White Buildings On Moon, False Back Of Moon! NASA Photos

[The One]

(ADDED LIGHT VERSION)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f-vMvfd95PY/TofV6c4Mz4I/AAAAAAAACGo/RvWuRfFzVCc/s1600/UFO%252C+sighting%252C+moon%252C+hollow%252C+space+station%252C+artificial%252C+structure%252C+death star%252C+WTF%253F1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sxvAu7URSwo/TofWEL2QtMI/AAAAAAAACGw/za1WfFfsawg/s1600/UFO%252C+sighting%252C+moon%252C+hollow%252C+space+station%252C+artificial%252C+structure%252C+death star%252C+WTF%253F2.jpg


(ORIGINAL VERSIONS )

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yu5_IFydU-0/TofWH6OPyMI/AAAAAAAACG0/kEcekd3biy8/s1600/16caff99-85bb-4676-b336-9eeafeeb84fc114.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A9y6KA7OyA8/TofWTBgJDMI/AAAAAAAACG4/T0E2z0nVCQo/s1600/793c4248-a9dd-4d6c-aa42-18a17cc06b4c118.jpg

Uploader says

I got some email the other day about these moon photos again and I decided to make this video so you can see how I alter the lighting and it reveals that the back of the moon is not rounded but more like a prop from some kind of on stage presentation. These are two actual NASA photos and they are only found in the computer CD at the end of the book "Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Near Side of the Moon." Get it from your library because it set me back about $70. but well worth it for the amazing full page photos and CD.


CLICK ON PHOTOS TO SEE FULL SIZE VERSION/PLEASE TAKE COPIES OF THEM.

8XpcK0c4bq8

[Humble Janitor]

They look more like viruses or bacteria than buildings.

Neat find though!

[DoubleHelix]

Cheers The One,

These photos really don't ring true to me. Notice how the lights are all the exact same size and are all spaced between one another at equal distances.

I'd imagine if there were any lunar installations of that size then they would share some similarities to what we see here on our Earth, where the strength of the light source varies at different locations (sometimes based on city population) and the distances between each light source are inconsistent.

http://www.ctpost.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=207821&width=628&height=471

[the trojan]

is it meant to represent light though?
or is it the top of a uniformly designed building roof, with light reflecting on it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Cheers The One,

These photos really don't ring true to me. Notice how the lights are all the exact same size and are all spaced between one another at equal distances.

I'd imagine if there were any lunar installations of that size then they would share some similarities to what we see here on our Earth, where the strength of the light source varies at different locations (sometimes based on city population) and the distances between each light source are inconsistent.

http://www.ctpost.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=207821&width=628&height=471

is it meant to represent light though?
or is it the top of a uniformly designed building roof, with light reflecting on it.

sorry for messing up thread folks,i was commenting on this reply by DoubleHelix.

[Pete]

:jaw: :jaw:

I have to say that the white mushrooms considering there size must be monstrous domed areas, which would have tied in with the long shadows that were formed. also i would have to say it reminded me of the UFO in encounters of the 3rd kind as you could discern some structure and shape through the murk of the shadows. It was just one half of it except one half of it is shaped like the moon.

this is just like the true man show ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show )

If you lived on that craft it would be very depressing to never get any light, so the domes were built as an afterthought once the craft was locked into orbit.

It would certainly answer some questions, like why the moon is the only observable satellite to have a circular orbit and not rotate.

Nah!...........but the photos did not look altered......except for one bit, but why would they bother to erase some it and leave the weird white domes............and why would they bother to keep it, it would have been a lot easier to destroy the photo if they were trying to hide the facts....................maybe it was a McDonalds sign or there was a Rothchild banner flapping on a flag pole.

mind boggling! once again

:jaw: :jaw:

[<8>]

I bet the properties on the edge there are expensive, earth view and all..

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/earth_ride.jpg

[Ilie Pandia]

Can anyone get a digital copy of that CD with the photos? From the local library :)?

And if you do, also look up who did those photos, from where, at what time and so on... so we can determine at what part of the moon we are looking at and if the photos are genuine or not.

This is a cool find that I've never seen before.

PS: The photos are obviously from a lunar orbiter... doh! I didn't know we have one or that we have access to the photos from that lunar orbiter

[Pete]

I bet the properties on the edge there are expensive, earth view and all..

ha ha very good, I wonder if they clean their cars and cut the lawns at the same time each weekend?

[<8>]

I bet the properties on the edge there are expensive, earth view and all..

ha ha very good, I wonder if they clean their cars and cut the lawns at the same time each weekend?


Not sure how things works up there, poor things have to hide on the dark side all the time...:P

[Ilie Pandia]

Here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunar_orbiter/bin/lst_crd.shtml?nlat

and here:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/

seem to be the photos from the Lunar Orbiters (yes, we've had more than one apparently).

However, without some coordinates it's like looking for a needle in a haystack...

This photo is somewhat similar to those in the OP but with no strange objects in it: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/4114_med.jpg

In fact, looking at the photos from the "official site", the ones with the objects in them look very doctored. So again, if someone can get a hold of that CD we can have closer look.

PS: Here is the "Consolidated Lunar Atlas": http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/cla/maps/thumbs/ There are some interesting photos but no white thingies as far as I can tell...

