Bizarre wedge-shaped 'craft' appears on the lunar surface

Aren't those the L-shaped craft referred to by a whistle-blower on the run late last year? He said there was an entire fleet of them that landed on the dark side of the moon.



Also, psychic Julien Wells said that they were here to pick up the ruling cabal and get them off-earth, but there was an intervention by the light forces and nobody got away. They were all captured.

Julian Wells - The Transitioning

eriktheawful
It's the result of image artifacts, and has been covered before here on ATS.

Here's an example side by side comparison of a poor image from Google Earth, to a highly detailed image by the LROC:

Not a UFO....not a structure......not a cave.

It's image artifacts.

My thoughts exactly! Thanks for your input.

Skywatcher2011

eriktheawful
It's the result of image artifacts, and has been covered before here on ATS.

Here's an example side by side comparison of a poor image from Google Earth, to a highly detailed image by the LROC:

Not a UFO....not a structure......not a cave.

It's image artifacts.

My thoughts exactly! Thanks for your input.

The good picture still looks like and opening to me.

Skywatcher2011

eriktheawful
It's the result of image artifacts, and has been covered before here on ATS.

Here's an example side by side comparison of a poor image from Google Earth, to a highly detailed image by the LROC:

Not a UFO....not a structure......not a cave.

It's image artifacts.

My thoughts exactly! Thanks for your input.

What's the chance of seven image artifacts all lining up in two straight lines? Are you so desperate to find a 'rational' explanation that you are content to ignore features that fly in the face of any natural formation or process creating image artifacts.
The trouble with the logic of such an explanation is that it is ad hoc, being concocted with no supporting evidence merely to avoid having to take seriously the possibility that the anomalous image indicates the presence of some kind of sophisticated intelligence on the Moon. Implausible, ad hoc explanations explain nothing despite creating the illusion of doing so.

Char-Lee

Skywatcher2011

eriktheawful
It's the result of image artifacts, and has been covered before here on ATS.

Here's an example side by side comparison of a poor image from Google Earth, to a highly detailed image by the LROC:

Not a UFO....not a structure......not a cave.

It's image artifacts.

My thoughts exactly! Thanks for your input.

The good picture still looks like and opening to me.

Well ALL the craters on the good picture as you put it have openings then

Also why does its shape change when the sun is in a different position!!!

micpsi

Skywatcher2011

eriktheawful
It's the result of image artifacts, and has been covered before here on ATS.

Here's an example side by side comparison of a poor image from Google Earth, to a highly detailed image by the LROC:

Not a UFO....not a structure......not a cave.

It's image artifacts.

My thoughts exactly! Thanks for your input.

What's the chance of seven image artifacts all lining up in two straight lines? Are you so desperate to find a 'rational' explanation that you are content to ignore features that fly in the face of any natural formation or process creating image artifacts.
The trouble with the logic of such an explanation is that it is ad hoc, being concocted with no supporting evidence merely to avoid having to take seriously the possibility that the anomalous image indicates the presence of some kind of sophisticated intelligence on the Moon. Implausible, ad hoc explanations explain nothing despite creating the illusion of doing so.

NO whats obvious is YOU don't have a clue how digital images work!!! As the level of zoom in the op picture is CLEARLY showing the pixels/jpeg artifacts etc of the picture and NOT details.

reply to post by maxzen2004


It would help greatly if ppl actually read the responses of these threads and followed the links posted. Especially if there are technical information (as opposed to pure speculations). And don't just read the first post.

As Phage wrote in the other thread linked above:

"...the "anomaly" is aligned with the pixel grid of the original. The original image used does not contain enough information to resolve anything at that scale. Google "invents" it. Once again, don't use Google Moon for research. "

But still people write things like "oh I bet its an automatic spacedock used by the Venusians to land their triangular crafts".

nofear39

I've seen that picture before on here ... i will find the link now ..


EDIT ; maybe im wrong as i cant find it ... seems interesting ...

I havent a clue what it is

edit on 17-1-2014 by nofear39 because: x

edit on 17-1-2014 by nofear39 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by nofear39 because: (no reason given)

No, you're right...it was on here, but years ago.

I doubt there's a hope in hell of finding it now.

There's other images of more of these lights or spheres on the moon, but i can't find them now either.

reply to post by Chazam

But still people write things like "oh I bet its an automatic spacedock used by the Venusians to land their triangular crafts".

And so what if they do?

What difference does it make if people are having a bit of fun, even if they're wrong.

This isn't a pure science website, and never was...too many members treat it like it is though unfortunately.

MysterX
reply to post by Chazam

 

But still people write things like "oh I bet its an automatic spacedock used by the Venusians to land their triangular crafts".

And so what if they do?

What difference does it make if people are having a bit of fun, even if they're wrong.

This isn't a pure science website, and never was...too many members treat it like it is though unfortunately.

