Huge Alien Structure Revealed - Far Side of the Moon 2010 *PHOTOS*

can anybody prove irrefutably either way whether it has been tampered with?!!


imo the things to look for should be actual buildings.

peace

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by -Thom-
How did this thread receive 50+ flags? It is clear that the 'building' is a stretched portion of the lunar surface. Come on people, think for yourselves.

Oh well, nothing that isn't said before.

So, perhaps you have a theory on who stretched it, and why?

I would love to find a viable rationale for why OUR photo's that NASA has are being altered before we, the taxpayer/boss, gets to see them?

Sure.

First, I've seen camera artefacts before. They are created because parts of the image are accidentally strechted, for example. I can't give you a thread, but I've seen them here on ATS. Also, a later image of the 'anomaly' shows it to be gone, allegedly photoshopped by NASA. I find it, to state it mildy, a far stretch to assume it's a building on the moon. I have seen far more convincing photo's. And besides, it really looks like a blurred portion of the moon.



[edit on 30-6-2010 by -Thom-]

reply to post by -Thom-


To me it looks more like the baffled edge of something. Kind of like an air filter.

Of course, all moon photos are blurry (for some reason ). So making any determination is "iffy" at best.

Originally posted by guavas

We could see Jabba the Hutt, himself, floating over the surface of the moon in a skiff from multiple satellites, and multiple angles and sources.

It will *always* be image artifacting NO MATTER WHAT. Star destroyer? Artifact. Wierd spinning disc? Image stitching. Harry Potter? Yeah, rubber stamp tool because the photo data is being EXTRAPOLATED over empty sectors.

When they say "pics, or it didn't happen" I think, why? What's the point? Everything is a hoax now NO MATTER WHAT, and if it isn't a hoax, it's image artifacting NO MATTER WHAT.

You idiot, if we saw Jabba from multiple angles and sources, if we could clearly pick out where his eyes were and not need a crazy red marker to point them out for us; if you showed me a photo of a star destroyer in front of Jupiter, with the thing up top (is that the bridge? I always figured it was the bridge, then the shield generator) distinctly picked out, and no signs of photoshopping; anything that, you know, WASN'T CLEARLY AN IMAGE ARTIFACT, then it would be proof.

This is clearly an image artifact. Your argument is flawed anyway; most instances of "Structures on the moon" have not been dismissed as artifacts, they've been dismissed as obvious natural phenomena.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by -Thom-
How did this thread receive 50+ flags? It is clear that the 'building' is a stretched portion of the lunar surface. Come on people, think for yourselves.

Oh well, nothing that isn't said before.

So, perhaps you have a theory on who stretched it, and why?

I would love to find a viable rationale for why OUR photo's that NASA has are being altered before we, the taxpayer/boss, gets to see them?

AAFAGHAGAFD what is so hard to believe about the idea that people make MISTAKES? Why must NASA be actively covering something up instead of just, oops, stitching it together wrong? Why must one set of photos be doctored and not just flawed?

Originally posted by guavas
We have roughly 60 years or so of photographs. There are people that still think that even the possibility of aliens is science fiction only.

Even the most iconic photos, the kind of photos that start movements, have been hoaxes that've lasted for decades! See Nessie. Therefore, photos can never be incontrovertible or admissible. Why bother looking at them if they offer so little? Go after the stuff that matters, like document or physical trace evidence, or a 4 star general willing to spill the beans.

But what would also help are PICTURES THAT ARE NOT HOAXES OR ARTIFACTS. No, they wouldn't be incontrovertible proof; but man, they would HELP.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by -Thom-

 

To me it looks more like the baffled edge of something. Kind of like an air filter.

Of course, all moon photos are blurry (for some reason

). So making any determination is "iffy" at best.

hey
i was thinking like a hanger

reply to post by Solasis


I have a long history of this stuff. I have seen a ton of it over the years. There are enough instances of obvious obfuscation by NASA that anything they do is suspect to me.

Just like the media, I believe nothing without lots of scrutiny.

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by seanizle
Looks legit to me, you can see detail in the structure, along with shadows. The picture is from the 1960's, and if it is just an "Artifact", why completely smudge it out in the newer photos.....

As of now I think its real. Its been proven time and time again that NASA tamper's with their images, this is just another case of it.

If this is proven to be legit, someone needs to push this as evidence that NASA truly is covering something up.



[edit on 29-6-2010 by seanizle]

If you actually knew what you *snip* were talking about you'd see that "artifact LOL" is 49km across. It doesn't exist on newer photos because they have much more detail that shows that nothing is there. Not forgetting the FACT any idiot would be able to get a telescope and see that 49km across "LOL artifact"

[edit on 29-6-2010 by sanctum]

How can anyone see the far side of the Moon with a telescope? it would take an amazing type of idiot as you put it to be able to pull off the impossible.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Just like the media should be you mean. And yet, you violate this very principle; instead of considering everything NASA does as suspect, you consider everything they do as already tampered. Not possibly tampered, but already put through the wringer.

