It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gigantic structures on the front side of the moon + other 'anomalies'

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

tachyonattor7
it's seems your dis-'belief' prevents you from discerning the structures from pixelization, swamp gas, weather balloons and such.

...

it's called perceptual blindness. some people are blind to unexplained phenomena because their brains simply can’t handle anything they don’t understand. i shared a link to the joe escamilla documentary Celestial that shows many of these anomalies on a level a child could understand it, so i recommend you watch it carefully before making conclusions about the subject of matter. here's the link again www.youtube.com...


Seems your belief enables you to see structures where there are only craters, hills, rocks and such. It's called pareidolia.


And Jose Escamilla is still pushing the "rods" theory, even after it has been thoroughly debunked, so I would say that his intellectual honesty is highly suspect when it comes to "anomalies".
edit on 17-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
i don't think the rods have been debunked. here's the documentary about them www.youtube.com...
their existance is confirmed and well documented. but, you have already been exposed as quite confused in your opinions, at times giving kudos to something just to reject it altogether a bit later. that's called debunking yourself. anyway, i never heared mr. jose mention rods, and the rods are beyond the scope of this threads. if you'r going to talk about mr. jose, try focusing on anomalies. in the documentary celestial there's quite a few of them and they are quite fascinating.


draknoir2

tachyonattor7
Seems your belief enables you to see structures where there are only craters, hills, rocks and such. It's called pareidolia.
And Jose Escamilla is still pushing the "rods" theory, even after it has been thoroughly debunked, so I would say that his intellectual honesty is highly suspect when it comes to "anomalies".
edit on 17-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

tachyonator7 anyway, i never heared mr. jose mention rods, and the rods are beyond the scope of this threads. if you'r going to talk about mr. jose, try focusing on anomalies.

IIRC Dr Jose found "rods" to be quite anomalous.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonator7
 


Did you watch project celementine??
www.youtube.com...
All seriousness it is right down your alley. It is rather speculative but it is still a good watch IMO
edit on thTue, 18 Mar 2014 17:44:27 -0500America/Chicago320142780 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
yes, i watched it. i find "The Reason NASA Never Returned To The Moon (Full Documentary)" better.

www.youtube.com...


Sremmos80
reply to post by tachyonator7
 


Did you watch project celementine??
www.youtube.com...
All seriousness it is right down your alley. It is rather speculative but it is still a good watch IMO
edit on thTue, 18 Mar 2014 17:44:27 -0500America/Chicago320142780 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

tachyonator7
i never heared mr. jose mention rods, and the rods are beyond the scope of this threads. if you'r going to talk about mr. jose, try focusing on anomalies. in the documentary celestial there's quite a few of them and they are quite fascinating.


Hey, you brought up the "Rodfather" as a source, not me.

And since we are talking about photographic artifacts and anomalies, his credibility in that area is fair game.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   


(post by tachyonator7 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

tachyonator7
i brought up his documentary CELESTIAL, not his wifes favorite dress or flying rods, but you love to derail from the subject, again showing your confused mindset, jumping erratically to completely unrelated topics. maybe you should consider talking to someone about your problem, just saying. i suggest you actually watch the documentary, watch it carefully, pause and examine. look, the 'photographic aritfact' has a head, torso and two legs. bad artifact, stop looking like a human statue!



draknoir2

tachyonator7
i never heared mr. jose mention rods, and the rods are beyond the scope of this threads. if you'r going to talk about mr. jose, try focusing on anomalies. in the documentary celestial there's quite a few of them and they are quite fascinating.


Hey, you brought up the "Rodfather" as a source, not me.

And since we are talking about photographic artifacts and anomalies, his credibility in that area is fair game.


edit on 19-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)


Let's use a little rational thought here. Is it logical and related to point out that if the man's other work is proven fraudulent or at least suspect that his other work is suspect too?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
what your looking at here is publicly available nasa photograph. so your attemp to depict mr. jose as a 'fraud' is rude and insulting.
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

tachyonator7
i brought up his documentary CELESTIAL, not his wifes favorite dress or flying rods, but you love to derail from the subject, again showing your confused mindset, jumping erratically to completely unrelated topics. maybe you should consider talking to someone about your problem, just saying. i suggest you actually watch the documentary, watch it carefully, pause and examine. look, the 'photographic aritfact' has a head, torso and two legs. bad artifact, stop looking like a human statue!




You do make a good point about his wife's dress. Anyway, ALL his "documentaries" are garbage but entertaining. I always wondered if anybody took them seriously. So thanks for clearing that up. I don't even think he takes them seriously.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

tachyonator7
what your looking at here is publicly available nasa photograph. so your attemp to depict mr. jose as a 'fraud' is rude and insulting.
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




Which he distorts and finds things in fuzzy photographs that only he and the gullible can see.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

tachyonator7
your attemp to depict mr. jose as a 'fraud' is rude and insulting.



Why? Are YOU, in fact, "Mr. Jose"?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
***ATTENTION***

Alright folks.

The T&C infractions stop now.

Post on topic and about the topic, not each other.

Further violations will result in posting bans.

`Tenth
ATS Super Mod



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonator7
 


A, good ol Reiner Gamma.

A very interesting looking feature on the moon, that is quite visible to us down here on Earth.

Looking at much clearer photographs, I'm failing to see any statues that are over 6 miles tall (which would be easily visible in even small telescopes with say, a 9mm eyepiece):



I see dark craters where the "statue" is suppose to be.

Let's use the LROC and take a closer look:



Yep. Looks like craters.

We can even look up on the internet for amateur astronomers that have taken photos of that area. Like this one here:



source

Six mile high statue? That would leave one heck of a shadow too.

Just not seeing it.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Excellent post, erik.
Why do these conspiracy theorists persist in using blurry, fuzzy low-res photos when we have such great imagery available nowadays? Answer: because pareidolia works far better in fabulous Blur-O-Vision!



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Rob48
 


Well the image that lacks detail is one that you look at and your brain wants to make sense of what you are seeing. It does it by trying to fit shapes that we are familiar with into what you are seeing.

CTs want to think that they are being lied to by everyone, or that they are in on some "big secret". So a clearer picture with much more detail does not fit that, hence the idea of "there is a big cover up", then claims that the images were air brushed or photoshopped to look the way they do.

While I enjoy a fat juicy conspiracy as much as the next guy, in some cases, logic just falls apart. In these cases, we're not talking about the far side of the moon that has only been imaged by space craft. We're talking about the near side which is visible to everyone here on Earth.

IF there were structures on the near side of the moon, they'd have to be very small, measured in feet, not miles. Then a CT might have something, because Earth bound telescopes can not resolve anything that small.

There are the LROC images that can resolve down to 0.5 meters per pixel, and that's amazing. However, even the people at Arizona State University have said that it's possible for there to be something on the moon, in even in the LROC images, as they simply do not have the man power to pour over all the images with a fine tooth comb. They get them stitched together as quick as they can, but it's not quite the same as going over it with a fine eye.

So is it possible for there to be something on the moon that we didn't put there? Well, the moon is a big place, and I've not personally been there to inspect every square foot of it myself. So sure, I'd say that it's possible. Maybe a spent fuel stage that's only 50 feet long, half covered with lunar soil....

But six mile high statues? 43 mile wide buildings? On the near side?

No, things like that would have stuck out like a sore thumb and would have been visible not too long after larger telescopes were built (starting in the 1700s), and would have been spotted well before there ever was a NASA or ESA or any other space program.

I do believe that governments lie, and cover things up.

But it's impossible to cover up the sky and what is in it.






new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join