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.

 

Lunar Wave (Hologram?) Confirmed By Two Additional Videos!

page: 15
31
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: thesneakiod
Here's a question:

The Aristarchus crater on the moon is 29 miles across, and we can see it with the naked eye.

Would it be possible to see a 29 mile crater on earth from a quarter of a million miles away?


Yes, yes you can. Why? Because the crater has a ray system that's 250km across, and the ray contents and the crater itself exposes a very much higher albedo material that's got a very big contrast ratio to the dark maria it sits on. So, if the light is right, you see a bright spot there, but no detail.



And to top it off they never even went near it. Probably one of the most famous and strangest craters on the moon and they avoided it. Okaaayyy....


I've never been to Poughkeepsie, either, but that doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. I just never went there.



Going by that, the moon can't be no where near as far away as they say.


Pretty sad that you can determine the distance yourself, if you're technically apt.


Yeh ok. Spoken like a NASA official.

Even if it was 250 km across ( don't know where you got those figures from either) you still wouldn't be able to see it.

Can you see any detail from 250 km of the earth?

Course you can't. On the fake earth pics you can only just make out the continents from that distance.

From a quarter of a million miles away, the moon should just look like a white blob

aristrachrus is just an example. There's actually smaller craters that we can see

πŸ‘




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesneakiod

Yeh ok. Spoken like a NASA official.


Right.



Even if it was 250 km across ( don't know where you got those figures from either) you still wouldn't be able to see it.

Can you see any detail from 250 km of the earth?


Do you know how to find out? Do you know what you should be able to see, based on distance, the aperture of your eye and the color of the light you're seeing by? There's a way you can find out for your very own self. Imagine!



Course you can't. On the fake earth pics you can only just make out the continents from that distance.


If they're fake, why would you trust what they show?

Also, the Earth has an atmosphere, and that sort of obscures the surface details due to scattering. The Moon does not.



From a quarter of a million miles away, the moon should just look like a white blob


How can you find out what you should be able to see? There's a way!



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: thesneakiod

If we do live in a controlled environment, how it works, who's working it, would be beyond or comprehension or understanding of their technology.

So we have no idea what's possible or not.


Yet, IIRC, the perpetrator of all this 'hologram moon' junk is stating a lot of malarkey about 'resolution resets' and the like. But you can't have it both ways, IMHO, if you're claiming it's literally a hologram, it's not. Because holograms don't work that way. If you want to invoke super science, it seems to be a pretty crappy implementation.



It's said what ever is projecting it, is above low earth orbit, and consider that NASA can't go above that, NASA probably don't even know how or why it works.

πŸ‘


Why do you think NASA can't go above LEO?


As I said earlier how can you possibly state that the technology doesn't exist. Maybe it doesn't exist in our "globe world" but if we do live in a controlled environment, they're using tech fat beyond our comprehension.

NASA haven't been above what we call LEO for 44 years. And considering that it was a lie anyway, they've never ever been beyond it.

i mean cmon, some said on here that the Russians are gonna send tourists to the moon, yet we've had no tourists even in LEO.

Just look into NASA, take time to look at their footage, Apollo or ISS, or any of their missions. It's all fake.

πŸ‘
edit on Saturday20162016-09-24T04:34:24-05:00am303420169 by thesneakiod because: (no reason given)

edit on Saturday20162016-09-24T04:35:18-05:00am303520169 by thesneakiod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thesneakiod




It's said what ever is projecting it, is above low earth orbit, and consider that NASA can't go above that, NASA probably don't even know how or why it works.

How does a low Earth orbit work with a flat Earth?


It doesn't, it's just a recognised starting distance to discuss from.

πŸ‘



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   




I've never been to Poughkeepsie, either, but that doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. I just never went there


Cmon, read what you've just typed. The most fascinating, strangest, brightest crater on the near side of the moon and they don't even go and look at it?

Hahaha ok.

"Yeh so we went to the moon (six times in four years) but didn't go and land near any of the interesting places, we just landed in the middle of flat plain and collected soil and rock samples, and played golf"

πŸ‘ŒπŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

Yawn. What was the point.

πŸ‘
edit on Saturday20162016-09-24T04:47:49-05:00am304720169 by thesneakiod because: (no reason given)

edit on Saturday20162016-09-24T04:49:17-05:00am304920169 by thesneakiod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesneakiod
Cmon, read what you've just typed. The most fascinating, strangest, brightest crater on the near side of the moon and they don't even go and look at it?


They're more interested in science than, say, some wacky alien lore?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: thesneakiod
Cmon, read what you've just typed. The most fascinating, strangest, brightest crater on the near side of the moon and they don't even go and look at it?


They're more interested in science than, say, some wacky alien lore?


So going to a crater than has irked people's imagination for years, that's not in the name of science?


But playing golf and generally assing around up there is "proper science" though.

When It comes to the moon landings, loads here, you included, are blinkered, strangely blinkered. I believe it's out of fear. Fear that if you really looked into it, you'd see they were faked. Then you'd see how all space agencies are bogus. And once you realise that, the whole thing starts to opens up to how every facet of our lives is being controlled.

They and anyone else haven't set foot on the moon for forty four years, forty four years. But you think that's perfectly acceptable.

Please wake up.

