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

reply to post by mikesingh


From his book Dark Mission it says:

AS10-32-4822 - 2 images one contains the castle, the other does not.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
hmm
and from here:www.lunaranomalies.com...
"This enigmantic object from frame AS10-32-4822 is literally hanging some seven miles above the Lunar surface. This side by side comparison is from 2 different versions of the same Apollo 10 photographic frame, one obtained by Hoagland and the other by another researcher. In fact, Hoagland has now identified some nine versions of this photo in various archives around the world. Evidently part of "power winder" sequence of photo's taken by the Astronauts, this allows for posititve verification of the reality of this object. Not only does the "Castle" change position relative to the spacecraft - exactly as a real suspended object would - strange, glass-like "panes" evidently pass between the spacecraft and the "Castle". This is strong confirmation of a "glass" dome in the Sinus Medii region of the Moon. Note also in the enhanced image on the right a "cable" passing thru the tip of the "Castle". It droops under the weight of this object, precisely as a real suspension cable would. The unenhanced version on the left corroborates the cellular structure of the "Castle".

These close-ups show the highly anomalous and clearly constructed aspects of the "Castle's" composition ..."


wZn

[edit on 31-1-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by mikesingh

 

From his book Dark Mission it says:

AS10-32-4822 - 2 images one contains the castle, the other does not.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
hmm

Thanks wZn! But I don't see it in the Apollo 10 image you linked to. Can you blow up the darn image and circle the shard?

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
I don't understand why he'd prove that, of two identically numbered images, one has no 'Castle'. The image you link and is referred to at lunaranomalies has no anomalous 'castle' above the moon. Why don't they show the image that *does* show the 'castle' and just tell us that one doesn't?

There's another site that you might enjoy, if you don't already know it anomalousimages. It has the Hoagy version of the 4822 image and is clearly labelled as to where the 'castle' is to be found along with some other 'finds'. It's found right here and full screen. I'm as interested in moon bases etc as anyone else, just draw different conclusions from some

Looking at the location marked on the photo to which Kandinsky posted a link and looking at the photo on Keith Laney's site, and do not see anything there.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Looking at the location marked on the photo to which Kandinsky posted a link and looking at the photo on Keith Laney's site, and do not see anything there.

I don't think anyone sees anything there or in the other areas that Hoagy indicates in the image I linked. It appears that Hoags is the only person in possession of the alleged photo containing the 'castle'. A cynical man might mutter, 'How convenient.'

Armap, I've read a lot of your analyses of images. One of your recent posts explained how 'scratching' a photo can be used to add artifacts that appear solid and real. Is there any basis for accepting the 'castle' enlargement is from a NASA moon photo? Is it possible that it's attributed to a NASA photo but actually has no connection to the Moon? What's your conclusion on the 'Castle'?

reply to post by Kandinsky


I think that the "castle" is really from a copy of AS10-32-4822, only from a badly handled copy.

From what I can see from that image (a 15 colours GIF), it looks like the photo had already several scratches when it was scanned, and, as the "castle" is made mostly of parallel lines, I think it is a scratch in the photo, with some places where the emulsion pealed a little bit of paper creating the horizontal connections between the vertical lines.

I hope all this controversy has not been based on a 15 colours image.

reply to post by ArMaP

Yep! And what gets my goat is Hoagy's contention that the shard is hanging/suspended from a 'wire' 7 miles high! Has anyone asked him where how and what that so called 'wire' is fixed to? Strung out like a clothesline attached to two poles 7 miles tall? Holy Mackerel!!

This guy Hoagy needs to see a shrink pronto!!

Cheers!

[edit on 25-2-2009 by mikesingh]

Perhaps these are hooks they tied the tow line onto?

Yeah it's a bit hard trying to figure out alien technology and how and why it was used. Perhaps the 'ruins' are just that, and we'll never know.

Perhaps Hoagland is full of BS, I don't know. I just know what he speaks of regarding most matters on the moon and Mars seem to make more sense than any other explanation. And remember there are other moon and Mars people out there, and all say life artifacts and ruins exist on both.

I guess it truly is hard to put forward any case on the matter, due to none of us actually being there. But I still believe ruins/domes/artifacts/craft/life(?) are on both. The pictures NAZA has released, weather real or doctored or not real, show this.

wZn

reply to post by ArMaP

Thanks Armap, that makes sense. Even as a kid, the Hoagland images didn't quite look right

reply to post by ArMaP


Did you notice the FOV of Hoagy's photo is wider than Laney's?

