Finally! - A REAL Lunar Anomaly?

Pixelation. Nuff said.

Those 'orbs' are groupings of pixels...4 of 'em in each pixel. They line the edge of a standard crater.

I believe smudges are anomalies, more than I think these pixels are anything special.

Originally posted by Anunaki10
Alex Collier - Moon and Mars lecture, Part 1 , and from about 1:00 into this Part 2 , "Andromedan contactee" Alex Collier told that the Andromedans told him that the Moon is an artificial "satellite", in fact the Moon is a spacecraft, the Andromedans told him, he said, much of the debris on the surface was put there and built purposely to make it look like it isn't, it is hollow, it is able to leave the orbit of it's own power, that the Moon originate in another star system (called Chaulta or something like that i guess), it was originally one of 4 Moons that orbited the 17th planet of that another star system, it was built almost similar to that "Death Star" from the Star Wars movie, it was built around this 17th planet, it was then put in the tail of a comet and dragged to this solar system, when it arrived to this solar system it removed itself from the comet, and it placed itself around the planet called 'Maldek' which is the asteroid belt by now (Maldek was reportedly destroyed a long time ago), the Moon became one of 2 Moons that orbited 'Maldek', 'Maldek' was the first inhabited planet in this solar system, it was very much like Earth, and after 'Maldek' was reportedly destroyed the Moon then reportedly moved to Earth. Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 , Part 8 , Part 9 , Part 10 , Part 11 , Part 12

Here, Alex Collier explain about the Extraterrestrials and the "Dome cities" on the Moon, and about a war on the Moon 9600 years ago.

David Icke and confirm that the Moon is an artificial spacecraft that is not supposed to be there , and some Soviet scientists also confirm that the Moon is artificial.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Uncensored NASA Moon Images, otherwise NASA usually airbrush anomalies out

I just lost about 120.000 brain cells just by reading this nonsense...

reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx


The fact that your jumping to any conclusions with no added factual input to suggest any alternative other than what is seen the photo, makes your point moot.

Please offer an alternative explanation with some evidence to back it up.

I think you are mistaken. Light source is from left of the view and pretty low on the horizon, thus casting a long shadow that starts right at the edge of the big round crater below the referenced object and ends in rounded shape inside right edge of the big crater where it's more shiny because that area is directly facing the sun.

In other words, with the light source shown in OP's pic which is low on horizon from the left, raised object will have light left side, and dark right side. Crater will have dark left side, shiny right side.

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Well, judging by the first image, the light source appears to be to the right of the viewer. Since a crater has raised edges Crater Edges , it appears that the object under suspicion is located on the illuminated edge of the large crater. But the referenced object does not show this geography. I.e., you cannot distinguish a raised edge on the smaller 'craters' And the light/dark transition point is exactly half way across the diameter of the objects. Therefore, the raised edges are either too small to see OR non-existent.

Now, if it was a crater where the raised edges were too small to see, the left side should be lit, and the right half dark. But that's not the case. Therefore, it appears that the referenced object (and surrounding dome looking objects) are raised.

edit on 5-3-2012 by TomServo because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by TomServo because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by spav5
Do you not see the v shape of what appear to be dots. 7 craters in alignment? apparently you people are not seeing what I am seeing or you are refusing to look.

Peace

You do realize that the dots are precisely on pixel boundaries right?

I mean, they MAY be actual things out there that line up perfectly with the pixels of that camera at the precise position and orientation that it was passing by when it snapped it... but the chances of that are so incredibly slim.

-rrr

reply to post by The Shrike


The link in the article didn't work. Here is the corrected link:

lunar-anomalies.blogspot.com...


Now you stated that this was NOT a NASA photo, but each photo I've seen, here and at that link, say that they are NASA photos.

Originally posted by timeisonwhoseside
reply to post by The Shrike

 

The link in the article didn't work. Here is the corrected link:

lunar-anomalies.blogspot.com...


Now you stated that this was NOT a NASA photo, but each photo I've seen, here and at that link, say that they are NASA photos.

Well technically they are. I think google got the images from them, but they are not the higher resolution ones we usually get from NASA if that's what you mean.

As for the OP, google moon is NOT a good place to look for moon anomalies. Your OP states you are a 'lunar anomaly researcher' yet you don't know this? C'mon now, you're no more an expert than the average Joe Bloggs, are you?

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx

 

It was likely not pixelation because of the roundness of the anomalies compared to the surrounding square pixels.

Jaden

Pixelated images that are zoomed in drastically can show rounding due to the antialias filter.

In image processing the anti alias filter is a filter that smooths the edges of pixels by blurring them.

The specific form of blurring has to be chosen for the zoom ratio, and some anti alias filters can mess up text and other "sharp" graphics. Therefore special text-sensitive anti alias filters exist.

Anti aliasing is a huge thing in all manners of signal processing, including audio and video.

An interesting outcome of anti-aliasing like this is that when you connect a standard definition video game console to a high definition TV the image no longer shows crisp pixel edges.

Because a crisp edge is part of the visual look of legacy video games, there are video scalers meant to *leave* the pixel edges alone and not anti-alias at all, specifically sold for connecting an old Atari / NES to a fancy new HD TV.

