Towers And Buildings On The Moon (Video)

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Phage

 

i didnt watch the video, but saw some pics, so if its true the moon has color why didnt it show on the pics and film taken by the astronauts that went to the the moon. was it because of the camera's? I dont know much about cameras or the moon. can anybody clarify why the moon looked all grey in the moon landing videos?

They filmed it in black and white.

But there are color photos also,see the ol' red,white and blue?

It looks greyish due to the intense sunlight,due to no atmosphere.

reply to post by chrisb9


Why is any of this even up for debate. The moon is a frickin rock floating around in space. It is clearly some variation of gray or white and there arent any trees or anything like that so where is all this magnificent color that you speak of coming from? Different colored rocks? I dont think so. And i dont trust a guy with a 68$ web cam thing over scientists and people who have actually been to the moon.

I'm up in the air with the moon. haha.

Who knows what is up there, or not up there.

Honestly, I though we'd have bases up there and would be living on the moon by now. I'm still living with the disappointment that we haven't even got that far yet.

reply to post by Phage


True that, this guy always is cooking videos. I was trying to think of a TV show that would out right manipulate still photos and video like that. The only thing i could think of is fox news......ouch ya if that's the level of journalism we are getting here. Why waste any more times on this thread.

I don't know what to think about the possible color cover-up. I mean, are these amateur astronomers just using the wrong lenses?
I've seen the same speculation about Mars too. That too is supposedly a LOT more colorful than we're being told.

It is my opinion that the Moon is a very active place and I believe it will be either China or India that will show the world irrefutable proof of past and current activity on the Moon very soon.

Good thread!

The reason for the color is the cheap $68 camera. A camera which was not meant for low light.

The moon is a figment of your imagination. There is no moon.
2nd

Good stuff; thanks for posting

I noticed Joe Escamilla didn't credit himself with colorizing the photos this time.

In his film "Moon Rising", which pretty much is the same thing, he had this little gem in the credits:

"COLORIZATION OF THE MOON PHOTOS

Jose Escamilla - Photoshop CS3 "

SOURCE

Cameras are funny things.

In today's world, we use digital cameras and don't even pause to think about what an amazing tech this is.

Growing up, you put film in your camera, took your pictures. If you were lucky, it was a Polaroid camera, and you had a color picture in just a few minutes after it spit it out and you waited for it to self develop.
Or, you used up the film and dropped it off at your local drug store and came back a few days later to get the pictures that had been developed.

But with today's digital cameras, a CCD chip or Charged Coupled Device that is sensitive to light replaced the film.

However, that chip is only sensitive to levels of light. Not color. Filters have to be used, or programming that figures out what colors should be in the pictures. Depending on the camera and type of CCD chip it has, will depend on how well it performs at various light levels.

Cheap digital cameras perform quite well....when light levels are bright. They do not perform well when light levels are low. For a fact, one of the problems with the first digital cameras being used for astrophotography was how to keep the CCD chip cool enough so that long term exposures the pictures would not become saturated with thermal noise.

Expensive cameras are better, and are even designed for lower light levels, to where you will get a much better picture of objects in the sky at night.

So what color is the moon? Again, just step outside and look up with your eyes, especially when the moon is full. Our eyes are designed to take in the full color spectrum of 390 nm to 750 nm.
And that is how we see color during the day too. Light being reflected off the object we are seeing. A red jacket looks red because that is the majority of the wave length of light that is being reflected off of it.

So most of the time, the moon looks silvery white to us. That's because the majority of the material on it that is reflecting light, is reflecting that wave length to our eyes (or film).
Sometimes we see it in different colors: yellow when it's close to the horizon because of dust or pollution in the air. Sometimes redish orange, but not because it looks like that, but the light being reflected back from it is being affected by something in the atmosphere (or because the moon is entering the Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse).

Are their structures on the moon?