[Ilie Pandia]

Aha... more info about the book: http://www.moonviews.com/archives/2010/01/lunar_orbiter_photographic_atl_1.html



Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Near Side of the Moon, By Charles Byrne

In 1967, Lunar Orbiter Mission 4 sent back to Earth a superb series of photographs of the surface of the Moon, despite severe degradation caused by scanning artifacts and the reconstruction processes involved in transmission from lunar orbit.

Using 21st century techniques, Charles Byrne, previously System Engineer of the Apollo Program for Lunar Orbiter Photography, has removed the artifacts and imperfections to produce the most comprehensive and beautifully detailed set of images of the lunar surface.

The book has been organized to make it easy for astronomers to use, enabling ground-based images and views to be compared with the Orbiter photographs. The photographs are striking for their consistent Sun angles (for uniform appearance). All features have been identified with their current IAU-approved names, and each photograph has been located in terms of latitude and longitude. To help practical astronomers, all the photographs are systematically related to an Earth-based view.

A CD is included with the book, providing the enhanced and cleaned photographs for screen viewing, lectures, etc.


So we have:


photos were taken by Lunar Orbiter Mission 4 in 1967
photos had severe degradation (due to scanning and reconstruction processes)
artifacts and imperfections have been removed to produce beautiful images
the photos on the CD have been enhanced and cleaned


The above observations make it even more unlikely that those "white things" are mistakes unnoticed in the "enhancement and cleaning" process. So now I'm really curios to see the original files on that CD :biggrin: If those photos are really there, they are not there by mistake.

[KiwiElf]

Very interesting: These videos came from another source and open with a photo mosaic close-up of these same structures (plus a whole lot more). There are two videos in the series. For reference an entire transcript is below from both videos.
(There is a third video on the YouTube site but not from the same individual).

I believe there may be another post here on Avalon showing these vids.

As for the Earth photos above, it would be more accurate to make sure that the photos were taken at the same altitude as from the Moon for a fairer comparison - impossible to know but we would need to see the Earth cities a LOT closer ;)

http://www.youtube.com/user/secureteam10?blend=3&ob=5#p/u/2/xjoJV0GF6vY

http://www.youtube.com/user/secureteam10?blend=3&ob=5#p/u/1/PKNpNMNbxXA


TRANSCRIPT - LEAKED Insider Recording About NASA, UFOs, Aliens, Moon Bases,
Apollo

"The date is 29th June 2008, 6:32 pm.

I'm creating this message to let the people of the world, or whoever happens to hear this, know the truth about "what is going on" with regards to the alien presence in our world, as well as interstellar space and within our own solar system.

I myself am a "worker" in one of the underground bases located near Groom Lake [Area 51 & S4, Nevada]. I have done my work there for the past eight years and within the next coming months will be discharged.

Now what I'm going to tell you, you may want to take with a grain of salt but I assure you everything that what I am about to say is "truth"... is fact. And whether you know it or believe it or not, everything that I will tell you, is common knowledge within the Black Ops community at the most highest and secretive levels.

Now as I said, I've worked inside an underground base near Groom Lake for
the past eight years and have done my work there as a researcher and analyst working within the room of the "ET Program" as we call it. (Or, as it's known in the Black Ops community as "G28").

What we do here is research, analyse and investigate the Extra Terrestrial presence within our solar system and other dimensions. And what I'm going to tell you today is the "truth" about what is going on. I will try not to be too vague in my revelations. However, I do not want to say too much as I have already committed a felony in the eyes of our government just by speaking on the subject and I will be leaving soon after my discharge. And I have asked the owner of this video to which I am sending, not to publicise this video for at least two years after its recording to ensure my safety as well as theirs.

Now, as I've said, and let me make this clear: The presence of alien beings and the technology does exist. It is as real as you or me and it's a whole lot more out there than even the most die-hard "believers" could possibly fathom.

The "truth" is that we, and by "we" I mean this planet and the people of this planet, are in essence "blind" to what is really going on in the cosmos and interstellar space.

What people call "aliens," we call "I.B.'s", or in laymen's terms, "Inter-dimensional Beings". What we found out, and have known about since the early 70's, is that, in simplest terms, other dimensions or "planes," as we call them, exist and lay on top of each other. Almost stacked, as if you had a blanket with another blanket stacked on top of it, and another blanket stacked on top of "it".

To explain it so that you can understand, you can imagine the Earth in our "reality" as a thin blanket, and all these other "higher dimensions" are the blankets laying directly on top of ours. However, we can only "see" our own "blanket".

Now the alien beings or the ships that we have seen in videos, and that many people have captured over the years, are in fact what we call "jumpers", in that they exist in their relative dimensions but have in fact, "jumped" into ours.

Now we have discovered that most of the time, we are unable to see them, as they are at a wavelength indifferent to our own and our senses, eyes and ears cannot detect.

From the information that I have gathered and been briefed on, every planet, star and galaxy within our own plane and Universe as we "see" it, exists also in these other dimensions.

We've detected that we know of and have been briefed on, at least four other dimensions that do exist. Now as I said, every planet that we know of, every galaxy does exist in these other dimensions.

