composite mosaic (5 UVVIS bands available) is presented here for browsing by utilizing three of the five UVVIS multispectral bands, combined in red, green and blue channels of a color image (see table below). (Note: The composite image is not truly "natural color," but mimics natural color to the human eye.) This multispectral lunar mosaic is a radiometrically and geometrically controlled, photometrically modeled global image mosaic compiled using more than 400,000 images from multiple filter observations of the Ultraviolet/Visible (UVVIS) camera onboard the Clementine Spacecraft (Eliason et al., 1999).

Channel | Band | Description
Red | 1000 nm | Near Infrared
Green | 900 nm | Near Infrared
Blue | 415 nm | Ultraviolet

This '3-band' view is presented for browsing purposes. All five bands of the Clementine global mosaic are available when ordering data downloads of the UVVIS 'Natural Color' product.

Clementine UVVIS 'False Color' or Color-Ratio Image

The Clementine UVVIS Ratio ("false color") views of the Moon are created by creating ratio images using 3 of the 5 Clementine UVVIS camera bands and combining these into the red, green, and blue channels of a color image:

Channel | Ratio (band/band)
Red | 750 nm/415 nm
Green | 750 nm/950 nm
Blue | 414 nm/750 nm

The color ratio image product serves to cancel out the dominant brightness variations of the scene (controlled by albedo variations and topographic shading) and enhances color differences related to soil mineralogy and maturity. The lunar highlands, mostly old (~4.5 billion years) gabbroic anorthosite rocks, are depicted in shades of red (old) and blue (younger). The lunar maria (~3.9 to ~1 billion years), mostly iron-rich basaltic materials of variable titanium contents, are portrayed in shades of yellow/orange (iron-rich, lower titanium) and blue (iron-rich, higher titanium). Superimposed on and intermingled with these basic units are materials from basins and craters of various ages, ranging from the dark reds and blues of ancient basins to the bright blue crater rays of younger craters (e.g., Mcewen et al., 1999; Pieters et al., 1999).

www.mapaplanet.org...

In cases like this one, the color ratio image helps us to focus on the features, more than on their appearance: a rough observation indicates that a younger layer covered the features (narrow depressions) missing in the upper-right part of the network: as you correctly pointed out, a LO image in which the crater was illuminated from another direction would have clarified this detail once for all,

but i think that the scenario of a young formation (a recently formed crater in this case), is likely.
Either ways, everything indicates it to be a crater formed near the edge of the bigger crater, of course younger than Kopff, otherwise it would have been erased during the process of formation of Kopff: while it was thought to have been formed due to volcanic activities, now the general consensus is that it formed in consequence of an impact while the surface was still molten: but this doesn't much matter, since in both cases, a small crater laying there previously, would have been erased.

[edit on 7/1/2009 by internos]

Not that it does have a whole lot to do with credibility of these photos, but is just me, or has there been a recent rash of "scientists" coming out and candidly discussing bases on the moon. I guess I listen to a lot of space shows, not all hugely credible in my opinion, but I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this growing trend? Seriously - maybe three different shows in the past week have had people discussing this possibility without pause...

Ok, I need sleep.

hiya all at ATS . this is my first post so take it easy on me. after looking at the picture of the rectangular anomaly i noticed something i think looks more interesting but i,m new to the computer so don't know how to enlarge the photo etc. anyway in the larger moon photo with rectangular anomaly,if you put the rectangle in the bottom left hand corner of your screen then look at the crater in the middle i see something that looks interesting. what does anyone else see, thankyou

Nice, Internos, it seems this particular "glass dome" has been elucidated.
Why?
Because we have (thanks to you), more information about it. Less information = can be anything; and more information = rule out several posibilities.
Why the "glass dome" hypotesis was expected to fail by the "skeptics" before aquiring more data? Because was an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary claims, most often, will fail, after more data is acquired. Of course, it doesn't mean that all the extraordinary claims are wrong, but it means that the probability says that majority of the extraordinary claims are wrong. This is the reason wky skeptics/realists usually are in the right when they favorize the trivial/prosaic explanation. But it means, also, that the hope must never die.

reply to post by ziggystar60


Ziggy, a star for you! And an applause! That does seem to be just a crater. I wonder what zorg has to say to this?

Cheers!

reply to post by internos


Well brought out, internos - as usual! Well, I guess that settles it. But damn! I wish they could give us the 5-band versions instead of just these 3-band views which they dish out for browsing purposes.

And I don't have the time to order the 5-band mosaic data downloads of the UVVIS 'Natural Color' product! I wonder if anyone here has?

Cheers!

Interesting, I wonder if that is a indication of things in the image being edited out.