I've yet to see anything that can convince me (or isn't a photoshopped hoax). Old blurry Apollo pics haven't done it for me. Clementine pictures have not. And the LROC hasn't shown anything yet (but it hasn't finished mapping all of the moon either).
Of course you have others yelling that NASA is covering it up! Even with the LROC. That they photoshop the LROC images.
That is kind of funny to me, Since it's a university that is putting those images out, not NASA. But still, I've asked people who say that to show us the proof of this. I mean come on, we're very good at showing how someone photoshopped a building or pyramid into a picture right? So the reverse should be true.

But no one has shown me a LROC picture yet with proof it's been photoshopped. I'm still waiting.

So does this mean there isn't a 20 mile long crashed alien ship on the far side of the moon?

I don't know. Some of those areas have not been mapped by the LROC yet, and all we have are fuzzy Clementine pictures (or photoshopped hoaxes). I think some things do look intriguing. But I want to see a picture with 0.5 meter resolution of it first before I make my mind up.

And before anyone says: NASA will cover it up!
Be of good cheer! I mean, you all are so convinced that NASA will cover it all up....yet they release videos and images time and time again of massive "UFOs" cruising around tethers, the earth, the sun.......without a care in the world, right?

I mean apparently NASA screws up all the time and just lets those videos and pictures out into the public all the time.

But apparently they are really good at covering up buildings on the moon........

reply to post by chrisb9


Just watched it.

Thanks. Good stuff.

FFS because of too much freedom of speech sites like BeforeIt'sNews are not closed..

Moon conspiracies are strange. I'm not saying it's real or not or making fun of it. Just really curious.
This might sound like a stupid question but to humor me, does anyone think there is some kind of connection with what the conspiracies say about the moon and how some people are inflicted with Selenophobia?

Of the few phobias I have, Selenophobia (fear of the moon) is one of the strangest and stupidest ones in my opinion. Ever since I was little, I was petrified of the moon and get very upset. But now that i'm an adult, I just brush it off. It's still strange to stare at the moon sometimes. I know it could be just psychological and it's nothing at all, but i've been hearing a lot about moon conspiracies lately and was just curious.

I really Appreciate everyone's replies on this video, always a broad spectrum of thoughts and facts on any topic.

For me, I just can't help but wonder why Nasa would not always be able to give us crisp and clear color photos with at least the quality of the photographs that are in this low budget video. Why do we always get picture's like this most recent Nasa Photo just released in the fall of last year on 8-25-2011 ? There is no color at all and it's not like they can't afford at least some type of a camera that could take good quality color photo's on the moon.

I do think Nasa has good quality color photo's that are crisp and clear, but for some reason they are not sharing them with the public. If the man in Texas can take the crystal clear good quality photo's of the moon from his back yard through the earth's atmosphere, then I see no reason why Nasa could not take even superior quality zoom photo's of the moon from their satellites that are currently orbiting the moon through no atmosphere.

Below is the latest Apollo 17 Landing Site photo released by Nasa last August on 8-25-2011

This photo below is resized down 50% so that it would upload, as the original Nasa Photo is 1600 x 1200 and is 0.98 MB - However, as everyone can see, this photo is blurry and there is no color and clean quality like the man in Texas got in his photo's from his back yard...

reply to post by chrisb9


First things first Joe (Rods) Escamilla the guy is an idiot, you do know he once claimed that a burry patch on a Moon picture was of a giant alien repairing his spaceship OH how much he regrets making that claim.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The guy has not got a clue when it comes to video or images he sees what he wants to see

As for the colour of the Moon your eyes are different from cameras so just because YOU see the moon as various shades of colour on this video doesn't mean thats what we see with our eyes.

The only NONE natural structures on the moon are what we have put there!!!!!

Originally posted by chrisb9


Below is the latest Apollo 17 Landing Site photo released by Nasa last August on 8-25-2011

This photo below is resized down 50% so that it would upload, as the original Nasa Photo is 1600 x 1200 and is 0.98 MB - However, as everyone can see, this photo is blurry and there is no color and clean quality like the man in Texas got in his photo's from his back yard...

edit on 7/25/2012 by chrisb9 because: a few typo corrections

That photo shows objects a few feet across the video in your op shows objects miles across so what do think really shows more detail

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Cameras are funny things.

