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.

 

Structures/bases on the far side of the moon - where is ATS at

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

when something is hidden, there's usually no evidence of it at the beginning, right? that's the whole purpose of hiding something.

- we cannot see the other side and there are no photos of it from independent sources.
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.
- we have no idea what's under the surface.
- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.
- even not considering what a bunch of liars the governments are, the above is a reason number one not to trust nasa and other space agencies.
- moon doesn't quite give the impression of being a natural space object. at all.


What would be the difference of say an invisible base on the near side of the moon and a hidden base on the far side? Why not a whole invisible city?


edit on 16-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

That was my point: With some CTs, there always has to be some sort of conspiracy.

Even if they had their own rocket, went to the moon on their own, and saw nothing there, they would turn around and claim that the government removed everything.

Such is the desperate need to always believe that one is always lied to, even when they may be looking at the truth


edit on 16-7-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: jedi_hamster

when something is hidden, there's usually no evidence of it at the beginning, right? that's the whole purpose of hiding something.

- we cannot see the other side and there are no photos of it from independent sources.
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.
- we have no idea what's under the surface.
- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.
- even not considering what a bunch of liars the governments are, the above is a reason number one not to trust nasa and other space agencies.
- moon doesn't quite give the impression of being a natural space object. at all.


What would be the difference of say an invisible base on the near side of the moon and a hidden base on the far side? Why not a whole invisible city?



probably none.
except that i doubt that whatever is there, is hidden. if there is something, it's in plain sight. otherwise those that were there, wouldn't be tampering with their own photos before releasing them to the public.

besides, if there's something alien, why would they hide themselves? if they're there, we can't see them from here, and our governments try to do their worst to not release anything that would reveal them. and neither we nor our governments can do a damn about them being up there.

so yeah, 'invisible'. the only invisibility in place is the magic of photo tampering (c) NASA & co.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: kwakakev

It was a moron who asked a stupid question too many on doorstepping Buzz, Buzz hit him. The video is widely available and hugely enjoyable.



A Judge dismissed the resulting case on the grounds of provocation.

Sibrel, on the other hand, is a convicted criminal thug.


That douchebag got just what he was asking for.

Go Buzz!



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: jedi_hamster

That was my point: With some CTs, there always has to be some sort of conspiracy.

Even if they had their own rocket, went to the moon on their own, and saw nothing there, they would turn around and claim that the government removed everything.

Such is the desperate need to always believe that one is always lied to, even when they may be looking at the truth



give me a safe way to travel to the moon and back for free, and i'll go there.
and if there's nothing there, i will confirm it and i won't blame anyone for removing the evidence.

can i go? no.
can you?

there's no saying if what we know, is true or not.
i'll repeat it again, i'm embracing a possibility. THAT is what 'deny ignorance' means. i'll accept whatever sound and, preferably, independent, evidence, regardless if it confirms that there's something on the moon, or quite the opposite. right now, there's not enough evidence - and there is quite some evidence to the contrary, that someone wants to hide something. we have no idea what it is, but ignoring it - that would be ignorance.

i respect debunkers, sometimes i'm one of them, but in this case i see none. there's no proof that couldn't be tampered with, there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions, all you have is your OPINION that there's nothing up there. ATS is about accepting all the possibilities, unless proven as bunk. you can't debunk this one, so you're behaving worse than bible thumpers. they at least have faith, all you've got is your ignorance.

and you're right, we MAY be looking at the truth.
maybe. maybe not.

this is a conspiracy forum after all, if even a possibility of a conspiracy is hard to accept for you, what are you doing here?
edit on 16-7-2014 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.

The best photos from a ground-based telescope come from the VLT in Chile. Here is an example. You can identify features down to a little over 100 metres in diameter.


So we know for a fact there is nothing much bigger than that on the near side.


- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.


there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions

You keep saying this but you present no evidence. I say you are lying.

Show me where "NASA was caught up tampering with photos" even once. I simply do not believe you, and I challenge you to show me you are not making this up.
edit on 16-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

I fully embrace the idea that there maybe something on the moon that is alien in nature that we've not found yet.

Even the people at ASU (Arizona State University) have stated that there may be things on the moon, but that with the small staff that they have they can not pour over ever single high resolution image from the LRO, and encourage people to look.

Doesn't strike me as wanting to hide things.

People in today's world want to know: Where are the aliens? Every one is ready for them.

The government reveals that they have been hiding it, and would cause the US people to mistrust the US government?

HA!

As though the average American thinks their own government would never lie to them it today's world?

Just doesn't fit. If there was something there, we'd know it. I'm more surprised NASA hasn't "air brushed" images to MAKE something look like it's there so they get more funding to go. That would actually make more sense.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
alien contactees keep sugesting that they are on the dark side........thats the credible source.....not very good.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.

