Would you skeptics care to explain these photos of the moon?

Link 1: www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Link 2: www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

And please don't say they were camera glitches. That excuse is so ridiculous.

Thanks.

Well I wouldn't say I'm a skeptic as such with this sort of thing, but to me these 'towers' look like smudges.. the sort of thing a photoshop novice like me could do.. perhaps I'm not looking right though?

I am VERY nifty with all forms of adobe and photoshop programs, as well as other advanced software.

And just from looking at these photos, not even enlarging them, these have been tampered with.

They used a crude form of a blurring tool. Or they cut and paste a small area over and over again to cover whatever these things are.

The level of skill the person had that did this, is that of an infant.

The one slightly rational 'structure' explanation I can come up with is that perhaps these towers are made of glass, and so distort the ground behind them.. I'm not convinced though.

Also, in the second one there is a bit of rock formation that looks distinctly like a lizards head!!! cripes

(Edit to add)

Ahh I see that the whole argument here is that someone (Nasa?) has blurred these images to hide whats behind them.

At the very minimum, this kind of large scale so very obvious blur/smudge image tampering demonstrates conclusive proof that someone supporting a secrecy agenda is hiding huge scale evidence of some kind on the Moon and that such a secrecy agenda and digital image tampering does in fact exist. Since they obviously wouldn't waste their time and money on this unless it was in their opinion something very important and very much worthy of National secrecy, that means that you and I should be paying rapt attention to this evidence to.

Still not convinced

[edit on 15-4-2010 by March of the Fire Ants]

i'm guessing thats not the original picture, someone just decided to put those smudge there and put it on the internet to spark some conspiracy.

As much as I would like to believe these are real, I can only think they have been altered. It appears a smudging tool is used to create these figures and this certainly would explain also why they don't cast a shadow.

reply to post by Viper2
You could have a look in this great thread from last year...Unexplained Mysteries On The Moon And Mars! An Alien Connection? It has more 'anomalies' you'd enjoy.

Skipper's been posting messed up images for years and years. They've been discussed plenty of times around here. Over magnification and pixellated images are claimed to be streets and houses.

The irony is Skipper manipulates his images to show what he wants us to see...and accuses NASA of....

In the first pic you linked to, in the bottom right it looks like an eye!

reply to post by Kandinsky


Skipper is guilty of overdoing things in his interpretation of what he finds. Sometimes I've looked and thought: 'Skip, that's just a star/ dune/ rock.'

However, just because the man's a bit of a numpty at times, doesn't mean that everything he raises should be discounted. For example, there are some genuinely anomalous image sets from the original Clementine data (v 1.5) which have now been replaced in the official source sites with version 2.0.

If anyone has seen the latest photoshop update from Adobe (see link), they'll see that the ability to 'deal with' the former (crap) tampering performed by the 'secrecy agenda types' - as Skip so lovingly refers to them - is definitely now available. NB It would have been available sooner to the proprieters of said tampered data sets.

www.youtube.com...



People of Earth - don't believe the hype. There is something extremely fishy going on; just be sure to tread carefully through the quagmire of crap research/ researchers, discredited researchers and disinformation. And never rely on Youtube. ** Beware the Trolls **

NB - Kandinsky, I don't count you as a troll btw.


PS - I give Skipper kudos for (amongst other things) archiving the original v1.5 Clementine data for seekers to review independently.

reply to post by NoahTheSumerian


NB - I appreciate the irony in saying 'Never trust Youtube' having just posted a Youtube link. I was referring to Youtube users who claim to have posted evidence concerning something fabulously anomalous, which usually turns out to be Venus/ lens flare/ a bug hovering nearby (etc, ad nauseum)

These and other images have been proven to be (from info Phage provided) to been a rogue algorithm in the plotting software. My own idea of it is that the software had issues with hugely contrasting light area's at times ie if it was bright and then pitch black I get the feeling it sometimes threw a wobbly as us Brits say.

There's already a thread with the Clementine pictures being discussed and it's plain to see that the initial image with blur patch is just a HUGE black ridge at an odd angle.

I still don't see why people presume Nasa would release a blurred image with the hope of no one noticing or questioning the blur if they were indeed hiding something, it makes no sense to believe it's a double bluff either...

This IS a glitch or photoshop. Someone's either used the smudge tool or possibly the clone tool. You could, of course, argue that someone used the clone tool to get rid of some form of evidence, but in itself, those are just smudges.

reply to post by Viper2


Imagine that you are the head of NASA... Some pictures get dropped on your desk that reveal your hidden moon base... or some alien buildings you’ve been trying to keep secret... what do you think you are gonna say when asked if they can be shown to the public?

"Sure... just smudge them up a bit in Photoshop, that should do the trick"

In my opinion these photos mean nothing!

But then, what do i know?

oh... one last thing... when you have a title of "Would you skeptics care to explain these photos of the moon?"

I was seriously expecting something a lot better than some smudges on a photo!!!

Seriously... do you expect people to struggle to explain a smudge??

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Muckster]

Those photos are pre photoshop

Hmm thanks you get an E for effort. For those with all the Q`s, keep reading there is a long explanation. He IS saying that NASA covered it with some older program similar to todays adobe, check it out if you want... but I stopped reading when he tried saying that the reason there are no shadows is because nasa made them go away with their "tampering software". He explains that the software was not advanced enough to just make a blur wherever you want but that it would single out the object and only blur it out. Wouldn`t that take a more advanced software to do that? But yet it (the software) was unable to make a smudge that didn`t reveal the shape of the structure? And the software was good enough to make the shadows disappear as if they never existed. I was actually thinking maybe see through structures (before viewing the pics) like someone speculated just because that reminded me of the see through robot skull seen in that famous picture on the moon. Whatever became of that? I`ll have to do a search on ats. Even if fake, that thing was COOL LOOKING! And who knows there may be SOMETHING to these photos, I just wasn`t convinced my the explanation. But then I`m not a software engineer, nor am I a software engineer with knowledge of out dated systems.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Sauron's Tower is on the moon? Neat.

Look, I made this in about 3 seconds with a crappy graphics program:




Genuine, made it myself hoax.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mrwiffler]

reply to post by Viper2


Interesting! I searched ATS a few days ago for "Pleiadean, Pleiades" and found a thread that was by a guy who said he was picked up by what we think of as Pleiadean's (ala Billy Meiyer) They were beautiful, humanoid, traveled in saucers....AND they took him to their MOON base that had a LARGE TOWER. Hmmm!

reply to post by ShadowArcher


Or is it some sort of cloaking device being utilized to obscure the structure? I hope it's not the Klingons and if it is I hope they are in a good mood!

These are smudges on the camera lens, probably from pizza grease or even butter.reply to post by Viper2