However, with each new dimension, each planet/galaxy/star takes on a different form. To explain it in the most simple... simplest terms, you can look at our own planet Jupiter, which is in the outer reaches of our solar system. Now to us, it's a deadly, gaseous planet, completely uninhabitable. However, when you look at Jupiter in an "elevated dimension," you will see that it has completely changed in all forms. You will see that it's no longer a deadly ball of gas, but is now solid, has a different colour and it is now inhabited. We know for a fact this is true due to the fact that the government has the technology to detect these higher dimensions and actually get a small view of what the solar system "looks like" on the "other side" as we call it, in these "other" dimensions.

There is much that we do not know about the Universe and how it works, however, here are the facts that I can confirm as "truth" and were made known to me and that I ­ and the other people I worked with, ­have been briefed on.

Now we are not alone in the Universe. There are alien beings within our own dimension of space, as well as other dimensions. The planet Earth is in an early stage, I guess you could say "training ground" if you will, whereby which we as beings will live until we have advanced to the higher dimensions. Now we are not the bottom of the food chain, and we have discovered that there are at least two dimensions below our own plane. But that is as far as I will go regarding that.

Now, I'm getting a little bit low on time so I will leave you with a few other important things that people will no doubt want to know about later, at a time this video is made public [Sept 2011]. Now these are things that I have been briefed on by my superiors and that are "common knowledge" in the Black Ops community.

Now the planet that we know of as Mars was at one time inhabited, ­ but again, at one time, was wiped out by the people who inhabited the planet ­ which were much more technologically advanced than we are, which we discovered by testing and analysing the chemical residue found from the blasts around the planet ­as well as artifacts that we've also discovered on the planet ­including the infamous "glass tubes" seen in the few of the publicly made photographs from NASA. Now these are not "glass" structures but are glass-like material that is about a thousand times stronger than any material or steel that we have on our own planet. These tubes were used as a means of travel ­ underground and above ground ­ by the people who inhabited this planet.

It is thought from our research, that there are still an ET presence inhabiting Mars, but again, this is as far as I will go, and that I was briefed on, regarding that matter.

Now, I¹m not trying to be completely vague, but I am trying to give you a "picture" of what is going on out there, that doesn't completely put me in more danger than I am already in, just by revealing the few things that I have.

One of the last things that I will reveal ­ and that is definitely a fact, and that I have been briefed on, in that many other people involved with the Black Op community have been briefed on ­ and that is our own Moon, which does in fact have alien bases on it and also has bases from our own government. Now there is an ET presence, primarily located on the dark side of the Moon.

The Apollo Program was in all actuality, a "reconnaissance mission" so that we could research what was exactly there and "who". You will notice that many of the photos from the Apollo Missions have airbrushed out buildings and bases and this is the "truth" of the matter. About half of the video that you will see that is documented from the Apollo Missions, was in fact shot here on Earth at Area 51. In fact, if you look at satellite imagery you can actually see what's left of a "crater field" created at Area 51 that was used in the filming.

Now the truth is that most of the footage from the Moon was simply "cluttered" with bases, with alien buildings and from what one astronaut said, and I am quoting, "What we're constant... a constant presence of alien vehicles flying over the surface cluttering up the footage". So, again, they showed the American people what they "could" and recreated the rest here on Earth [at Area 51] that they couldn't show.

From what we know, the dark side of the Moon is where most of the alien presence is located. It's a more primitive alien race from what we can see and our research tells us: it's more primitive than the aliens beings you would see on higher dimensions but still thousands if not millions of years ahead of us.

Now we have our own bases which are primarily located in or near the Sea of Tranquility, which is the site of Apollo 11 and also one base that I know of located near the crater, Sabine D.

To this day, we are still sending secret missions to and from the Moon. However, I do not know the complete details of what we are doing there.

PART 2 ­ HOLLOW EARTH
Now one of the things that is widely discussed throughout the World and from what I've seen on the Internet, various talk shows on the subject, is whether the Earth is actually hollow along with other planets that are out there that seem to have openings at the poles. This is true for Saturn, Jupiter, [Earth], Venus, Mercury, Mars. There are various images "out there" you can search for if you will just look.

Now you can actually see Aurora Borealis coming from the poles. These planets... some of these planets which have "no business" having an Aurora Borealis affect so it begs the question, what is going on to cause this and where does the Earth's Aurora Borealis actually come from?

To put it in simplest terms and this is verified and it may be hard to believe although it is true ­ once you do the work that I've done and others like me have done, you will soon find out that a lot of the things you used to think that [would] never be deemed as "real", or nothing more than fiction, turn out to be in fact, "real" and it seems that fiction... life is stranger than fiction sometimes. Let's just put it that way.

The Aurora Borealis of Earth is actually coming from openings at the North and South Poles. Now is the Earth hollow? Does it have a central sun? Does it have land masses on the inside with a central star? From what we know, there are confirmed openings at the North and South Poles of Earth. General [Admiral] Byrd, in the 50's, flew a mission to one of the poles [Operation Highjump], it is documented. Fleets of ships and aircraft were taken to the pole and subsequently driven out by a fleet of UFOs or AV's. We established that there was an alien presence coming from these openings out the poles.

As fas as the government is concerned, we don't believe that there is a central star inside the Earth and that the Earth is hollow. However, we do believe that there are many underground passageways and an underground presence of extra terrestrial life that goes down up to 20 miles beneath the surface of the Earth, with the two poles ­ the North and South Poles ­being the main entrances of where these UFOs and ET beings come out of.

