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

reply to post by tachyonator7

Remind me again what is odd about this...?
I realize I'm blind (it makes finding images on the net kinda hard) and "retarded" as you say (which makes it hard for me to see imaginary things, I guess? )


This is from the link you provided just above at: abidemiracles.com...

tachyonator7
your rotten sarcasam sure aint imaginary.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

Well, you didn't do a very good job of answering my question there did you? hmm

And thanks for being such a shining example of polite and civil discourse.


BTW: Why did you remove the link you gave for the original image that I then posted?

Oh, that's right, you edited the link out and added in that you "slightly zoomed" it. You said

it's impossible to see anything in your very bad quality and extremely blurred image. here's the crop from the original photo sligtly more zoomed

Then you posted this:


Call me dumb, but that looks more than "slightly zoomed" compared to this;


To quote you,

it's impossible to see anything in your very bad quality and extremely blurred image

tachyonator7
i have attached the high resolution source photo originally posted by john lear which shows the object in question. i don't see why would you photograph a bad quality printed image just to debunk the find. here's the original again abidemiracles.com... download it and check for your self.

You think i didn't check? Some us actually do, that's why your posts keep getting ripped apart. I looked at that one and it is by no means the highest resolution copy of the image - in fact it's another pretty poor copy. The LOIRP link I posted has higher resolution copies that that, as does the Apollo Image Atlas.

The point of posting an original was to prove that it was never there: you can mess around with digital versions all you like, but the original version was not digital. I have one of them. There is no house. Neither is there a pyramid. It is not a 'find', because nothing has been found other than the effects of pareidolia on badly reproduced photographs.

if you want a high resolution one (funny how that is what is required when it suits), here's the same bit from a 2Gb TIF version of that image:

your "high quality 2Gb TIF version" that you use to disprove the find is in "kill me please, i'm so ugly" quality and debunks nothing..and even in this horrendous quality crop you posted, one can still discern the house. lame debunking attempt i must say.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

tachyonator7
i didn't remove the link, it is in the original post. don't spam my thread with you sarcatic nonsense.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

Your OP? In the wikipedia link? Hmm, don't see it.

I was referring to this post of yours for one thing: www.abovetopsecret.com...

tachyonator7
i have attached the high resolution source photo originally posted by john lear which shows the object in question. i don't see why would you photograph a bad quality printed image just to debunk the find. it's impossible to see anything in your very bad quality and extremely blurred image. here's the crop from the original photo sligtly more zoomed

onebigmonkey
Just for fun, increase the dpi:

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2014 by tachyonator7 because: (no reason given)

BTW: Making a couple of different posts in a thread does not a spammer make.

regarding the blurriness, is it my fault we dont have accest to better resolution pictures of the moon!?

It may be your fault that you didn't find the the ones available then insulted others for pointing that out.

reply to post by tachyonator7


Pal... Don't patronize me!!!

I clearly just said I don't buy into it...
In other words I've heard of it & I thinks it's nonsense!
Any amateur Astronomer with a Telescope like myself would see these mile long structures quite clearly!!!
Better yet the people with a Telescope ten times as powerful as my current lense would probably be able to see the American flag if they wanted to... so why can't they see these mile long structures???
Because it's nonsense!!!

If you said the Darkside if The Moon I'd agree with you!!!

Stop being condescending to the people who disagree with you!

Peace!

are you suggesting the wikipedia moon photo is fake?

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs

tachyonator7
why would you be sarcastic? i thought this forum was about revealing what's hidden from us, but it has been seriously infected by ridicule and debunking in a most barbaric way possible. take the time to analyze the photos and you will see it.

Sremmos80
Craters...but I have a documentary that is right down your alley with this one, look up Project Clementine Greatest conspiracy ever.
www.youtube.com...
Here just decided to grab it for ya, enjoy

Sorry that I am retarded like the others and don't see the buildings

.... I will try to do better next time

That is just the point that many of us are attempting to make to you. The moon is perhaps the most studied object in our sky, one that man has set foot upon and yet you are "discovering" things with a picture on Wiki ?

You are making great "discoveries" on Google Moon ? Co me on and use common sense, if these "anomalies" were real they would have been discovered and studied to the umphed degree by every armature with a telescope and by many universities with powerful telescopes don't you think ?

I guess everyone is in on hiding facts from you right ? Then why is Google which is bed with the government more than any other private company out there allowing you to even see these things that only you see ?

A crater is a crater and a pixel is a pixel and a blurry spot is a blurry spot.

tachyonator7
your "high quality 2Gb TIF version" that you use to disprove the find is in "kill me please, i'm so ugly" quality and debunks nothing..and even in this horrendous quality crop you posted, one can still discern the house. lame debunking attempt i must say

You self-debunked a long time ago. This is all just gravy.

i already answered to all the skeptics, you may see in few years, if this things get declassified how wrong you were.

reply to post by DJMSN

oh, so now you changed opinion, some character you got. i call lame on this one.

draknoir2

tachyonator7
your "high quality 2Gb TIF version" that you use to disprove the find is in "kill me please, i'm so ugly" quality and debunks nothing..and even in this horrendous quality crop you posted, one can still discern the house. lame debunking attempt i must say

You self-debunked a long time ago. This is all just gravy.

tachyonator7
i already answered to all the skeptics, you may see in few years, if this things get declassified how wrong you were.

reply to post by DJMSN

 

jl walson is not a hoax you degenerate idiots.

Everything you have used as "proof" IS declassified.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by tachyonator7

 

JOHN LENARD WALSON FOUND TO BE A HOAXER

If you're even interested read the article and follow the links in it.

*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC

REMAIN CIVIL TO ONE ANOTHER.

YOU WILL BE POST BANNED

tachyonator7
walson is not a hoaxer. thread is done here. this forum is infected with hateful debunkers that will go to extremes and under any cost try to destroy, ridicule and dimiss the given evidence. debunkers fixed mindset accepts no proof nor suggestion, like trying to hand feed the raging pooch. you don't deserve to know the truth in the first place, you are the reason aliens don't talk to us

Actually your claims were quite lovingly and effortlessly debunked by those who care about sharing the truth with those in need.