-rrr

As for the pixelation argument, you have to remember these images were originally square photo's that have been stitched together, then retro fitted onto a sphere. The only way to do that is pinch and pull the edges of the original image so that they fit onto the sphere, that will cause 'rounding' of any quadrilateral or trapezoidal shape (i.e pixels).

Any anomaly that aligns vertically or horizontally should be treated with ultra caution. In fact they should be dismissed until the same anomaly can be seen at a different orientation. Otherwise it is 99.999% likely to be a processing artifact.

I've been manipulating digital images for over 20 years now.....

EVERYONE:

CORRECTED LINK: (The link in the article didn't work.)

lunar-anomalies.blogspot.com...


COORDINATES AND GOOGLE MOON:

I went to "Google Moon", and put in the first two coordinates (below) in the Search field at top; but THEY DID NOT WORK. I even tried putting spaces between the numbers; same "No results found...".

I also tried later and smaller set of coordinates: 22 42 N, 142 34 E (with and without the comma). "No results found...".

(I am currently trying to use a Mac, and am using the option-0 (zero) shortcut to get the degree symbol. I did not install any software to search; I just used the Google Moon link below. I double-checked the coordinates below.)

*ANYONE * know WHERE and HOW to put these in, so that they work? (for both Mac and Windows--Alt-??? for the degree symbol?) (Please Contact me with the answers, if that's possible. Thanks!)

Thanks!

www.google.com...


COORDINATES, as they show in the photos here, and as they show in the photos at the corrected link:

HERE --

The first two photos here:

22º42'22.78" N 142º35'13.94" E

The Close-up here:

22º42'50.96" N 142º35'50.10" E elev -2237 ft


THERE, at the link --

Photo 1:

Near red circle: 22 42 N, 142 34 E

At bottom: 22º 49.276 N 142º 54.511 E elev -1507 m

Photo 2:

At bottom: 22º42'22.78" N 142º35'13.94" E elev -616 m

Photo 3:

At bottom: 22º42'27.71" N 142º34'43.90" E elev -568 m

Photo 4:

At bottom: 22º42'27.99" N 142º34'44.38" E elev -569 m


Thanks!

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Hi, WHERE IS a good place to do the Moon look-ups?

Thanks.


I of course am not the OP whom you were addressing, or a Moon researcher, per se. But—


Please be polite, and don't insult the Original Poster or others. Thanks.

reply to post by rickyrrr


What is a pixel boundary?

And how do you know that this was "precisely on pixel boundaries"?

Thanks.

I checked it out on Google Earth (Moon view). Yes, right there as OP describes. (Enter coordinates with degrees, minutes and seconds like this: 22°42'22.78" n 142°35'13.94" e) The '>' is about 400 feet wide, from the two farthest-apart white dots. A few more interesting things. The '>' is pointed due east, almost like an arrow. If you follow a line due east from the '>' you find many other similar craters. Most of the craters in the area of similar size seem to have similar dots. Most of the dots appear haphazardly scattered in the craters; but a few of the craters have nicely ordered dots, in straight lines and other geometric shapes. The dots are always about the same size. Cool. Wonder what those are.

reply to post by The Shrike


Again??? How many times now have these bulbous
shapes on the moon been discussed here on ATS?? Always with same imaging artifacts conclusion

My questtion to Shrike..what makes your case any more authentic than the countless other members who have made the same point????...IMHO...Nothing.
I think this is a test to see of ATS members are making any progress??

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Originally posted by spav5
Do you not see the v shape of what appear to be dots. 7 craters in alignment? apparently you people are not seeing what I am seeing or you are refusing to look.

Peace

You do realize that the dots are precisely on pixel boundaries right?

I mean, they MAY be actual things out there that line up perfectly with the pixels of that camera at the precise position and orientation that it was passing by when it snapped it... but the chances of that are so incredibly slim.

-rrr

What is your point? So you see them? or don't see them?

Peace

reply to post by HumanoidX


I’m still trying to figure out why people are still trying to "prove" this is a real "anomaly" several posts have made it clear that this is an imaging rendering whatever defect.

Ok, took me awhile but I -finally- see what the Op is seeing.

My first and only guess. Pixels.

Not to be confused with Pixies.

Originally posted by timeisonwhoseside
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

Hi, WHERE IS a good place to do the Moon look-ups?

Thanks.

You could start here: www.lroc.asu.edu...

Originally posted by timeisonwhoseside
I of course am not the OP whom you were addressing, or a Moon researcher, per se. But—


Please be polite, and don't insult the Original Poster or others. Thanks.

Can you show me where I insulted him/her? I didn't realise you got moderator tags after 11 posts-when did those rules come into play?

Originally posted by spav5

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Originally posted by spav5
Do you not see the v shape of what appear to be dots. 7 craters in alignment? apparently you people are not seeing what I am seeing or you are refusing to look.

Peace

You do realize that the dots are precisely on pixel boundaries right?

I mean, they MAY be actual things out there that line up perfectly with the pixels of that camera at the precise position and orientation that it was passing by when it snapped it... but the chances of that are so incredibly slim.

-rrr

What is your point? So you see them? or don't see them?

Peace

My point is that it is far more likely that this is a photographic anomaly because the features coincide with the boundaries of the pixels.

I thought that when I said "are precisely on pixel boundaries" it would be understood that I can *see the dots* in order to tell where they are. Find it strange that would be so hard to discern from my words.

-rrr