What members like YOU should remember is the motto of this site which is DENY IGNORANCE so if it has been shown that the op is mistaken in his assumption due to the quality of the image others are quite right in pointing it out to members that don't bother to read posts made after the op before replying to it.

reply to post by 0bserver1


I agree with you. Very easy to show another image altogether and say look here is our image from a different angle and there is nothing to see here. If that is all it takes to get people to stop their investigation and end speculation, then we might deserve to be tricked.

reply to post by MysterX


I think some people are just in the business of debunking. That is what they do. It may be real it may be fake. Their mission is to debunk them all, cause confusion and stop conversation. If conversation continues after they have gone in and provided their reason why this or that isn't true, they will try to end that conversation too. Without coming face to face or touching something truth is hard to get at.

Chazam
reply to post by maxzen2004

 

It would help greatly if ppl actually read the responses of these threads and followed the links posted. Especially if there are technical information (as opposed to pure speculations). And don't just read the first post.

As Phage wrote in the other thread linked above:

"...the "anomaly" is aligned with the pixel grid of the original. The original image used does not contain enough information to resolve anything at that scale. Google "invents" it. Once again, don't use Google Moon for research. "

But still people write things like "oh I bet its an automatic spacedock used by the Venusians to land their triangular crafts".

edit on 1/19/2014 by Chazam because: ..spelling

edit on 1/19/2014 by Chazam because: spelling

And I am sure now that that is in writing here no one will ever again use google moon for research. I think there has been quite an uptick of people chartering spaceflights to go directly to the moon to do their own research since this post has come out. Good point.

Loveaduck
reply to post by MysterX

 

I think some people are just in the business of debunking. That is what they do. It may be real it may be fake. Their mission is to debunk them all, cause confusion and stop conversation. If conversation continues after they have gone in and provided their reason why this or that isn't true, they will try to end that conversation too. Without coming face to face or touching something truth is hard to get at.

I think the point was that it is a real artifact generated by google moon from a real lunar feature it couldn't resolve. You were provided with better quality photos of the same feature, yet you choose to pretend that the mystery persists. "Their" mission was to enlighten you. "They" failed. Without coming face to face with one's own mistakes the truth is hard to get at.

eriktheawful
It's the result of image artifacts, and has been covered before here on ATS.

Here's an example side by side comparison of a poor image from Google Earth, to a highly detailed image by the LROC:

Not a UFO....not a structure......not a cave.

It's image artifacts.

This post kinda ends the discussion on this doesn't it?

I kinds wish nasa had just waited until they had better higher resolution cameras before photographing the moon...all they get are crazy kids thinking pixels are ET space ships.

Loveaduck
reply to post by 0bserver1

 

I agree with you. Very easy to show another image altogether and say look here is our image from a different angle and there is nothing to see here. If that is all it takes to get people to stop their investigation and end speculation, then we might deserve to be tricked.

That's why people show the coordinates so you can check for yourself!!!!

reply to post by 0bserver1


You can get the coordinates from Google moon easily enough. Forget LROC for a minute though, let's go straight to the source of the image used in google moon, Selene. Download the raw image data for those coordinates, the same raw data that was used to create the texture for Google moon in the first place, and overlay that back onto google moon to see if it was really in the image at all or was it just an artifact caused by google's processing. Here's the result:
imageshack.com...
The “perspective” shifts because google moon is projecting the image onto a 3d model of the terrain and rendering it, using the image as a texture. The contrast is also dependent on google's processing when converting the image data, but it's the same image data, just exported differently by google.

I've taken the liberty of converting Selene's raw data for that region into a zipped png file anyone can open and look at:
dropcanvas.com...
As you can see from the above animation, it's just a google processing artifact. Like phage said, STOP USING GOOGLE MOON AS IF IT WERE A PRIMARY SOURCE. It's not a primary source for ANY of the imagery used in Google Moon, Google Sky, etc. Google reprocesses the data for their mosaics, and in the process they introduce new artifacts that were never really there. ALWAYS check the primary source before declaring the presence of an "artifact." It's a dead giveaway of poor research skills whenever I see people go "artifact hunting" on Google earth, google sky, etc.

antoinemarionette
Aren't those the L-shaped craft referred to by a whistle-blower on the run late last year? He said there was an entire fleet of them that landed on the dark side of the moon.

Which side is that?

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information

I'm not convinced. It is well known that seemingly "unnatural" patterns emerge as a result of image artefacts. Straight lines, right angles etc. If you take *any* image, you can replicate these artefacts pretty easily. When you can count the number of pixels in an object on the screen, take it with as a grain of salt.

Here is an example I made.


Here is the source of the image that I used.
www.godandscience.org...

There you go. I found a moon base. Note that these artefacts are incredibly sharp, because I've had to artificially stress the image. Hardware and on-board software created artefacts are much more subtle and convincing as they often suffer from post processing and whatever other algorithms they run on the OS. Also, I kept the image at [essentially] source res... most images you find online have either degraded from uploading and reuploading, or are low res pics of scaled up scenes. In exceptionally dark or bright areas of a scene the camera's sensor struggles to assign data to pixels, and sometimes software post-processing is done onboard, which can wig out when the image is over or under-exposed. There are so many things that can and do go wrong with digital imaging, especially when you get down to individual pixels or clusters of pixels.

I won't say one way or another whether or not this is real, but we have to admit that it might just be an image artefact.