We believe that they have been there for at least thousands of years and have set up some sort of underground community. We have documented these fleets of ships coming from the poles flying up over Mexico in the early 90's and there is documentation on this also. There was a fleet of literally thousands of UFO disk-like saucers that were seen flying in fleets over Mexico heading towards the Southern United States.

Now our Airforce, as well as the airforce from Canada and a few other departments and countries from South America also, were scrambled to intercept these saucers and were able to drive the saucers back to the Southern Pole from which they came. We are not sure what type of weaponry they do have, what their purpose is, what they are planning, or why they are coming to the surface and flying in our airspace. That we do not know.

Every time the government has attempted to send a probe or satellite in orbit to fly over the poles, it either ends up being lost, shut down or destroyed by an unknown means. We are not sure, we believe these satellites and probes are being purposely knocked out of orbit by this extra terrestrial presence.

We have sent spy planes, as well as drones ­ the same types of drones that are used in Iraq and Afghanistan, ­ to fly over the poles and for what we can see the closest point at the pole right near the opening, the surrounding area for about 50 miles is completely warm; it is 80 degrees Fahrenheit. It is warm, there is vegetation, there is grass, there are mountains. It is not the horribly cold terrain that the rest of the North and South Poles are known for.

You will see that once the farthest ... the further that you come inland - into the center where the polar opening is, the more greenery and the rapid temperature increase you will see. So there is a definite reason for the openings of these entrances at the poles. There is something that is heating those entrances and heating the surrounding area.

The radius of 50 miles is a large area which obviously means there is something heating and we've confirmed the Aurora Borealis is coming from inside of the polar openings, which leads us to believe there is something within these poles that is causing this heat and light source to be coming out, although we are not sure. Again, we do not believe there is a central star due to the common laws of gravity. However, I have been briefed and it's basically on a "need-to-know" basis.

However, what I have heard is that what we know as "gravity" is not correct. What we have found out is that gravity does not come from the mass of the planet. The gravity of the planet... what we have found [is] that gravity is actually magnetic and is actually created through the energy of the Sun.

From the magnetic properties of the light coming from the Sun is actually what creates "gravity" as we know it, and holds us onto the planet, and there is documentation on this also. That any planet or moon or circular object out in the cosmos that at least has a radius of 21 miles, can have gravity.

Now we are still investigating exactly how this gravity works but what we have found out is that most of these extra terrestrial crafts, or A.V's... Alien Vehicles, do manipulate light and use our Sun ­as well as other stars as a main source of controlling these extra terrestrial vehicles.

If you will do some research on that, there is some documentation found on the internet as well as published in some books that you may have trouble finding. There are also some scientific journals that were published by some very "high-up" scientists speaking of the effects of the Sun with regard to gravity. I assure you that gravity does not come from the mass of the object but does in fact come from the Sun.

END OF TRANSCRIPT

[Hervé]

Re the OP pictures... I'd like someone to be able to explain to me why the so-called "structures" have shadows both ways? In a similar pattern as the dark blotches on the left-hand side.

[KiwiElf]

Re the OP pictures... I'd like someone to be able to explain to me why the so-called "structures" have shadows both ways? In a similar pattern as the dark blotches on the left-hand side.

Not knowing what the author has done with the photos, "artifacts" can result from over sharpening a photograph - in this case the illusion of extra shadowing. Also the far left shading of the Moon (the edge of the dark area) has been added after the photo(s) has been taken and probably with old-tech hand airbrushing of the time. Photoshop will clearly show up any earlier "doctoring" by simply increasing the brightness/contrast or Levels. (Photoshop would indeed do the job far more "realistically", except it wasn't around until the mid 1990's long after these photo's would have been doctored).

Always best to start with the originals, if we can find them. Darker dots also appear in clusters in these photos too (can be seen in the "light areas").

[Hervé]

Re the OP pictures... I'd like someone to be able to explain to me why the so-called "structures" have shadows both ways? In a similar pattern as the dark blotches on the left-hand side.

Not knowing what the author has done with the photos, "artifacts" can result from over sharpening a photograph - in this case the illusion of extra shadowing. Also the far left shading of the Moon (the edge of the dark area) has been added after the photo(s) has been taken and probably with old-tech hand airbrushing of the time. Photoshop will clearly show up any earlier "doctoring" by simply increasing the brightness/contrast or Levels. (Photoshop would indeed to the job far more "realistically", except it wasn't around until the mid 1990's long after these photo's would have been doctored).

Always best to start with the originals, if we can find them. Darker dots also appear in clusters in these photos too (can be seen in the "light areas").

I understand what you are saying. The thing is that the in-line double shadows do not occur with the craters.

My bet: Bubbles stuck on the negatives.

[KiwiElf]

I understand what you are saying. The thing is that the in-line double shadows do not occur with the craters.

My bet: Bubbles stuck on the negatives.