Laney's is wider than the one posted in the image atlas.

Now I'm not saying that Hoagland is correct, but before you start popping the champagne wouldn't it be a good idea to use the same source image Hoagland used?

Granted it doesn't look good for Richard given that he doesn't even produce unmodified copies of the image.

People that don't publish their sources to allow others to vet their analysis instantly throws up a red flag. If you're so confident in your theories why do you make it so hard to prove or refute them.

reply to post by cogburn


To me the FOV looks the same, the difference is that Keith Laney's image shows a little more than the other two, they are all slightly rotated when compared between them and Image Atlas photo looks a little distorted.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

For "us humans" we can only think in "Earth Terms" for that is all that we know. We also have big egos, if we can't do, neither can anyone else. We also don't have the need for structures, miles above the Earth. Pulling 6g's would make that a task!!! We can't understand Alien Technology because we are not that advanced yet. We can only make an educated guess as to why they would string a "Castle" on cables miles above the surface of the Moon. Then, we get to thinking in Earth Terms again, and say this can't be, so therefore it is a glitch on the image. Again, our mind is earth bound, and we dismiss it. Start thinking much BIGGER. I think in this Universe the Possiblities of Impossibilities is very real and we humans are able to grasp this. Look at what we have accomplished since 2000 yrs. ago. To those people who existed then, what we have now was IMPOSSIBLE.

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Just found this:
www.disclose.tv...

go to 8:40 minutes and you will see a glass dome as clear as day.

This video is amazing.

wZn

[edit on 30-12-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

i've lost more than 13 minutes in my life watching "green horses on the walls". Clear as day.
I think Pareidolia may became soon another form of art (or is allready but i not knowing). No offence at all, please forgive, but is really a sophisticated version of playing games when i was in "nursery school", and putting some colored drops of water colour onto a sheet of paper, bending and press it, then finding butterflies, faces or other shapes.

One think to know: if what you see is lacking in information, because blurred, not-familiar, interpolated (added false information where there is not), color or contrast distorted, etc, then the brain will try to find a match in his database (experience), and this is what pareidolia is. Like in an optical recognition software, when, in case of illegibile writings, software just try to match the "unknown sign" with something in his database, and put the wrong letter.

Your "glass dome" is a crater. The glass apearance is "manufacturated" by increasing contrast, telling you "look! the glass! and then letting you pareidolizing the image. Yes, magic. I smell con-man work.

Maybe if i put the corrected orientated more natural version, (180 degree rotatiton), when indeed the nasa module survey the terrain in normal orientation as we can expect, then maybe is easy to you to see that well shaped crater. If not, wonder to the magic of glass.



[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 1/1/09 by depthoffield]

exactly. it´s just a trick of light and shadow of a blurry foto.
you can photoshop anything.
ridicilous.


I haven´t seen ANY CLEAR foto of a dome or any ´faciliy´on the moon.
not from Lear, Zorgon or Mike ´Spec Ops´Singh.
just rocks and shadows.


cheers

reply to post by anti72


I meant 8:44 (I said 8:40) - you know where it actually points to the still of a photo with the words "GLASS DOME" . (Surely you would have watched the entire video - not just 4 seconds? - a bit slack for a debunker)


full image taken off video here: i470.photobucket.com...

Thank's for reminding me to check that evidence for a clear picture of a dome (glass or plastic I don't know) - but it is a DOME and it is transparent.

wZn



[edit on 24-2-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


This is an intriguing pic. If we can only confirm the sun's direction, then it would be pretty clinching evidence!. If it's towards the East then it looks as though the sun's rays are reflecting off a convex surface. But if the sun is towards the West of the image, then needless to say it's a concave surface, meaning a crater!

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh
That's why these threads are entertaining and inconclusive, different minds see different things.The brain doesn't redeive enough information from the eyes and 'photoshops' it instead




Painting, Winter woodland, Mandelbrot or satellite photo?

The point you make about convex and concave is exactly the sticking point between those that see craters and those that see domes. It's been seen before, but it's still an effective demonstration of the point.



In the video his face is concave and convex at the same time. Imagine the thread that would make?

reply to post by Kandinsky


Kandin, first photo, satellite!