In today's world, we use digital cameras and don't even pause to think about what an amazing tech this is.

Growing up, you put film in your camera, took your pictures. If you were lucky, it was a Polaroid camera, and you had a color picture in just a few minutes after it spit it out and you waited for it to self develop.
Or, you used up the film and dropped it off at your local drug store and came back a few days later to get the pictures that had been developed.

But with today's digital cameras, a CCD chip or Charged Coupled Device that is sensitive to light replaced the film.

However, that chip is only sensitive to levels of light. Not color. Filters have to be used, or programming that figures out what colors should be in the pictures. Depending on the camera and type of CCD chip it has, will depend on how well it performs at various light levels.

Cheap digital cameras perform quite well....when light levels are bright. They do not perform well when light levels are low. For a fact, one of the problems with the first digital cameras being used for astrophotography was how to keep the CCD chip cool enough so that long term exposures the pictures would not become saturated with thermal noise.

Expensive cameras are better, and are even designed for lower light levels, to where you will get a much better picture of objects in the sky at night.

So what color is the moon? Again, just step outside and look up with your eyes, especially when the moon is full. Our eyes are designed to take in the full color spectrum of 390 nm to 750 nm.
And that is how we see color during the day too. Light being reflected off the object we are seeing. A red jacket looks red because that is the majority of the wave length of light that is being reflected off of it.

So most of the time, the moon looks silvery white to us. That's because the majority of the material on it that is reflecting light, is reflecting that wave length to our eyes (or film).
Sometimes we see it in different colors: yellow when it's close to the horizon because of dust or pollution in the air. Sometimes redish orange, but not because it looks like that, but the light being reflected back from it is being affected by something in the atmosphere (or because the moon is entering the Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse).

Are their structures on the moon?

I've yet to see anything that can convince me (or isn't a photoshopped hoax). Old blurry Apollo pics haven't done it for me. Clementine pictures have not. And the LROC hasn't shown anything yet (but it hasn't finished mapping all of the moon either).
Of course you have others yelling that NASA is covering it up! Even with the LROC. That they photoshop the LROC images.
That is kind of funny to me, Since it's a university that is putting those images out, not NASA. But still, I've asked people who say that to show us the proof of this. I mean come on, we're very good at showing how someone photoshopped a building or pyramid into a picture right? So the reverse should be true.

But no one has shown me a LROC picture yet with proof it's been photoshopped. I'm still waiting.

So does this mean there isn't a 20 mile long crashed alien ship on the far side of the moon?

I don't know. Some of those areas have not been mapped by the LROC yet, and all we have are fuzzy Clementine pictures (or photoshopped hoaxes). I think some things do look intriguing. But I want to see a picture with 0.5 meter resolution of it first before I make my mind up.

And before anyone says: NASA will cover it up!
Be of good cheer! I mean, you all are so convinced that NASA will cover it all up....yet they release videos and images time and time again of massive "UFOs" cruising around tethers, the earth, the sun.......without a care in the world, right?

I mean apparently NASA screws up all the time and just lets those videos and pictures out into the public all the time.

But apparently they are really good at covering up buildings on the moon........

I thought ccd chips where for long exposure pic's/vid's?

Originally posted by DARREN1976
I thought ccd chips where for long exposure pic's/vid's?

All cameras use a CCD (except the old ones of course), its the type of sensor. Not for particular long exposure purpose.

reply to post by DARREN1976


Not at first, all thought the potential for using CCDs for long term exposures was realized quickly. A exposure of 45 minutes for a film camera was dropped drastically to something like 10 minutes with a CCD device.

The problem at first was the thermal noise (heat) that would be induced in the chip's information during long term exposure. Some of the first home made CCD cameras for astrophotography amateurs used huge homemade lathed metal coolers.

However, as with all electronics, as time went by, the technology got better.

Here's a link to read more about it:

Charge-Coupled Device with astronomy

Watched the video but i see no proof of structures, domes, statues whatever ... maybe i'm not experienced enough to see it but still it leaves me with a big question mark.