πŸ‘
edit on Saturday20162016-09-24T08:36:12-05:00am303620169 by thesneakiod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I was a NASA fanboy, I loved everything they did and followed them passionately. I've even been fortunate enough to go to the Kennedy space center twice. (Actually went last month)

I'm old enough now (forty one) to not fall for their space exploration rubbish anymore. They go nowhere. I know that now. Mars rovers, orbiting planets (Juno still cracks me up) landing on asteroids, showing us wonderful colourful pictures of the galaxies when we know they add the colour, telling us their plans for Mars and one day colonising it even though no one lives on the moon or ever goes there. The very dubious space walks which clearly show they're underwater, with bubbles, which now they're considering using scuba tanks, (😝😝) The list goes on, it really does.

It's all just fantasy.

πŸ‘


edit on Saturday20162016-09-24T08:12:42-05:00am301220169 by thesneakiod because: (no reason given)

edit on Saturday20162016-09-24T08:16:33-05:00am301620169 by thesneakiod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesneakiod

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: thesneakiod
Cmon, read what you've just typed. The most fascinating, strangest, brightest crater on the near side of the moon and they don't even go and look at it?


They're more interested in science than, say, some wacky alien lore?


So going to a crater than has irked people's imagination for years, that's not in the name of science?


Actually, no.




But playing golf and generally assing around up there is "proper science" though.


They didn't "play golf", Shepard brought a tiny folding club and two balls on board as part of his personal equipment. A bit different than sending a mission to the Moon for the purpose of "playing golf".



When It comes to the moon landings, loads here, you included, are blinkered, strangely blinkered. I believe it's out of fear. Fear that if you really looked into it, you'd see they were faked.


I have, they're not. Watched one in the VAB being put together, saw another launch. A mighty expensive bit of fakery, if so.



They and anyone else haven't set foot on the moon for forty four years, forty four years. But you think that's perfectly acceptable.

Please wake up.


I'd love for them to be still flying missions, but again, it's all politics. And, maybe, there wasn't a point about that time to spending billions on that when you could put billions somewhere else more interesting, so they wrapped it up as fast as could be explained, tout fini.

πŸ‘



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesneakiod
So going to a crater than has irked people's imagination for years, that's not in the name of science?


So Taurus-LIttrow wasn't interesting? Hadley Rille? Visiting a lander that had been there three years to see what happened to it wasn't scientifically interesting? They ;icked sites that were representative of typical lunar environments and that were practical to get to.



But playing golf and generally assing around up there is "proper science" though.


If you actually watch all of the EVA footage, and read up on all the science results they obtained, you'll find that they achieved a lot. The amount of "assing around" is minimal, and depends on what you call "assing around".




When It comes to the moon landings, loads here, you included, are blinkered, strangely blinkered. I believe it's out of fear. Fear that if you really looked into it, you'd see they were faked.


OH now that's not arrogant at all now is it - somehow because you have given it a few minutes thought no-one else could possibly have done any research on it. I've got a whole bookcase in front of me full of books on the Apollo program - what do you have? A link or two you've skim read? I suggest you look at the link in my sig and then come back and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.



Then you'd see how all space agencies are bogus. And once you realise that, the whole thing starts to opens up to how every facet of our lives is being controlled.


All of them? Really? China, India, Japan and the USSR never got a probe to the moon? Got proof of that? No, of course you haven't.

[quote
They and anyone else haven't set foot on the moon for forty four years, forty four years. But you think that's perfectly acceptable.

Since when did get to decide what other people think?



Please wake up.


Please don't assume that no-one else understands this more than you, because that's patently not the case. I am awake thanks, and I have smelt the coffee. I know what's fact and what isn't. I know the moon isn't covered in an impossible hologram being broadcast from some mysterious unnamed location by imaginary things.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesneakiod
I'm old enough now (forty one) to not fall for their space exploration rubbish anymore.


Some of us are even older than you. Age does not necessarily equate to wisdom, as you are demonstrating admirably.



They go nowhere. I know that now. Mars rovers, orbiting planets (Juno still cracks me up) landing on asteroids, showing us wonderful colourful pictures of the galaxies when we know they add the colour, telling us their plans for Mars and one day colonising it even though no one lives on the moon or ever goes there. The very dubious space walks which clearly show they're underwater, with bubbles, which now they're considering using scuba tanks, (😝😝) The list goes on, it really does.

It's all just fantasy.



I think the fantasy is in your paragraph there. You can claim in one post that there is superior technology out there to project holograms on the moon, but at the same time they can't go there by any means.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
^^realised that I don't yet have the link in my sig, so here it is


onebigmonkey.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I think it is noise or interference propagated throught the raster with an increasing frequency or out of phase frequency.
This happens with oscilloscopes a lot, but albeit on CRT's. Still, the image is raster-ized digitally very similarly. It could be caused by the equipment as well, perhaps interference with the frequencies of a CDMA or GSM Phone.

Just trying out a few reasonable explainations. People that do a lot of video see this type of anomaly continually.
edit on 25-9-2016 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesneakiod


But faking it would be a massive headache. They would be watched by astronomers from all over the world who have some of the best equipment. They would have to be seen many many times near or at least passing the moon. And they would be scrutinised with zoomed in high definition telescopes.




THEY were watched on the original missions the Jodrell Bank radio telescopes monitored the Apollo 11 on it's way to the Moon at the same time Russia had sent a probe to the Moon the large telescope monitored the Russian probe the smaller dish the Apollo Mission.

NO Optical telescope could watch for the craft at the distance of the Moon even Hubble above the effects of the Earth's atmosphere can only resolve objects around 300ft across at the distance of the Moon.

DON'T quote what you think are facts when it's obvious your talking about things you DON'T have a clue about.

So basically YOU talk BS



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join