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.

 

What are the ailens waiting for?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   


I was wondering exactly the same thing, What a poor picture. Once i got the full far side image and zoomed in, there is large blurred portion of it and some nasty bad areas that don't seem to be long there...


So, you zoomed in on a photo, and it was blurry? Wow. I would never have thought for that to happen.



Edit: I posted those pics to show that there is no vegitation, no rivers, no NOTHING to be seen on the moon.

[edit on 18/8/06 by Mouth]




posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
There is nothing proof positive about thoise photos. Terrible quality. If that the proof you base your knowledge on them i have a bridge to see you,,,.....real cheap


Toc

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth


I was wondering exactly the same thing, What a poor picture. Once i got the full far side image and zoomed in, there is large blurred portion of it and some nasty bad areas that don't seem to be long there...


So, you zoomed in on a photo, and it was blurry? Wow. I would never have thought for that to happen.



Edit: I posted those pics to show that there is no vegitation, no rivers, no NOTHING to be seen on the moon.

[edit on 18/8/06 by Mouth]


When photos shows in Firefox, they are fitting the window. You get a magnifier glass + Icon that lets you see the full size of the picture.

Once you see the entire picture, you see how crappy they are. Large strippes of blur as well as poor strippes that seemed have been copied from another spot on the picture.

The photos you linked seemed to have been retouched. Hence shouldn't be used to prove anything.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Toc]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by tommy1979

I have one amazing photo of the moon. It is LO II-162H. I ordered it from a NASA contractor and instead of sending me a 16x20 print they sent me a 16x20 negative. I kept that negative for over 10 years before the technology was available (to me) to print from a negative that size. I already knew what was on the print and when I got the enlargement (20x24) from the negative I was amazed...it was not airbrushed or retouched in any way. Somebody was looking out for me. Its in black and white but there are still exciting artifacts, silos, vapor, a long ramp, a building. In that package the contractor also sent (unrequested) 2 photos taken by the Lick Observatory of the moon one is late 40's, one is early 50's, both show lots of cool stuff.


Sounds interesting, why dont you scan it in for us all to see?
You can goto yousendit, where you can upload it, no file limits, be cool to see



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toc

Originally posted by Shar_Chi

Originally posted by johnlear
I have one amazing photo of the moon. It is LO II-162H... when I got the enlargement (20x24) from the negative I was amazed.

This is a gallery featuring the images I assume John is referring to. Make up your own mind.
John Lear's lunar photo album.


Darn, i can't make out anything from those photos...hardly anything really visible. I was hoping for more clearly defined objects.

Uhhhhh...what did you expect? Don't you think that if there were clear pictures of buildings on the moon that most people would have seen them by now? It would be a pretty big deal if there were pictures of buildings, rivers, plants, whatever on the moon. Whoever saw these pictures would show their friends, and they would show their friends, and so on...

Even John Lear's picture of a supposed "7 Mile Tower" on the moon doesn't really look like anything. It could just be something wrong with the camera for all we know...

People need to quit digging for something that isn't there. Quit trying to make something out of nothing. If actual proof of something like buildings on the moon was on the internet then I doubt you would have to worry about seeing them...everyone will see them...



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth


I was wondering exactly the same thing, What a poor picture. Once i got the full far side image and zoomed in, there is large blurred portion of it and some nasty bad areas that don't seem to be long there...


So, you zoomed in on a photo, and it was blurry? Wow. I would never have thought for that to happen.




Not all of it was blurry. There are areas that are of very good quality, and right next to it within the same frame there is areas that are very blurry. There is also a crater with an obviously large ridge that seems akward and out of place, like they were just two totally different topographical pictures just spliced together.

That is just what i saw when i looked at it. Just my opinion.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by lecuitis



Sounds interesting, why dont you scan it in for us all to see?
You can goto yousendit, where you can upload it, no file limits, be cool to see


Thanks lecuitis.

Will try yousendit.com, although all of them that I have tried will not upload this picture which is 8 mgs. When they say 'no file limits' I think they mean no 'number' of file limits, but they limit the 'size' to 2 or 3 mgs. I would be willing to pay for space if this could be done. So any suggestions would be appreciated. I would like to get this uploaded so that all those interested can see the quality of this Lunar Orbiter photo. The photo is of the northern interior face of Copernicus and I am sure it will generate a lot of interest. On the other hand many interested parties may have never held or seen a plain black and white photo of the moon. They may be expecting a lot more. At the ripe old age of 64 I have spent a lifetime taking, developing, printing and looking at thousands of black and white photos of earth and the moon. So something may 'leap' out at me which to someone else looks 'blurry and fuzzy and doesn't look like anything'. That doesn't mean that 'something' isn't there. It means that the person who sees 'blurry and fuzzy' hasn't spent enough time looking at black and white photos for details.

On August 23, 1996, I went over to Bob Lazars house to show him the 'artifacts' I found on the north interior face of Copernicus. Bob was such a sceptic. He didn't believe anything that he hadn't personally put his hands on. He was derisevly insulting that I should bother him with any alleged 'artifacts' on the moon.

As I was leaving his house that day he said, "You know John, I'm going to have to kill myself if any of this turns out to be true."

So I immediately got him to sign a statement which said, "I, Bob Lazar, promise to kill myself if any of John's moon stuff is true. (signed) Bob Lazar. August 23, 1996.