I wouldn't disagree with you except that altering the negatives (ie adding something as opposed to blacking it out) would have been quite a feat back then (and why would you want to add them "in" on such an "official" CD? ;)

EDIT----
Also, this composite was made from "strips" of film taken at different times, exposures, positioning and lighting (and therefore shadowing), and later "glued together" (you can see this in the opening shot of the first video I've posted above), and someone would have had the tedius job of getting each overlapping strip to match for a seamless "single image". You can see how difficult this can be by looking at the updated strips they have added to Google Mars - they don't exactly match. Even with a PhotoShop expert, this is a mammoth task.
----EDIT

It would be good to get the original photos that this "composite" was made from. If you compare the photos supplied, match a group of craters to the "buildings" - is also different. Goes without saying that the structures could have been added more recently too. I guess it's all the other independent "strange" photos of pyramids and these same structures & various testimonies etc that make it "interesting" tho.

[Pete]

I reckon that this thread is going to go viral!, I have looked at the shadow area that has been mentioned and it is my opinion that these are actually shadows created by the craters on the sunward side.

Lets get hold of the CD and verify this.

[Hervé]

Double shadows implying two sources of light facing each other... this should cancel the "shadows"... it doesn't!

Also about the same length for the shadows wherever they are located on the surface... that's not quite possible either if one of the source of light casting one shadow is considered to be the sun.

My bet reiterated: bubbles!

[Pete]

Double shadows implying two sources of light facing each other... this should cancel the "shadows"... it doesn't!

Also about the same length for the shadows wherever they are located on the surface... that's not quite possible either if one of the source of light casting one shadow is considered to be the sun.

My bet reiterated: bubbles!

I'm listening to you and I still can't see it. The shape that the photo suggest to me is analogous to a bell shape. You have a domed leading edge and then it seems to fall away and the curve actually reverses to concave before it reverses yet again at the edge. The fact that the shadows appear longer is that the white blobs are sitting on the surface at a different angle which changes their relationship to the sun and would explain why the shadows are so elongated and also why the shadows from the craters on the sunward side extend over the blobs.

You might be able to discern for yourself what appears to be a fold or increased curvature a short distance in front the blobs.

I also think that these structures are solid and are although they would be emitting some light it is fractional in comparison to the light of the sun.

hope that helps to illustrate how I perceive this image.

Pete

[Hervé]

Look at the pictures in their entirety, and you may be able to see that the ones on the left margin are apparently hanging out "in space"... these together with the more obvious ones at the boundary dark-light of the moon determine a flat surface, not a curved one. The only way that could occur is when bubbles happen to be on the negative surface or on a surface in front of it.


PS: As this is a matter of perception in the absence of accurate data on how these pictures were obtained and what defect needed to be corrected, I invite you to practice an exercise in perception with this thread: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29920-Are-you-left-brain-or-right-brain-dominant-Find-out-&p=303367&viewfull=1#post303367

[Pete]

PS: As this is a matter of perception in the absence of accurate data on how these pictures were obtained and what defect needed to be corrected, I invite you to practice an exercise in perception with this thread: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29920-Are-you-left-brain-or-right-brain-dominant-Find-out-&p=303367&viewfull=1#post303367[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your valued response, but in answer to the above, I accept your invitation and I perceive differently to you.

hugs Pete

[Hervé]

That fine with me.

I just would like to add that, with that matter of perception, there is only one actuality; anything else is illusion.

Taking that into account, here is the reality of the situation: the surface of the moon shows craters and bumps with only one direction of shadow from the sunlight... how could blobs/"structures" erected on that same surface exhibit two shadows in opposite directions?

[Pete]

I've been looking at these images again and my analogy of a bell still stands for one of the views but I think the overall shape is that of a shuttle cock. The white foam dome end that straightens out to flat at the tangent point and continues a short distance of flat (where the domes are located) to a defined edge. then if this shape were to rotate downward there would be the half crescent and a short length of straight (where the domes are) and then a city of immense size sitting where the dark side of the moon should be.

I would be very interested to know if anyone else can perceive this the same way ????

[KiwiElf]

This is rapidly turning into Chinese whispers. For new readers, I suggest you start at the beginning ;) - Without the originals, anything we perceive, think or have an opinion on, is nothing more than that - at best, an educated guess. So all bets are on :)

[Arrowwind]

I just cant believe that you guys are considering that these photos are of buildings on the moon.

High resolution photos of the moon are taken everyday by perhaps hundreds of people daily, if not thousands around the world and from space mssions of more than one country. Many people have telescopes that can get very detailed and closeup images. which certainly these gigantic "buildings" would be seen.

http://www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/moon.htm (http://www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/moon.htm)


Now these circular buildings in lines all over the freakin moon show up that are not just huge but absolutely gigantic and not a peep from astronomers around the world?

Give me a break.

Better yet. Put it in the same trash basket as Elenin.

[The One]

I just cant believe that you guys are considering that these photos are of buildings on the moon.

High resolution photos of the moon are taken everyday by perhaps hundreds of people daily, if not thousands around the world and from space mssions of more than one country. Many people have telescopes that can get very detailed and closeup images. which certainly these gigantic "buildings" would be seen.

http://www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/moon.htm (http://www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/moon.htm)


Now these circular buildings in lines all over the freakin moon show up that are not just huge but absolutely gigantic and not a peep from astronomers around the world?

Give me a break.

Better yet. Put it in the same trash basket as Elenin.

