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.

 

Secret Bases On The Moon .

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Oh, ah, jra, just one more thing. The photo below, alleged to be 69-HC-431, alleging to show the Apollo 10 command module seen from the LM in orbit 60 miles above the moon (I've alway wondered why they used 60 miles if the moon has 1/6th the earths gravity) seems to show a thick blue line on the horizon of the moon which would indicate a lunar atmosphere much denser than proposed in the above information. What is your opinion?





posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Oh, ah, jra, just one more thing. The photo below, alleged to be 69-HC-431, alleging to show the Apollo 10 command module seen from the LM in orbit 60 miles above the moon (I've alway wondered why they used 60 miles if the moon has 1/6th the earths gravity) seems to show a thick blue line on the horizon of the moon which would indicate a lunar atmosphere much denser than proposed in the above information. What is your opinion?




i am not going to claim i know what the reason for the distortion on the horizon is

but " it seems like an atmosphere " does not equal it is an atmosphere in every case

rayleigh scatter SEEMS a perfectly good explaination for what we can see -- but the observed ocurance of baily`s beads during solar eclipses , and the occultation of stars by the moon demonstrate ZERO atmospheric scattering

and a quick shuftie of other Apollo 10 archive photograps such as :



or



shows no sign of the anomolous horizon . present in that one image

do you have a source and nassa catalouge number for that image ?? -- it would help to track down any further issues



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape

but " it seems like an atmosphere " does not equal it is an atmosphere in every case


Thanks for your explanation ignorant_ape. So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck there must be another explanation?


jra

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Oh, ah, jra, just one more thing. The photo below, alleged to be 69-HC-431, alleging to show the Apollo 10 command module seen from the LM in orbit 60 miles above the moon (I've alway wondered why they used 60 miles if the moon has 1/6th the earths gravity) seems to show a thick blue line on the horizon of the moon which would indicate a lunar atmosphere much denser than proposed in the above information. What is your opinion?




It's actually from Apollo 9 photo taken in Earth orbit. Here's a link to a site showing the same photo (but rotated 180 degrees) www.lpi.usra.edu... I was hoping the project apollo archive site would have it, since they seem to have the best quality scans, but it doesn't look like they have that exact image scanned yet, but they have the one right after it www.hq.nasa.gov... I hope that clears things up.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by jra


It's actually from Apollo 9 photo taken in Earth orbit. Here's a link to a site showing the same photo (but rotated 180 degrees) www.lpi.usra.edu... I was hoping the project apollo archive site would have it, since they seem to have the best quality scans, but it doesn't look like they have that exact image scanned yet, but they have the one right after it www.hq.nasa.gov... I hope that clears things up.


Thanks jra. You just can't beat the talent and research available on ATS!



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ignorant_ape

but " it seems like an atmosphere " does not equal it is an atmosphere in every case


Thanks for your explanation ignorant_ape. So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck there must be another explanation?


thank you for misrepresenting me and ignoring all the other points i made , just to score a cheap shot .

as i said -- you have ONE SINGLE image that was not even confirmed as a unedited NASA file , and for reasons best known you you -- you decieded to assume that the ambigious image was proof that the moon has an atmosphere -- and ignore ALL other evidence to the contrary .

as i said there could be multiple causes for the appearence of that one phot -- did you ecplore ANY other posibility before jumping to the concliusion that the moon has an atmosphere ??

and tell me why you regected all the evidence that clearly indicates there is no lunar atmosphere ??



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ignorant_ape

but " it seems like an atmosphere " does not equal it is an atmosphere in every case


Thanks for your explanation ignorant_ape. So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck there must be another explanation?


Interesting, Allthough i will say this ,
As we here all know as well as all the members on ATS all know, In this world nothing is as it seems. So just because something looks like something and has similar behavior patterns to it does not neccesarily mean that it is indeed a "Duck" .
I dont mean to seem out of place here but i just wanted to let you know.
Research Research and Research are the ways to officially stamp ones opinion as legitimate .

Also i would just like to remind people that it is better in the event that you feel like arguing to get your point across to do so using facts and figures and not name calling or anything else negative in that catagory.
you see, Using facts is an allmost argument proof way of getting your point across nomatter what it is. And facts hold more water and are more validated in an argument. This isnt going to any individual in particular its just a friendly reminder.

Other then that i like the posts being made here and keep up the good work people you are doing great


Also i have launched an officiall research project on this subject as i find it to be both intriguing and interesting and i would like to say that if anyone would like to participate please feel free to U2U me.


Many Thanks and Blessed Be

Omega



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ignorant_ape

but " it seems like an atmosphere " does not equal it is an atmosphere in every case


Thanks for your explanation ignorant_ape. So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck there must be another explanation?


thank you for misrepresenting me and ignoring all the other points i made , just to score a cheap shot .

as i said -- you have ONE SINGLE image that was not even confirmed as a unedited NASA file , and for reasons best known you you -- you decieded to assume that the ambigious image was proof that the moon has an atmosphere -- and ignore ALL other evidence to the contrary .

as i said there could be multiple causes for the appearence of that one phot -- did you ecplore ANY other posibility before jumping to the concliusion that the moon has an atmosphere ??

and tell me why you regected all the evidence that clearly indicates there is no lunar atmosphere ??



