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: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: signalfire

I just want to clarify my own position as my first post was more flip than editorial... I see his point that the wave of interference was not his camera ...but jumping to the "hologram covering up activity" is a tad too deep-end... a wave of turbulence in the upper atmosphere is a better fit.

Though I'm of the opinion there is likely some black-op man activity up there... and a projection set up to obscure any activities isn't impossible... just veeeeeeery improbable.



We don't really know what`s possible or probable if its a technology that's being used by moon dwellers or someone on this planet who has a technology that isn't being shared with the rest of us.

The thing is....they`d have had to of being doing it for thousands of years because the Moon has always looked like that.
If that makes any sense...




posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
Never mind, ya know, tides and whatnot.

Those are holograms too.

In fact, it's holograms all the way down!

Harte



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: lambros56

The thing is....they`d have had to of being doing it for thousands of years because the Moon has always looked like that.
If that makes any sense...


I don't know about you but i was not looking at the moon through a telescope thousands off years ago, so I don't know if the moon has always looked like that.

Some off the earliest drawings off the moon observed through a telescope, were made in the early 1600's by Galileo and Harriot, which at the time would have seemed detailed but are nowhere near what we see today looking at the moon through a telescope.

So based on that fact, who knows what the moon looked like just a few hundred years ago?
edit on 15/11/2014 by TheDon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: signalfire


There are LOTS of amateur astronomers with expensive equipment putting in all night, every night.


Yes... and not one of them has ever suggested that the Moon is a hologram.


Maybe because none of them ever saw the anomaly, which has been variously described as an atmospheric thing (which would be common), or shimmer (constantly common) or what were your other excuses?

See, that's the thing. Thousands of people world wide looking at telescopes, some with cameras running, and this has only been caught happening a few times?

There's the rub. Sure it could very well be his camera; he thinks not but it should be easy enough to prove him wrong by reproducing the effect.

Now remind me again why you've felt the need to continue posting the same DEBUNKED question? Because putting aside the awkwardly worded title which I believe may have been the result of the OP having English as a second language, we've made a BIG point of explaining, 'no the moon is not a hologram, the issue is whether the true appearance of the moon is sometimes being covered up with a holographic image'.

Now do you understand?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: signalfire


the issue is whether the true appearance of the moon is sometimes being covered up with a holographic image'.


Why would you think the Moon is being covered up by a hologram, given that thousands of peopled who know how to use their equipment have it under constant observation pretty much 24/7, whereas only a YouTuber who is known to post hoax UFO videos has reported recording these "anomalies."



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Probably about the same odds as thousands of professional biologists around the world, stumbling on hitherto unknown biological species despite a cumulative professional total of thousands of years...100% in actuality, as previously unknown species are discovered or recognised all the time.

IOW, just because there are many people working in astronomy and astrophysics around the world for a fair while now, doesn't in the slightest way mean they all ought to have noticed 'the new species there all the time'.

Until something is recognised or discovered in a particular field of occupation, however many people are working in that field, for however long the field of occupation has existed, the physical phenomena or 'new species' in my biology analogy, will of course be unrecognised or undiscovered.

Obviously, nothing is discovered or noticed until it is discovered or noticed.

This doesn't mean that this 'moon wave' is a moon phenomena or not, just that because others in the field of study haven't noticed it before doesn't preclude it being a moon phenomena.










edit on 15-11-2014 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX


Probably about the same odds as thousands of professional biologists around the world, stumbling on hitherto unknown biological species despite a cumulative professional total of thousands of years...100% in actuality, as previously unknown species are discovered or recognised all the time.


A false analogy. Species of plants, animals and micro-organism are spread all over and under the surface of the Earth. Any given biologist can only examine a tiny fraction of that volume during a lifetime. Some areas have been completely inaccessible. Naturally, new species will be discovered as biologists explore new regions or have access to equipment that allows them to observe in ways not previously possible.

The Moon spans about one half of one degree in the sky. All instruments and observers are trained on this very narrow field. Any genuine phenomenon would likely be observed by multiple parties in real time... most of them viewing the Moon directly. Not one person has ever claimed to see one of these "scan lines" with their own eyes, therefore it is almost certainly related to the recording equipment. Further, even the least experienced observer is familiar with the swimming effect caused by the atmosphere.

Either Crrow is lying about having "thousands of hours" of experience observing, or he is lying about the shimmer being inexplicable, or both. Pretty sure it's both. [HOAX!]



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: signalfire


See, that's the thing. Thousands of people world wide looking at telescopes, some with cameras running, and this has only been caught happening a few times?

Which leads me to suspect a few have been playing with something like this *

* It's a pdf but only one page.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
It would seem that many in our society are going back to the knowledge base of dark ages. But then that's what it takes to make a popular youtube when one doesn't understand much about the physical world.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: signalfire


See, that's the thing. Thousands of people world wide looking at telescopes, some with cameras running, and this has only been caught happening a few times?

Which leads me to suspect a few have been playing with something like this *

* It's a pdf but only one page.


So you are saying all the people that have documented and have video off this effect have used this bcc scanline, you have posted?

i read it

a quote


We're going to use the BCC Scanline fi lter to make a clip appear as though it was the result of shooting a computer monitor with a video camera. Start by importing an image clip then with the clip selected, apply the BCC Scanline fi lter by selecting it from the Filters>BCC5 OpenGL category


Also in the pdf, there are a before and affter image, the effect is nothing like that which has be been observed in the videos I have seen from all off the users regarding this lunar wave.

Maybe you should double check at lease one off the videos again?
Try this one, the one that you were so kind to embed earlier in this thread for a user, it more than likely will take you longer to view the whole thing than it did for you to post your comment regarding the effect.