Go have a sleep my friend

This is not to your tasting then fine,Remember i did post it under conspirarcy.Also what do we actually know what is real or not we dont we just assume.

We all want to beleive in something my friend.

[KiwiElf]

I just cant believe that you guys are considering that these photos are of buildings on the moon.

High resolution photos of the moon are taken everyday by perhaps hundreds of people daily, if not thousands around the world and from space mssions of more than one country. Many people have telescopes that can get very detailed and closeup images. which certainly these gigantic "buildings" would be seen.

http://www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/moon.htm (http://www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/moon.htm)


Now these circular buildings in lines all over the freakin moon show up that are not just huge but absolutely gigantic and not a peep from astronomers around the world?

Give me a break.

Better yet. Put it in the same trash basket as Elenin.

Ummm might pay to read the WHOLE thread - from the beginning. I'm not aware of a single telescope that can see the far side of the moon? ;)

[Ilie Pandia]

Hey... be cool! :)

I also doubt the photos are real, but they are worth investigating nevertheless! For example I've learned that we've had lunar orbiters :biggrin:

So an interesting question: why didn't those lunar orbiters photograph the "dark side of the moon" with the equivalent of a flash light or in Infra Red light and so on. My speculation is that they did, but we don't get to see those pictures.

The question still stands: are the photos in the OP really on the CD of that book... I guess the burden will fall on an Avalonian close to a library to go and check :). An USA Avalonian :p And if the photos are on that CD, why are they there? How did they get through the selection process? What does the books have to say about it...

[Ilie Pandia]

Look at the pictures in their entirety, and you may be able to see that the ones on the left margin are apparently hanging out "in space"... these together with the more obvious ones at the boundary dark-light of the moon determine a flat surface, not a curved one. The only way that could occur is when bubbles happen to be on the negative surface or on a surface in front of it.

Hi Amzer,

My thoughts are similar to yours: those white things are a "defect" on a the flat surface of the photo itself and not the Moon.

BUT! Why would such a nasty picture make it to a digital CD?! Looking at the Lunar Atlas from that mission is not like they run out of images to burn on the CD... why pick such a "damaged" one :)? That's really strange and that's why I insist yet again that we need the damn CD :biggrin:

[king anthony]

It would be easy to dismiss the contents of the OP for whatever reason; as logic would initially say that "the few" (ruling class/elite) would not err with the release of something like this (if it is something of interest).

However, it is known that "the few" (and "those others" = ETs) make things known in plan sight (not highlighting facts/truths) - thus, "they" can say "we hid nothing from anyone". "They" leave it up to the masses (population) to muddle their way through information.

Did humankind really land on the moon when they said they did!?

[Hervé]

[...]
BUT! Why would such a nasty picture make it to a digital CD?! Looking at the Lunar Atlas from that mission is not like they run out of images to burn on the CD... why pick such a "damaged" one :)? That's really strange and that's why I insist yet again that we need the damn CD :biggrin:

May be they were added to give an example of the state of some of these pictures the author had to deal with? ... to give an idea on how much doctoring the published ones underwent? ... that the "perfect" ones are more a work of art than a photographic feat? :paintgirl:

I definitely agree that the CD would reveal more on what these things are and what procedures were followed to develop the negatives and positives.

Until then, my bet is still that these are bubbles especially from the coalescing or the migating ones that left a "tube" like trail during exposure time...

Thanks for concurring on the observation. :yo:

[KiwiElf]

[...]
BUT! Why would such a nasty picture make it to a digital CD?! Looking at the Lunar Atlas from that mission is not like they run out of images to burn on the CD... why pick such a "damaged" one :)? That's really strange and that's why I insist yet again that we need the damn CD :biggrin:

May be they were added to give an example of the state of some of these pictures the author had to deal with? ... to give an idea on how much doctoring the published ones underwent? ... that the "perfect" ones are more a work of art than a photographic feat? :paintgirl:

I definitely agree that the CD would reveal more on what these things are and what procedures were followed to develop the negatives and positives.

Until then, my bet is still that these are bubbles especially from the coalescing or the migating ones that left a "tube" like trail during exposure time...

Thanks for concurring on the observation. :yo:

You said it perfectly - the "perfect" composite images we see ARE more a work of art -talk to any PhotoShop retoucher ;)

Sorry guys, I'm in the graphic business and I don'y buy your "bubbles theory" either - if they are a defect in the film, or "bubbling" caused by heat or exposure then why are the bubbles arranged to conform to the shape and placement of the craters???? I think you need to look at other sources showing these same "objects", which is not to say they were'nt put in there by some other means. (And would you explain what you think the "bubbles" are then ?????)

[Hervé]

[...]
... why are the bubbles arranged to conform to the shape and placement of the craters???? I think you need to look at other sources showing these same "objects", which is not to say they were'nt put in there by some other means. (And would you explain what you think the "bubbles" are then ?????)

I don't see too many examples of these bubbles hugging craters' contours; however, electrostatic could do it.

Bubbles, in the liquid used for developing either the negatives or positives and, although "ruined" still added to the CD for the sake of completeness.

[KiwiElf]

Electrostatic "what"? I've been in the business for over 30 years and I've never heard of that in the photography field. The bubbles are arranged around or in many of the craters if you look at the separate photos and videos. The others are arranged in geometric patterns with some purpose and design, not random defects. Fingerprint damaging the emulsion of film I could believe. None-the-less - the patterning is too deliberate. I'd like to see your theory demonstrated.