Now, gonna look at the next one....

EDIT....the 'chaplin' video, thank you for that, hadn't seen that particular one before, but similar variations.

Kandin, you likely know better than I, how the eye can fool the brain....hence, the 'Apollo Hoax' nonsense, although that is not the topic....except that it involves the Moon, and photos taken there. AND the fact that our experience on Earth, with our understanding of perspective, just doesn't translate to such an environment as the Moon.

So much of our interpretation of distance, on Earth, relies on the scattering effects of the atmospere....distant mountains look dimmer, as filtered through the atmosphere. The Moon, an almost perfect vacuum, won't provide that visual perspective that we're acustommed to.

Absence of trees, buildings, all of those 'clues' we use, here on Earth....this ALL leads to these 'hoax' theories.....not time to get into the Photography aspects, one could write a book, there!!!






[edit on 2/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

Kandin, you likely know better than I, how the eye can fool the brain....hence, the 'Apollo Hoax' nonsense, although that is not the topic....except that it involves the Moon, and photos taken there. AND the fact that our experience on Earth, with our understanding of perspective, just doesn't translate to such an environment as the Moon.

So much of our interpretation of distance, on Earth, relies on the scattering effects of the atmospere....distant mountains look dimmer, as filtered through the atmosphere. The Moon, an almost perfect vacuum, won't provide that visual perspective that we're acustommed to.

Absence of trees, buildings, all of those 'clues' we use, here on Earth....this ALL leads to these 'hoax' theories.....not time to get into the Photography aspects, one could write a book, there!!![edit on 2/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

Hello weedwhacker, I usually enjoy reading your posts You often make pretty good points on quite a few subjects. That line there, "you likely know better than I, how the eye can fool the brain..." Is that fighting talk or a compliment? I doubt very much I know any more than you. Correct answer, satellite image of Greenland coast.

I agree with your point. Familiar reference points are missing in the images we see of the craters and moon landscapes. An optional scale would be handy like we see on maps. The walking alien on Mars turned out to be a 2" outcrop of rock. I'm hoping that the Chandraayan mission starts releasing the high magnification images that are part of the program. I'm interested in science and wish they'd throw more crumbs down our way.

That Charlie Chaplin vid is a good one. When it's concave and convex simultaneously; the eyes and brain strain to make sense

reply to post by Kandinsky


So, Kandisky.....I'm more interested in your earlier post about 'domes' on the Moon.

You mention 'Controversy' (assuming it's your thread)...I don't want to 'dance' around the issue, I want eveyone to see, and form an opinion.

Firstly, this 'Appolo Hoax' nonsense, has got to stop!!!

Appollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 landed successfully.

Since this is ATS, there is a lot more controversy.....which is covered already....BUT, this idea, this thread is about 'domes' on the Moon, and we've discussed already how the Human eye can be fooled.....to think what they see is 'concave' is actually 'convex'.....done, sown to be true, and obvious.....it is a matter of perspective.

However, we should NOT ignore certain photos taken on what would be considered the 'farside', or the portion of the hemisphere of the Moon that never presents its face to the Earth.

Please, remember.....as Apollo orbited the Moon, there were certain times of communication 'blackouts', or losses of communication.....since, VHF and UHF EM bands rely on what's called 'line-of-sight'.....well, a big object like the Moon would impede the 'line-of-sight' of the VHF or UHF radio communcations.....

There is a term....'LOS', an acronym for 'Loss of Signal'.

So many NASA deniers, out there on the Internet, just have no concept of the techonolgies involved....

During the 'LOS' portion, just a dozen minutes, when the SpaceCraft was out of range of Earth, by radio.....stuff was still recorded. Of course, all trelemtry re: the orbital parameters, etc, would be sent to MC immediately upon SA.....but, just as in a modern airliner, there was a recorder, to pick up everything the astronauts said.....THIS is what's being kept secret, I think....among other things.

Apollo landed.....six times. It's the OTHER stuff that fuels the ridicululous 'Hoax' theories.......

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


no, you didn´t get me right. I´ve seen the video, but THERE IS NOTHING, ok?

take a look a the Chaplin film two posts above for the visual convex/concave problem.

no domes, no moon base. nothing.

there are no clear fotos of somehing like this. in any thread .
just rocks and shadows.

cheers


[edit on 25-2-2009 by anti72]