The best photos from a ground-based telescope come from the VLT in Chile. Here is an example. You can identify features down to a little over 100 metres in diameter.


So we know for a fact there is nothing much bigger than that on the near side.


- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.


there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions

You keep saying this but you present no evidence. I say you are lying.

Show me where "NASA was caught up tampering with photos" even once. I simply do not believe you, and I challenge you to show me you are not making this up.


there are plenty of examples of photos of the moon online that were tampered with by nasa. of course, you'll say it's all hoax.

actually, it may be rather easy to prove though, but it'll require a piece of software for image analysis written for that particular purpose. luckily, i am able to do that, just not now - i'm quite busy as it is recently. sooner or later i will do it though, write an utility to check all those 100m resolution photos straight from nasa for blurred areas, and i'll throw all those over 1gb big tiff images at it, and i'll post the results here, regardless if it'll find anything or not.

@eriktheawful - the utility mentioned above may be perhaps tuned up to look for the opposite thing as well, to find areas that look odd without being blurry. honestly though, 100m resolution per pixel is laughable, because it means that unless something is tall enough to cast a huge shadow, you can easily miss 200m long wreck of a starship.

there are most probably bigger structures on the moon though, so some tampering should be visible on the photos straight from nasa. that, or nasa has missed something.

or debunkers will be happy until we'll get higher resolution photos of the moon.

they can, despite the atmosphere, snap a photo of a pack of ciggies or read a newspaper title using spy satellites, and they can only get 100m per pixel resolution in case of the moon? seriously?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I remember something about scientists firing a missile or bomb at the moon and I do wonder whether they were trying to destroy somehing. Also some of the ancient texts talk about man-made flying machines that could reach the moon.

I believe though that an advanced civilisation has existed on earth in our past and its whether they got to the moon that fascinates me? With the highly sophisticated knowledge of cosmology in our ancient sites etc I would love more information to be disclosed so we could actually find out.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

You completely missed the point of Rob's post.

The quoted resolution is for the best terrestrial telescope, not probes in lunar orbit.
edit on 17-7-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster




but the more i see people like you, running through threads like this, screaming 'there's nothing up there, no way, it's silly, why are you even considering that, it's the least likely place, no way, go away!' - the more i think someone really doesn't want this to be researched. and that begs one question: why.


Hold on first its their opinion now they are saying don't research.




to all debunkers: what you're doing here, is not debunking. it's simply denying. you're telling people the subject is not worth research, without giving any evidence to support your claim, while wasting your precious time on it - why? does it pay so well?


Yes and believers are denying the opposite of what debunkers are denying.

Its all just game of positive vs negative with you isn't it instead of finding truth.


Could you please quote where some said the subject is not worth researching?




when something is hidden, there's usually no evidence of it at the beginning, right? that's the whole purpose of hiding something.


The purpose of hiding something is because there is no evidence of it in the beginning?

So non existent in other words?

Now can we have the supporting evidence that supports your claim of why things are hidden?

Cheers



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster




there are plenty of examples of photos of the moon online that were tampered with by nasa. of course, you'll say it's all hoax.


Someone asks what you complained about the page before about not supplying sources and supporting evidence and this is how you dish out what you ask of others.




Bad form man



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale


Could you please quote where some said the subject is not worth researching?


I think I may have said something like that earlier. I now formally retract that statement. Plus I was drunk when I posted that.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: InhaleExhale


Could you please quote where some said the subject is not worth researching?


I think I may have said something like that earlier. I now formally retract that statement. Plus I was drunk when I posted that.


Apologies to Jedi then as I missed anyone saying such.

I need to pay better attention I guess.

Well then the
is for your statement I guess, but since you retracted all is forgiven.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.

The best photos from a ground-based telescope come from the VLT in Chile. Here is an example. You can identify features down to a little over 100 metres in diameter.


So we know for a fact there is nothing much bigger than that on the near side.


- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.


there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions

You keep saying this but you present no evidence. I say you are lying.

Show me where "NASA was caught up tampering with photos" even once. I simply do not believe you, and I challenge you to show me you are not making this up.


there are plenty of examples of photos of the moon online that were tampered with by nasa. of course, you'll say it's all hoax.

So show us one. Just one image that NASA portrayed as an original photo but you say is tampered with. Shouldn't be hard, right? You say there are plenty.


they can, despite the atmosphere, snap a photo of a pack of ciggies or read a newspaper title using spy satellites, and they can only get 100m per pixel resolution in case of the moon? seriously?