[Hervé]

Another word for surface tension... or why bubbles stick to bottom surfaces instead of... bubbling up. Hence: demonstrated!

[Pete]

Hi it's me again, I can almost hear you groan from here, but I've got to say I am with Kiwielf.

There has been a lot of mention regarding the moon in the alternative media, Ben Fulford in a recent discussion with David Wilcock discussing the meeting of the 57 mentioned the fact that people should take an interest in the moon, "something odd about the moon Its got alonger cycle in the coming months". I have been listening and reading a number of articles regarding the moon. This is mainly because I sense there is something very odd. Have you noticed a differrence in how the moon looks and how it seems to track at differrent heights. SaLuSa also recently made the quote" I hope you like our terraforming on the Moon" and "disclosure is imminent, but I am afraid it will be very embarrassing to you all".

Can anyone here explain why our sun is exactly 40 times larger than our moon?
Why does our moon not have an elliptical orbit unlike any other observable satellite?
Why does our moon refuse to rotate like any other observable body in space?
Why are there no photographic evidence showing the dark side?
Are there any satelites or telescopes that have a role of observing the moon?
Why would these photos come to light now?

I personally see a very elegant design, as I suggested these domes must be very large and have been added to allow some sunlight for the occupants who would otherwise spend their entire time in darkness. The domes are hidden from view because the area they are located is set back from the visual plane observable from earth.

I cannot agree that these are simply bubbles or beads stuck on to the original They appear to me to be apart of the photo matrix and before you ask I have had some experience in photoshop and photo enhancement.

I believe the area that is causing confusion is the fact that there are two domes that seem to have a shadow coming back from the domes towards the sun. However, I would translate that as the ridge on the sunward side screening the domes which means that the shadows are going in the same direction as all the others. Remember these domes have been built to allow surface living without being viewed from earth.

I am perfectly aware that we should exercise discretion and I endeavour to do this, but having researched so much material regarding conspiracies I have improved my antennae and I personally believe that this needs further investigation. Lets get the original CD and then we can observe these images to ensure they are not very clever fakes.

Because on the face of it, they just look like very badly cleaned up photos.

I am the first to recommend discretion but I also trust my intuition and this seems to deserve more research. I wonder if we are going to have our own "Trueman show" experience?

[KiwiElf]

Another word for surface tension... or why bubbles stick to bottom surfaces instead of... bubbling up. Hence: demonstrated!

Ahhh that is a definition not a demonstration. "Electrostatic... surface tension..." on film? You will have to excuse me but I've never come across that in 30 years of processing and fixing film defects. Sounds more like technobabble from a Star Trek episode. Nor have I ever seen a "defect" like this on any film. Period.

10294

10295

10296

10297

10298

[Pete]

10298[/QUOTE]

Ah ha, this is Dubai with the tide out.

Bubbles, My shiny little a**, give me a break.

[Hervé]

Here they are... ooops... who moved them around?


10302 10303

Now, these double shadows... absent around craters:


10304


10305


... but hanging in space on the dark side...




Since you are the pro... what's YOUR explanation?


Unless they have top aces moving companies up there... moving around such huge "structures" is quite a feat.

[gigha]

I have been involved in photography in one way or another for the past 30 odd years. I worked in the darkroom for one of North Americas largest newspapers for a number of years. I would process hundreds of rolls of film in a week. And i have to say not once did i ever see bubbling like this. Way too uniform. Bubbling is caused by a lack of agitation while the film is in the chemicals. I don't think that NASA would have that happen with all the money they invest on the best equipment and people.
My only other thought is maybe something else could have affected the film before it was processed.
Sorry still does not answer what they are...Peace

[KiwiElf]

Amzer, please calm down ;) I don't believe I've attempted yet to speculate on what they are - only what they are not. As I pointed out in my earlier posts here, until we can get hold of the original film (and I'd say the odds of that are slim), it would be impossible to tell, short of taking a hop to the Moon.

When were they taken? By what probe? Was this a composite? Are they single images? What sort of camera and film was used? How were the images processed? From some of these images I can see clear and amateurish retouching attempts. But is something being added or removed? Your observations of different shadowing is also relevant and another part of the puzzle. But that is all.

I'd also want to see the same "things/blobs/bubbles" from another source or set of photos, the higher res the better. I saw the shots I provided on video long before this posts' images, combined with various claims from [some questionable] and not so questionable sources, ie NASA astronauts, staff and recent whistleblowers. So when they we're posted I thought, ahah... interesting. The shots I have provided show some of the same "things" (along with some deliberate attempts to smudge something out). Why?

I am taking those separate sources in combination with the alleged revelations over the years (ie Richard Hoagland's research on Moon and Mars artifacts is worth a look), that there are alien (and supposedly human) structures/bases on the far side of the Moon. As no Earth-based telescope can see that side, we're stuck with whatever imagery is available.

These rumours have been circulating for decades: "things," lights & shadows etc have been recorded appearing, moving or disappearing long before we invented rockets. This is historically well documented. So I'm not prepared to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" just yet.