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

WOW... he's only saying what he's saying, because that's he's ONLY hope to get reduced sentence... it's a legal strategy their using on his behalf... not that he didn't know what the hell he was doing... if he was on that much drugs (which again does not alter a view from seeing a UFO to not) then how the hell was he able to "hack" into government computers for over few years?! Straight minded, above average IQ Joe will have a hard time trying to figure out how to hack into NASA... use your common sense, before passing a shallow judgment on someone.

When Gary's case first started breaking I caught wind of him in an article in a magazine a while back. I think it was The Economist, not sure.

Anyway, he said he simply wrote a Perl script that scanned for computers that responded on network blocks, and simply initiated logins without passwords.

That would take an awful lot of "dope" for anyone that knows any Perl.

What he got into shows just how secure the Pentagon was (or wasn't). That's why they're having such a big stink about him, he simply showed the public what the public's really paying for. National Security? Blank Passwords? PENTAGON? Really? REALLY?!?

The image in the first vid is pretending to be a video of orbit but is just a pan of a photo. Pretending means fooling.

Originally posted by guavas

Anyway, he said he simply wrote a Perl script that scanned for computers that responded on network blocks, and simply initiated logins without passwords.

That would take an awful lot of "dope" for anyone that knows any Perl.

What he got into shows just how secure the Pentagon was (or wasn't). That's why they're having such a big stink about him, he simply showed the public what the public's really paying for. National Security? Blank Passwords? PENTAGON? Really? REALLY?!?

Did anyone ever stop to think that any data on a Pentagon computer which isn't password protected is probably dummy info with little or no validity, designed to throw off amateur spies?

reply to post by Solasis


I hate to see a good rant go to waste, but it looks like I was misunderstood.

You could have a clear, IRREFUTABLE HD picture of a crashed spaceship on Mars, and the official story will ALWAYS be due to some kind of absurd technical anomaly, or some hoaxer inside NASA that's now since been terminated.

Even the BEST photographic evidence is never inadmissible as long as there are hoaxers. Jabba the Hutt flying around the moon would immediately be dismissed as an internal hoax by an engineer who was unaware of when exactly April 1st happens.

Or, nowadays, you can always throw the Viral Marketing wrench in there too. You just can't TRUST anything anymore! Assuming we ever could have...

Photographs == waste of time.

The bridge of a star destroyer is that bridge looking thingie with the funny little balls on top. An A-Wing augurs into the bridge of a super star destroyer in RoTJ.

What I have learned from viewing photos of Mars is that there are many
optical illusions and I have to say that about the Moon as well. What
we think we see and what are natural formations that may look like
it is not natural is another story altogether!

Hmm looks like a Lizards Eye to me, could it be some Anunake [ or however its spelled ] symbolism Or maybe its Godzilla taking a dirt nap a partially buried skull of some giant Space Lizard man thing ?

Then again it looks like the usual out of focus civilian use NASA photos we cant make heads or tales out of. Great post OP thanks.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Really? If you actually want to be taken seriously, comments lke this aren't going to help:

i was thinking like a hanger...

Is, is not, the "estimated size" of the 'anomaly' ( which has been shown undeniably to be an image artifact ) ~49km?

What sort of "hangar" have you ever seen that would be so large?!

Wild speculation, and even science fiction is fun, and interesting to toss around...but fiction IS fiction.

reply to post by guavas


No, I got your point; my point was that you're wrong, or at least not entirely right. Yes, they'll try to claim that it's a fake; but if it's genuinely not a fake, and it's a clear photos, their denials will mean diddlysquat.

Aha, I knew that was the bridge! Are the ball-lookin' things part of the bridge?

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Just like the media should be you mean. And yet, you violate this very principle; instead of considering everything NASA does as suspect, you consider everything they do as already tampered. Not possibly tampered, but already put through the wringer.

Because it is.

Like i said earlier in this thread, I have talked to people. I am not here to prove anything to anyone. I know the truth, at least to a degree. So my search is more about finding evidence of what i know to be true, not trying to prove it to myself or anyone else.

But i can tell you that everything that is sent back to NASA as far as images of foreign bodies goes through a "wringer" known as ISIS. For an example of this technology in its most primitive form, see the first Clementine set. It did a horrible job at running its algorithms. But it did well enough that it has since been deployed (or its predecessor).

What intrigued me the most was that guy who claimed to be from NASA, and that they had found a FTL transmission capability being used covertly.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Like i said earlier in this thread, I have talked to people. I am not here to prove anything to anyone. I know the truth, at least to a degree. So my search is more about finding evidence of what i know to be true, not trying to prove it to myself or anyone else.

Now THIS bothers me. You claim you seek the truth, yet you aren't here to prove anything to anyone. You claim to be in some respects like a journalist, yet you're not here to prove anything. That's selfish and ignorant, is what it is.

Plus, for true learning, you shouldn't be looking for evidence of what you know, you should be looking for evidence of what IS true. If that coincides with what you know, all the better; if it contradicts what you know, then you should modify what you know.

Personally, I find it easier to believe the photo is a fake of some sort than a secret moon base; even if I can't explain how it was made.

It's kinda obvious that this is just an artifact along the seam of the merged pictures...when you see an oval it means that a circle has been stretched out