Seems I have to eat some crow here. Patoooiee. Tastes awful. Please accept my apologies ignorant_ape. (I have been asking that a lot lately.) I continue to believe that the moon has an atmosphere and just not a 'thin' one. But with this group (ATS) I'd better have a LOT more evidence than that which I have presented. Yes, I relied on what turned out to be 'bogus' photo and that was wrong. It was labeled as an Apollo 10 photograph in the "Encyclopedia of Discovery, The Moon and Beyond by Fred Appel, Aldus Books, London, 1971 (Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 70-148353) page 131, lower right, but that does not alleviate me of the responsibiity of double checking the fact before making such an extraordinary claim. Again, please accept my apologies for not acknowledging your well presented evidence of no atmosphere on the moon. I was wrong to take that cheap shot, but to your credit, it backfired on me. Much to my chagrin. john lear.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
that last picture of the moon is actually one of saturns moons, iapeatus, .....not our moon.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Good job reading through this thread and contributing to it. Had you actually read through it you would have seen that issue has been addressed already and that your comment would have been unnecessary.


[edit on 6/21/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Good job reading through this thread and contributing to it. Had you actually read through it you would have seen that issue has been addressed already and that your comment would have been unnecessary.


[edit on 6/21/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]


Yes indeed it has



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
[edit on 22-6-2006 by johnlear]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
hey Mr Lear , first off welcome to ATS


second -- dont sweat the picture mix up . my sarcastic reply didnt help either .

but years of exposture to people like hoagland , aollo hoax advocates et al who use -- over pixelated , edited , cropped and filtered images to " proove " thier point -- when the NASA origionals , avaliable @ the ALSJ website and other origional archives - show no such thing .

the photo you linked to was on a 3rd party site [ i make no caim that you have any control over or responsibility or exteranal content ] and when such files show somthing that makes me think WTF , there is always the susicion [ i am that paranoid - lol ] that they been edited to show what the site owner wanted us to see

even such things as changing colour balance can drastically alter what a picture appears to show

thats why i ALWAYS demand a cite of the origional file from the source .

occasionally i do it tactfully , othertimes i fling poo


so appologies from this end too

now what is your other evidence for a lunar atmosphere ? we are always prepared to look



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
hey Mr Lear , first off welcome to ATS


second -- dont sweat the picture mix up . my sarcastic reply didnt help either .

but years of exposture to people like hoagland , aollo hoax advocates et al who use -- over pixelated , edited , cropped and filtered images to " proove " thier point -- when the NASA origionals , avaliable @ the ALSJ website and other origional archives - show no such thing .

the photo you linked to was on a 3rd party site [ i make no caim that you have any control over or responsibility or exteranal content ] and when such files show somthing that makes me think WTF , there is always the susicion [ i am that paranoid - lol ] that they been edited to show what the site owner wanted us to see

even such things as changing colour balance can drastically alter what a picture appears to show

thats why i ALWAYS demand a cite of the origional file from the source .

occasionally i do it tactfully , othertimes i fling poo


so appologies from this end too

now what is your other evidence for a lunar atmosphere ? we are always prepared to look




Thanks ignorant ape. As to the third party site, I scanned that photo directly from the encyclopedia that I referenced. I didn't get it off of the internet. Its still my mistake for not checking. I have a Luner Orbiter photo LO II-162 (north face of Copernicus interior wall)sent to me by a NASA contractor in 16x20 negative form 10 or fifteen years ago. It was only 5 or 6 years ago that I found somebody in Vegas who could print from the 16 x 20 negative. I got a 15 x 20 and 20 x 24 positive. I took the 15 x 20 and made 5 separate scans, I forget what the res was. One of the scans shows what I believe to be vapor rising from from 'tanks'. One of tanks has 'vapor' flowing 'down'. No sense in me posting these pictures because unless you can see the 'larger' picture and then enlarge it yourself it doesn't have the same effect. I have tried to upload it on 3xs Image Hosting but it won't seem to upload (the image is 7.41 mgs). If you can point me in the direction of where and how to upload this photo I think it would provide you with some surprises. (Alternatively I can send it in CD form to the POBox of your choice.) I have many NASA moon photos and many are retouched or smudged in areas of interest particularly LO V-155M which is a directly overhead view of the same area of Copernicus. (LO II-162H is an oblique view). The photos were taken several years apart but show the same, 'tanks' or 'silos'. There is an unretouched half-tone in in the back of "Exploring the moon (Cherrington, 1969, 1984) of LO V-155. Very clear of the 'tanks' or 'silos' shown in 162H, but, unfortunately in half-tone. Let me know if you have any interest in these photos. Thanks, john lear