So in my opinion, this is incorrect and i see no evidence that this software reproduces the effect we are seeing in the videos posted.

Thanks
edit on 15/11/2014 by TheDon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
So the moon is also a hologram?

And it is a BS theory. Only a couple of guys making moon youtubes know about this phenomena because it's a secret?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
So the moon is also a hologram?


Nowhere in any of the videos presented is a claim that the moon is a hologram, you would know that if you watched the videos.

Also nowhere in any off my posts including the OP have I claimed or even implied the moon is a hologram, you would know this if you read the OP and my posts.

I will say again, in the hope you read this post, I am interested in the effect what can be seen in the videos, which looks like a wave that crosses the moon, which has been caught on video by 3 others.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   


Nowhere in any of the videos presented is a claim that the moon is a hologram


It is in the title of one videos posted.

The guy claims it is a secret that some group is keeping from the world. Of course as usual NASA and other scientists know about it but are covering it up. And 3 or 4 people in the history of Earth are the only ones who have seen it but it is really the moon.

Believe what ever you want, I am not though.

edit:

'hologram?' is also in the OP video title.


edit on 11/15/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/15/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Nowhere in any of the videos presented is a claim that the moon is a hologram


It is in the title of one videos posted.

The guy claims it is a secret that some group is keeping from the world. Of course as usual NASA and other scientists know about it but are covering it up. And 3 or 4 people in the history of Earth are the only ones who have seen it but it is really the moon.

Believe what ever you want, I am not though.



OK the title says hologram?, note the question mark, but the videos and pretty much 95% of the posts in this thread refer to the effect which is seen in the video being some kind of holographic projection over the moon.

What I am interested in is what is causing the effect as i stated in my OP. can't make it much clearer than that and that is fact.

Off course one should always believe what they want.

Thanks



edit on 15/11/2014 by TheDon because: edited as posted i replied to was edited whilst writing this post



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheDon


So you are saying all the people that have documented and have video off this effect have used this bcc scanline, you have posted?

No, I'm not saying that. Which words did I use that are confusing you? Is it the verb "suspect", or possibly the phrase "Something like this" that is throwing you?



Also in the pdf, there are a before and affter image, the effect is nothing like that which has be been observed in the videos I have seen from all off the users regarding this lunar wave.
Are the capabilities of the software limited to creating that effect, and only that effect? Did you happen to catch this?

Parameter Descriptions
Size - determines the vertical size of the scanlines
Softness - determines the softness of the edge of the scanlines
Angle - sets the angle along which the scanlines will roll
Roll RGB - keyframe this parameter to set the speed of the combined RGB scanline roll
Roll RGB speed - this parameter does not seem to work and appears to be redundant
Roll R - used to offset the red channel scanline roll
Roll G - used to offset the green channel scanline roll
Roll B - used to offset the blue channel scanline roll
Noise - determines the amount of noise added to the image
Noise Size - sets the size of the noise particles
Mix With Original - blends the effect back with the original unfiltered clip
PixelChooser - this pop-up is used to enable or disable the Pixelchooser masking / Matting system
Pixelchooser group - contains the PixelChooser masking / matting parameter controls.Parameter Descriptions
Size - determines the vertical size of the scanlines
Softness - determines the softness of the edge of the scanlines
Angle - sets the angle along which the scanlines will roll
Roll RGB - keyframe this parameter to set the speed of the combined RGB scanline roll
Roll RGB speed - this parameter does not seem to work and appears to be redundant
Roll R - used to offset the red channel scanline roll
Roll G - used to offset the green channel scanline roll
Roll B - used to offset the blue channel scanline roll
Noise - determines the amount of noise added to the image
Noise Size - sets the size of the noise particles
Mix With Original - blends the effect back with the original unfiltered clip
PixelChooser - this pop-up is used to enable or disable the Pixelchooser masking / Matting system
Pixelchooser group - contains the PixelChooser masking / matting parameter controls.
cdn.borisfx.com...


Is your mind open to the possibility the vid was edited to display the effect seen?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: TheDon

Is your mind open to the possibility the vid was edited to display the effect seen?


My mind is always open, the orginal publisher off the video clearly states that we are looking at unedited content, that no editing software was used to cause the effect.

Look at the video the one you embedded, you see him tilt the carmera down and up whilst the wave is in affect and the wave catches up, then there is another wave.

Also listen to what he is reporting seeing regarding the curve in the wave going over the moon, this is clearly visible in the video, and not just his videos.

I do not believe the effect we are seeing in not just his videos but the others is a editing effect.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheDon

originally posted by: lambros56

The thing is....they`d have had to of being doing it for thousands of years because the Moon has always looked like that.
If that makes any sense...





I don't know about you but i was not looking at the moon through a telescope thousands off years ago, so I don't know if the moon has always looked like that.

Some off the earliest drawings off the moon observed through a telescope, were made in the early 1600's by Galileo and Harriot, which at the time would have seemed detailed but are nowhere near what we see today looking at the moon through a telescope.

So based on that fact, who knows what the moon looked like just a few hundred years ago?







Yeah.....me too. I haven't been watching the moon for thousands of years.....but I'm sure you know what I meant.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambros56

Yeah.....me too. I haven't been watching the moon for thousands of years.....but I'm sure you know what I meant.


I based my reply on what you said, and also porvided a few facts concerning moon observasions over the last 400 years, So no i did not know what you meant it would seem?

The question was and still is, what are we seeing in the videos that have been posted in this thread regarding the claimed luna wave?

I personally dont assume just because someone tells me something that it is true, even if it has been told for 1000's of years.

Thanks



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join