No, you didn't read what I wrote. They can get 25cm per pixel, or about 10 inches, from the LRO in its lowest orbit. The 100 metres is for taking a photo of the moon FROM THE EARTH.

And 25cm per pixel is about the limit of spy satellites on Earth that we know about. Contrary to popular belief they can't read newspaper headlines from orbit. They might be able to take a photo that shows a whole newspaper as one or two pixels, but that is about it.

For decent resolution you need spy PLANES, not satellites.
edit on 17-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
actually, it may be rather easy to prove though, but it'll require a piece of software for image analysis written for that particular purpose.

If a piece of software made to show moon images are tampered with shows no evidence of tampering, is the software malfunctioning?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: jedi_hamster

You completely missed the point of Rob's post.

The quoted resolution is for the best terrestrial telescope, not probes in lunar orbit.


the quoted resolution is also the best resolution available for photos made by probes that were released to the public.
if i'm wrong, post the links to photos with higher resolution.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: jedi_hamster




but the more i see people like you, running through threads like this, screaming 'there's nothing up there, no way, it's silly, why are you even considering that, it's the least likely place, no way, go away!' - the more i think someone really doesn't want this to be researched. and that begs one question: why.


Hold on first its their opinion now they are saying don't research.




to all debunkers: what you're doing here, is not debunking. it's simply denying. you're telling people the subject is not worth research, without giving any evidence to support your claim, while wasting your precious time on it - why? does it pay so well?


Yes and believers are denying the opposite of what debunkers are denying.

Its all just game of positive vs negative with you isn't it instead of finding truth.


Could you please quote where some said the subject is not worth researching?


it has been said already here that if something would be there, it would have been found already, that it's the worst place to search etc. if that doesn't equal to 'this isn't worth researching' then i don't know what is.

also, i am not denying the opinion of debunkers here. everyone has one, debunkers, believers, whatever. it's JUST an opinion, until you have a strong proof - then it becomes a FACT. we don't have such strong proofs, neither side has.

but every single damn time a believer tries to discuss a theory here, a bunch of debunkers show up, bashing the whole thread into oblivion. and if they would have some proofs that cannot be debated, if they would base their posts on FACTS, i wouldn't mind at all. 'proven, debunked, case closed' - but that's not the case. all you've got is your OPINION.

and everyone is entitled to his own opinion, wether you like it or not. for some though, that fact seems hard to accept.



originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: jedi_hamster



when something is hidden, there's usually no evidence of it at the beginning, right? that's the whole purpose of hiding something.


The purpose of hiding something is because there is no evidence of it in the beginning?

So non existent in other words?

Now can we have the supporting evidence that supports your claim of why things are hidden?

Cheers


the whole purpose of hiding something is so that it cannot be found, so hiding something includes hiding the evidence - at least when something is hidden on purpose.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.

The best photos from a ground-based telescope come from the VLT in Chile. Here is an example. You can identify features down to a little over 100 metres in diameter.


So we know for a fact there is nothing much bigger than that on the near side.


- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.


there's quite some proof that tampering has occured on multiple occassions

You keep saying this but you present no evidence. I say you are lying.

Show me where "NASA was caught up tampering with photos" even once. I simply do not believe you, and I challenge you to show me you are not making this up.


there are plenty of examples of photos of the moon online that were tampered with by nasa. of course, you'll say it's all hoax.

So show us one. Just one image that NASA portrayed as an original photo but you say is tampered with. Shouldn't be hard, right? You say there are plenty.


they can, despite the atmosphere, snap a photo of a pack of ciggies or read a newspaper title using spy satellites, and they can only get 100m per pixel resolution in case of the moon? seriously?

No, you didn't read what I wrote. They can get 25cm per pixel, or about 10 inches, from the LRO in its lowest orbit. The 100 metres is for taking a photo of the moon FROM THE EARTH.

And 25cm per pixel is about the limit of spy satellites on Earth that we know about. Contrary to popular belief they can't read newspaper headlines from orbit. They might be able to take a photo that shows a whole newspaper as one or two pixels, but that is about it.

For decent resolution you need spy PLANES, not satellites.


as i've said, i'm short on time. looking through all highres photos available directly from nasa - since only those can be taken into account as undebatable proof in this case - is not a small task. that's why i've said i'll write a software to do it, because i'm able to and that'll take much less time than looking through all those photos at maximum zoom manually. i will do it though, and i will post the results, whatever those may be.

as for the resolution, planes or satellites, you may be right, altough i have my doubts that with all those black projects they've made every single discovery in this matter a public knowledge.
still, where are those 25cm per pixel photos? because i've found LRO images. huge, over 1gb tiff files. 100m per pixel, not more. it is obvious for me that they have higher resolution photos. the question is, were they released?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join