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
....I happen to accept the lunar missions were genuine and not stage managed productions aimed at entertaining a global audience.
It is always healthy to debate issues of scientific interest even though a watchful audience of cospiracy theorists will hijack fact and distort it into unlikey fiction.
The moon landings are a classic case of over scrutinised over pubicised conspiracys.
Hollow moon theories, Alien bases on the moon, anomalous structures, clemantine orbiter altered images are all conspiracy delights to ponder over from an armchair and website research perspective.
I am sure NASA have been honest in their presentation of scientific facts and I believe that all members of the scientific community could not possibly adhered to any secrecey for this length of time without some information leaking out to the news hounds who would relish to print the expose of their career....and the German photo's...Well!, nothing more than doodles during a quirt coffee break.
I have browsed the Richard Hogland contributions on some websites and read his musings with a tongue in cheek perspective but I percieve his theories are almost ike-esque in his presentation.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by anglosaxon
....I happen to accept the lunar missions were genuine and not stage managed productions aimed at entertaining a global audience.
It is always healthy to debate issues of scientific interest even though a watchful audience of cospiracy theorists will hijack fact and distort it into unlikey fiction.
The moon landings are a classic case of over scrutinised over pubicised conspiracys.
Hollow moon theories, Alien bases on the moon, anomalous structures, clemantine orbiter altered images are all conspiracy delights to ponder over from an armchair and website research perspective.


Yes indeed , the moon theory faking hoax has allready been put to rest here. However i personally dont believe that conspiracy theorists "highjack" and "distort" infomation to turn it into unlikely fiction. As a matter of fact , i wouldnt call those people conspiracy theorists at all as they are no better then the flamers and trolls you get on these boards, sometimes who just make up stories to get the attention.
Once again we here are not deniing the moon landings were real OR they were fake we are following the subject in general Secret Bases On The Moon hence the thread heading.And that is what we are trying to find out.



I am sure NASA have been honest in their presentation of scientific facts and I believe that all members of the scientific community could not possibly adhered to any secrecey for this length of time without some information leaking out to the news hounds who would relish to print the expose of their career


Ok this is where my beliefs in the system start to come into it, NASA works in high regards with the USA administration and there defence departement, Now as we all know if the government doesnt want something released to the media then there is no way that the media will get there hands on it ( For example 911 and Osama Bin Laden) These are two factors that i believe the media is very binded in what they say about these factors. Anyway, my point is The media can be controlled, is controlled and is on puppet strings from those in the "higher powers" who dont want certain infomation released. This Media manipulation is called and goes by the name of "Spiking" and is not a rare occurance. You believe everything you here on the news?? because i know for a fact that i certainly dont.
We were talking about people that Distort facts and "hijack" them, These Fact distorters and Highjackers are the media in my opinion.



....and the German photo's...Well!, nothing more than doodles during a quirt coffee break.
I have browsed the Richard Hogland contributions on some websites and read his musings with a tongue in cheek perspective but I percieve his theories are almost ike-esque in his presentation.


And the german photos ? i assume you speak of the ones on the first few pages??
well if u r i would like to remind you that they are artists scetches using eye witness accounts according to some that i have read , so sure they might have drawn it while drinking coffee , but they would have had someone lying in a chair decribing aspects of it to them from accross a neat little office.

In All Honesty
These are Just my thoughts

Omega


[edit on 22/6/2006 by Omega85]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Good job reading through this thread and contributing to it. Had you actually read through it you would have seen that issue has been addressed already and that your comment would have been unnecessary.


[edit on 6/21/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]


I didn't feel like reading through 7 pages of the same old moon conspiracy dribble... so keep your comments to yourself.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by porky1981

I didn't feel like reading through 7 pages of the same old moon conspiracy dribble... so keep your comments to yourself.


For you to be able to comment on a thread, it is usually a good idea to actually read up on what has been said. CKK nicely pointed out that fact and you jumped him uneccesarily in return. Please, in future, refrain from telling members not to comment.

This happens to be a very good thread, actually worthwhile reading, and if you do not think so, why comment in it?

Sorry for going off topic.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
ok fine..my comment.. er question..

Why would china go to the moon, yet the U.S hasn't been there in ages?

Won't americans look dumb if china eventually does go and the U.S is still flat on its back doing nothing? something is fishy....



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by porky1981
Why would china go to the moon, yet the U.S hasn't been there in ages?


To show that they have the capability to do so, just the same as the US did during the Cold War.

Why hasn't the US been there in ages though? No need, really. We beat the USSR there, pretty much sealed the deal on who won the space race, despite the Soviets having a very good lead on the US.

Honestly, though, I really am hoping that a new Space Race comes from all this. Hopefully between the US, EU, Russia, China, and maybe even Japan. Why? Look at all the technology that we still use today that came from the last Space Race. Imagine what would come from the technology we have today? Of course, I think the only way to spark that off would be if one of those countries said they were going to shoot for the Moon by the end of this decade.



Won't americans look dumb if china eventually does go and the U.S is still flat on its back doing nothing?


Possibly, but then again, our return to the Moon is slated to take place before China's. Not to mention I doubt that the US government would allow anyone else to get there before we had already gone back for a second series of missions - either through beating them to the Moon, or by a... erm... less than friendly way of keeping them grounded.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join