Evidence of Alien/Artificial Structures on Moon Surface?

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

They have taken shots of the moon with Hubble, I never said they hadn't......you just seemed to be insinuating that it's capable of getting a really "good" shot and that it was being withheld.

Why cant it take good pics of the moon?
It's perfectly capable of being focused and exposure times can be adjusted too, so why not?
There's not a lot of difference between the way hubble and other camera's work, it's the settings they feed it that make the difference.

1. Point at moon.
2. Adjust focus.
3. Adjust exposure time.
4. Apply pressure to the little button on the top

reply to post by VoidHawk

Why cant it take good pics of the moon? It's perfectly capable of being focused and exposure times can be adjusted too, so why not?

Because that's not what it was designed for, I have a cordless drill that I could knock a nail in with, it's a lot more technologically advanced than my hammer.....but it wasn't designed for that so I use the hammer.

Considering that Hubble circles the planet every 97 minutes coupled with the close proximity of the moon and the fact that it is a telescope that was designed to collect light and not as a magnification instrument, I'm not convinced that it is perfectly capable of being focused etc. to get a more detailed image of the moon than it already has done.

To be perfectly honest it has captured some pretty good shots of the moon already.......I just don't think the operators of Hubble are all that interested in trying to get ultra close up shots of moon landing sites just to shut up conspiracy theorists......I don't think that was what it was created and deployed for.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Why cant it take good pics of the moon? It's perfectly capable of being focused and exposure times can be adjusted too, so why not?

Because that's not what it was designed for, I have a cordless drill that I could knock a nail in with, it's a lot more technologically advanced than my hammer.....but it wasn't designed for that so I use the hammer.

Considering that Hubble circles the planet every 97 minutes coupled with the close proximity of the moon and the fact that it is a telescope that was designed to collect light and not as a magnification instrument, I'm not convinced that it is perfectly capable of being focused etc. to get a more detailed image of the moon than it already has done.

To be perfectly honest it has captured some pretty good shots of the moon already.......I just don't think the operators of Hubble are all that interested in trying to get ultra close up shots of moon landing sites just to shut up conspiracy theorists......I don't think that was what it was created and deployed for.

I agree with most of what you say, but it can and has taken shots of the moon, and being as they DID take those shots they must have had a reason. Why dont they release those shots to the public?

Personaly I dont know what might be found on the moon, but there's a lot of strangeness about it.
I made a thread a while back which detailed some of the oddities of the moon, but the mods destroyed it by removing more than half of the op! claiming I'd stolen the pictures, and even though I could prove I created them they did not repair the op, infact they wouldnt even reply to my pm's about it.

There are things we are not allowed to know about, and the surface of the moon is one of them.

Back on topic. Don't be disappointed if you don't see anything right away. Your eyes and brain just need to get used to the perspective and how outlines of objects are represented with difference in brightness.

Generally speaking, brighter pixels represent the structural material raised from ground and slightly darker pixels representing ground space or the gap between objects. So the shape of an object can be seen by the outline of relatively darker pixels surrounding it. I will try to post some examples.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I agree with most of what you say, but it can and has taken shots of the moon, and being as they DID take those shots they must have had a reason. Why dont they release those shots to the public?

You mean these three shots they took of the moon in '99?




They hid them real well from the public on their own website. Hubblesite.org

Also, the reason they don't use it to show the Apollo landing:

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon? No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites. An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

they 'Y' shaped detail is quite interesting

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Hey! Thanks!!
Where is it?


I got it never mind.

SNC

reply to post by PINGi14


Thanks Op!
Great photos!

SNC

Originally posted by PINGi14


I'm currently working on application of image deconvolution procedure to restore details from orbital photos of lunar surface from Apollo Program.

I'm guessing this is a mental procedure, yes?


I don't seem to have an app for that.

reply to post by PINGi14



Your assumption is flawed at the end of the day the picture was taken by a 70mm Hasselblad; Shutter Speed: 1/250 second. Film Type: Kodak SO-3400 Black and White,ASA 40

You are looking at an area of many square miles the resolution of the camera lens would not give you anything worth while at that range it's as simple as that!!!!!

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

They have taken shots of the moon with Hubble, I never said they hadn't......you just seemed to be insinuating that it's capable of getting a really "good" shot and that it was being withheld.

Why cant it take good pics of the moon?
It's perfectly capable of being focused and exposure times can be adjusted too, so why not?
There's not a lot of difference between the way hubble and other camera's work, it's the settings they feed it that make the difference.

1. Point at moon.
2. Adjust focus.
3. Adjust exposure time.
4. Apply pressure to the little button on the top

Well for one the Hubble can only resolve objects about 300ft across at the distance of the Moon, we have the LRO in orbit with images of the Moon at 50cm/pixel and even 26cm/pixel on low orbits and I bet you none of the OP's so called objects will show.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Back on topic. Don't be disappointed if you don't see anything right away. Your eyes and brain just need to get used to the perspective and how outlines of objects are represented with difference in brightness.

Generally speaking, brighter pixels represent the structural material raised from ground and slightly darker pixels representing ground space or the gap between objects. So the shape of an object can be seen by the outline of relatively darker pixels surrounding it. I will try to post some examples.

What total and utter rubbish!!! The sunlit wall of a crater would appear light in colour and that's not one of your claimed structures

reply to post by wmd_2008


Just hang tight. The next one I think even you will dig wmd_2008.

Originally posted by PINGi14
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Just hang tight. The next one I think even you will dig wmd_2008.

Well since your assumption about resolution is flawed I doubt it but lets see

Why does the picture seem to contain more visual information when inverted? Is somebody on the Moon trying to hide their presence using counter-recon tactics?



NASA Original



Inverted



Filtered. Refer to caption at bottom right to see the filter effect.



Double filtered.

Originally posted by PINGi14
Why does the picture seem to contain more visual information when inverted? Is somebody on the Moon trying to hide their presence using counter-recon tactics?

Because of the way our vision works.

I never understood why people invert the colours, as I see the same information in both.

reply to post by ArMaP


Not everyone has x-ray vision like you do lol.

The question is, what is the origin and nature of these tubes that litter the landscape?

Originally posted by PINGi14
The question is, what is the origin and nature of these tubes that litter the landscape?

I think the question is why do you think those are tubes?

I might be the new guy here, but I cannot for the life of me see why those lines were drawn on shot. You seem, in some places, to put them along certain portions of the show that are lighter in color than the surrounding areas, and in others, there seems to be no reason what-so-ever for them to be included.

If I had to take a guess, there is a vast network of intertwining underground tubes, possibly artificial in origin, on the Moon. In certain places, they seem to be exposed as shown in the above Apollo pictures. The other thing is some underground networks seems to exist even below craters, meaning the intact tubes that crisscross that particular crater was likely created after the impact event.

The below is Lunar Gravity Gradients map from the most recent mission to the Moon: GRAIL. The objective of the mission is to gain an idea of the underground structure of the Moon. It shows a network of linear subterranean structures that intertwine (cross above or below each other).

As mentioned above, there is evidence of intact network that can be seen below most craters. Unless they existed at extreme depth below the surface, most impact event would have obliterated any structure that was below the surface of the impact. Some of these networks exist below some huge craters, which gives me more reason to believe for any subterranean network to exist below these massive impacts, they must have been created after the impact event.






Linear Gravity Anomalies