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.

 

Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) Alien Base or Elite Holiday Camp?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: lunarrover
The usùal forum mentality.

Lcrock debunks jack except how top down dead the moon looks from 1 mile up in grey scale nothing to see here fiction shots.


There are oblique LROC images available. They are much, much higher resolution, and show things with extreme accuracy.

Your images (and I'm talking about the ones you have manipulated) only show the following:

1) That you know how to display a picture on this forum.

2) That you have a paint program.

3) That you are able to manipulate images in such a way to introduce false artifacts.

4) That you make very wild claims without actually being able to back up said claims.

We have yet to see anything you claim to be able to show.

The LROC image I provided, on the other hand, clearly shows a boulder (maybe a boulder) that has moved and left tracks in the lunar soil,,,,,yet no others in that area have. And everyone can see it.

I'd have to say so far it's LROC - 1, You - 0.




posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: lunarrover

the skyscrapers are scratches and dust on the film plate



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: lunarrover

DO IT



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity

originally posted by: lunarrover
The usùal forum mentality.

Lcrock debunks jack except how top down dead the moon looks from 1 mile up in grey scale nothing to see here fiction shots.


There are oblique LROC images available. They are much, much higher resolution, and show things with extreme accuracy.

Your images (and I'm talking about the ones you have manipulated) only show the following:

1) That you know how to display a picture on this forum.

2) That you have a paint program.

3) That you are able to manipulate images in such a way to introduce false artifacts.

4) That you make very wild claims without actually being able to back up said claims.

We have yet to see anything you claim to be able to show.

The LROC image I provided, on the other hand, clearly shows a boulder (maybe a boulder) that has moved and left tracks in the lunar soil,,,,,yet no others in that area have. And everyone can see it.

I'd have to say so far it's LROC - 1, You - 0.



Do the research and then come back otherwise we are just going around in circles.

Thou protesteth too much.

You are not prepared to do the work to get any real results you are just relying on everyone else to do the work for you.

Very shoddy, very shoddy indeed.

You may be experiencing the early part of the five stages of greiving. NASA have bull#ted you into thinking LCROCK is real. There isnt a facepalm big enough, when did it fly? 2009. Why do the moon landing images look worse than the images from 1969? Because they are hiding the truth from us.

Mars, must look at Mars. Deflect away from moon at any cost.

Do me a favour.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Dya wanna know why I went and got my own evidence and refused to allow sharks to fob me off!

I got sick of looking at rocks and people telling me it was aliens.

If you want to bin it, bin it. It makes no odds to me man.
edit on 1-3-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: lunarrover

the skyscrapers are scratches and dust on the film plate


You are excelling yourself now.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: lunarrover

oh the irony



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Btw I'm not an adept image manipulator.

I wondered why some images were too bright or dark and played with the contrast and brightness.

If I can get the right balance I shall be looking to get the Oceanus Procellarum image and some others on large canvases and out them on ebay just to see what happens. T shirts with AS08-12-2189 on.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Are you still flogging this dead horse?

It's a large area on the moon visible to anyone with a telescope. You're using photos that are so degraded you can barely tell what's in them - why not use much better data sources. There is a whole thread giving you information on how to do this here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is nothing in the photos taken by India, China or Japan that backs up your claim of alien bases because there is nothing there. Just the moon.

You will now spend the rest of this thread pretending to tear your hair out because we just can't see your genius.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: lunarrover

If you went to decent sources instead of 'borrowing' then from The Living Moon website you might learn more.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Do you really mean that, I'm not a genius because somebody else had already done most of the work for me.


I dont mind people not seeing things, i'm more worried about me seeingthings tbh.


It's really is quite unnerving.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I wish it was that simple.

I've avoided capornicus aint I?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lunarrover

Use the tools in the thread I pointed you at, get some different sources. Make some 3D models. Use better quality images. Do your own work instead of borrowing that of others who have an agenda to push.

There are no alien bases on the moon, you haven't discovered them, your sources haven't discovered them, you won't see them through any telescopes or in any photos. They do not exist.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: lunarrover

Sorry OP, But in all of your threads I keep seeing only craters and the natural effects of planetary bombardment. Can you share something that doesn't look like craters and/or 'domes'?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: lunarrover

Use the tools in the thread I pointed you at, get some different sources. Make some 3D models. Use better quality images. Do your own work instead of borrowing that of others who have an agenda to push.

There are no alien bases on the moon, you haven't discovered them, your sources haven't discovered them, you won't see them through any telescopes or in any photos. They do not exist.


Closed minded, a tragedy, I will pray for you.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

You do not induce false artifacts by adjusting brightness and contrast, who the hell planted that seed?

Who poisoned the well here?


edit on 1-3-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: lunarrover

I'm afraid you've just revealed your ignorance when it comes to digital photography, digital scanning, and digital manipulation of images.

When you change the brightness and contrast, what is it you think you are doing?

You're changing the value of each pixel within the image, and how they fit in.

I would highly recommend you do some extensive research in this area before claiming any sort of expertise, as your above post makes me seriously doubt your knowledge in this area.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TerminalVelocity


Please mate, what is the point? you cant make alien buildings appear because you adjusted the contrast.

If I could do that I'd be minted.


I worked in photo recon for the RAF for 15 years
edit on 1-3-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: lunarrover

Can you share something that doesn't look like craters and/or 'domes'?



Yeah, heres a lunar thingamy jig, I think one of them is doing some welding?


edit on 1-3-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: lunarrover
Not true, some have been dumbstruck, one person opined that my images were the best he had seen in well over 10 years.

Who was dumbstruck? Which person?


I have PMs of support, to reach anyone is fantastic considering how contovercial the subject matter is.

Where have you been for the past 15 years?? Dude, it's not controversial subject matter. What we get irate about, and rightly so, are people who claim to have proof of X, show p*ss poor evidence, refuse to acknowledge the Occam's Razor of their position, and essentially do what my avatar is doing.

I'm not saying i'm right, in that you are wrong. But as TV (can I abbreviate your name like that, TerminalVelocity?) has said, it isn't up to us to debunk you. It's up to you to convice us of your position, with well thought arguments and genuine supporting evidence that can be corroborated by multiple sources.

Not grainy old images that anyone can see whatever they want in them. If you provided images like THIS, or THIS, then we we be onto something.

But you gave us grainy crap photos, of which TV provided far better, higher definition versions debunking your claim.


I refuse to be browbeaten on it. I've played my hand and will leave it at that, I dont really see any point inflaming anything

That's a good scientific approach to proving yourself. Cross your arms, stick out your tongue and walk away. Like a petulant child on the playground.


Lets just take it for what it was and agree to disagree and be adult about it.

Who isn't being adult? We're simply arguing against your claim. The only non-adult aspect of this is your complete avoidance to discuss the possibility you could be wrong. And that's why your OPs are not very good. You're belief has made you blind to rational discussion and logical debate. (shrug)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join