There are two possibilities: they are either faked or they are real. If they are faked, end of story (altho personally, I'd be curious to know how it was done - still a mammoth task even in PhotoShop) and most importantly, why they were put onto an "official CD (which we ourselves have still yet to see). I'd certainly like to hear NASA's explanation.

But... IF the latter is the case, these "things" are miles high in size. If so, then who ever built them has the ability to remove or move them. And if so, perhaps they aren't structures but could be spaceships. And if so, I certainly don't think they are anything we would have been capable of building.

So right now, until further info or photos become available, I'm putting this back in the "interesting " file.

[Hervé]

I have been involved in photography in one way or another for the past 30 odd years. I worked in the darkroom for one of North Americas largest newspapers for a number of years. I would process hundreds of rolls of film in a week. And i have to say not once did i ever see bubbling like this. Way too uniform. Bubbling is caused by a lack of agitation while the film is in the chemicals. I don't think that NASA would have that happen with all the money they invest on the best equipment and people.
My only other thought is maybe something else could have affected the film before it was processed.
Sorry still does not answer what they are...Peace

In the absence of the originals, another speculation on possibilities:

* The original got "laminated" with whatever got caught in there;

* since the posted samples in the OP show a vertical flip, the positives may have been obtained through contact (in a solution) from a negative print

[gigha]

I have been involved in photography in one way or another for the past 30 odd years. I worked in the darkroom for one of North Americas largest newspapers for a number of years. I would process hundreds of rolls of film in a week. And i have to say not once did i ever see bubbling like this. Way too uniform. Bubbling is caused by a lack of agitation while the film is in the chemicals. I don't think that NASA would have that happen with all the money they invest on the best equipment and people.
My only other thought is maybe something else could have affected the film before it was processed.
Sorry still does not answer what they are...Peace

In the absence of the originals, another speculation on possibilities:

* The original got "laminated" with whatever got caught in there;

* since the posted samples in the OP show a vertical flip, the positives may have been obtained through contact (in a solution) from a negative print

I think that all we can do is speculate in the absence of the originals.
It is possible i guess that something could have gotten trapped in a secondary process. It is very obvious that the images have been manipulated. It is doubtful that the manipulation took place on the original negatives. So yes during the manipulation something could have happened, although for it to be seen in such symmetry your guess would be as good as mine as to what that could have been.
Hope that makes sense..Peace

[aranuk]

Can I say something that I think is misunderstood by some? We only see from Earth one side of the moon. The other side at our new moon is shining brightly at that time but we cannot see the moon during the day time. When the moon is shining brightly in the night sky the sun is behind the earth and the dark side is definitely dark. When we see a crescent moon and only a portion of the moon is lit up a good part of the other side is daylight. And when we see the moon in phases there are also phases on the other side. So if alien beings or humans lived on the other side of the moon they would have lots of consecutive days where it was mostly dark and also have lots of consecutive days where it was mostly sunny. We have darkness and daylight once a day as our Earth spins. The moon of course does not spin therefore it has about 7 and a half bright days in a row on the other side and same amount of days dark on the other side. The rest half and half sort of. I just thought I would post this as sometimes these things are difficult to visualise.

Stan

[aranuk]

Look at the pictures in their entirety, and you may be able to see that the ones on the left margin are apparently hanging out "in space"... these together with the more obvious ones at the boundary dark-light of the moon determine a flat surface, not a curved one. The only way that could occur is when bubbles happen to be on the negative surface or on a surface in front of it.


PS: As this is a matter of perception in the absence of accurate data on how these pictures were obtained and what defect needed to be corrected, I invite you to practice an exercise in perception with this thread: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29920-Are-you-left-brain-or-right-brain-dominant-Find-out-&p=303367&viewfull=1#post303367

AZ I agree with you there are shaddows going east and west. How can that be?

Stan

[Pete]

Here they are... ooops... who moved them around?


10302 10303

Now, these double shadows... absent around craters:


10304


10305


... but hanging in space on the dark side...




Since you are the pro... what's YOUR explanation?


Unless they have top aces moving companies up there... moving around such huge "structures" is quite a feat.

Not sure that I understand your point with regard to this comment, please explain are these the same photos originally shown or are these the same photos that you have you moved your "bubbles" around.

The domes or "bubbles" are an inconsequential part of this entire investigation to my mind. The really interesting bit is they are positioned on an artificial satellite made to look like a moon when viewed from earth.

I would say that given the size of the craft that these "bubbles" are situated upon, it could be perfectly feasible that they are independant craft that jostle around with the others to find the rare sunlight as the moon tracks around the earth. and remember these "bubbles" are below the visible horizon from the earth.

We are going to have to lift our horizons if we really want to see the big picture.


see Salusa's recent message the sacred light of sedona

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?32046-SaLuSa-Your-Divine-Rights-The-City-of-Light-of-Sedona-October-7-2011

and remember the ethos of the illuminati; "In plain sight".

Come on guys aren't any of you feeling this?:grouphug:

[Pete]

Just been listening to an old david Ike vid


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm4LaHuDGBc&feature=related

this is my angle on this

[Pete]

In reply to a new thread Does a Machine/Spaceship like this orbit the Earth? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?33964-Does-a-Machine-Spaceship-like-this-orbit-the-Earth) maybe....