A couple of years later I got the LO-2-162H printed and found the 'building'. I took it over to show Bob. Bob was mortified. He had to 'admit' that the 'builiding' was certainly a structure that did not look like a natural formation.

I insisted that Bob keep his promise and commit suicide. When he balked I offered him a way out and had him voluntarily sign the following statement:

"I, Bob Lazar in return for not having to kill myself if any of "John's moon stuff was true" do FREELY ADMIT that the object in the Crater Copernicus on the moon saved as "applecrate" is a box which I don't know what is doing there."

(signed)

Bob Lazar
August 5, 1998



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
haha nice one.

It makes me laugh how some people will go to any lengths to try and debunk the UFO phenomenon; is it that impossible to think that maybe there could be other races besides ours in this grand universe of ours, so unbelievable that they could be more advanced than us (we are only 2 million years old, according to scientists, the universe is 4 BILLION years old); is it so beyond your programmed version of reality that those advanced races could actually be here, when there are millions of reports and hundreds of thousands of new reports each year?

The narrow mindedness of some people boggles my mind.

As for why the good ones arent here yet, cuz the bad ones are here already (those whove done any research on the subject should know this), why arent the good ones here yet? Well they have a policy of non-interference unless their help is desired. In other words, they cant help us until we ask them for it, theyre just following the universal law of free will.

But unfortunately, we arent asking for their help because most of us are too busy trying to convince everyone they dont exist. Is that irony?

[edit on 19-8-2006 by AscendedMaster]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
John, use this. you can host 100mb files!

www.filefactory.com...

When the upload is done it's important you copy the link here, im not sure if you can find stuff you hosted if you exit the link


[edit on 19-8-2006 by InSaneTK]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by lecuitis




Thanks lecuitis.

Will try yousendit.com, although all of them that I have tried will not upload this picture which is 8 mgs. When they say 'no file limits' I think they mean no 'number' of file limits, but they limit the 'size' to 2 or 3 mgs. I would be willing to pay for space if this could be done. So any suggestions would be appreciated. I would like to get this uploaded so that all those interested can see the quality of this Lunar Orbiter photo.

The good thing with yousendit is you dont even have to register or anything like that to use it. The idea behind the site is you want to send someone a file, so you type in their email address and upload the file, but it also gives you the URL to the file which you can post here and anyone can download it. So as you dont want to send anyone an email just send it to yourself or even make an address up


Haha, Im imagining Bobs reaction now.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by lecuitis

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by lecuitis




Thanks lecuitis.

Will try yousendit.com, although all of them that I have tried will not upload this picture which is 8 mgs. When they say 'no file limits' I think they mean no 'number' of file limits, but they limit the 'size' to 2 or 3 mgs. I would be willing to pay for space if this could be done. So any suggestions would be appreciated. I would like to get this uploaded so that all those interested can see the quality of this Lunar Orbiter photo.

The good thing with yousendit is you dont even have to register or anything like that to use it. The idea behind the site is you want to send someone a file, so you type in their email address and upload the file, but it also gives you the URL to the file which you can post here and anyone can download it. So as you dont want to send anyone an email just send it to yourself or even make an address up


Haha, Im imagining Bobs reaction now.


Same with filefactory, i think it's annoying people are not aware of it, it's the best free hosting site on the net.

you can host unlimited amount of files, and they stay aslong someone download it within a week

[edit on 19-8-2006 by InSaneTK]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
If they actually do exist I do not think they are waiting. Rather they ran into a little problem.

The aliens are probably not omniscient given the fact that they are usually destrribed as living being. Now if they are going to introduce them selves to Earth they can not exactly do it right away becuase of something that would make it pointless to show them selves.

Language. They may still be busy gathering and translating data on all the human languages. Even with a massive intelligence it would take time to learn every language. They also have to make sure those being sent to Earth also know the appropriate languages for the section of the planet they are sent to.

This could also explain the abductions since it could be their way to gather the needed data.

Their is also the fact that we have no idea what kind of society they have. The aliens might not yet be capable of doing anything because of some change in their society. For example if they got rid of crime and war in their worlds some how then they would have nothing to stop it on this planet if they decided to come to fix this planets problems.

So according to this theory of mine if the aliens actually exist and want to help or have any interest in the human race then they are most likely just making sure that tehy do not seem like intergalactic idiots when they arive.

There is also the possibility that they have absolutly no interest in humanity. Perhaps when they come it will be to assist another one of the millions of species on the planet. They may have even already came to do that in forms that we would not suspect that are similar to that of a non human species.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AscendedMaster

It makes me laugh how some people will go to any lengths to try and debunk the UFO phenomenon; is it that impossible to think that maybe there could be other races besides ours in this grand universe of ours, so unbelievable that they could be more advanced than us (we are only 2 million years old, according to scientists, the universe is 4 BILLION years old); is it so beyond your programmed version of reality that those advanced races could actually be here, when there are millions of reports and hundreds of thousands of new reports each year?


I'm not looking to debate your facts, because a lot of it depends upon an individual's choice to believe what an individual chooses to believe. Your facts are a little wrong, but i think i know what it is you based your ages upon. I would like to offer you some better facts that indeed raise the odds in favour of your arguement.

Yes, scientists believe the physical evidence does support humanities existance as being nearly 2 million years, all be it not totally in our current state of evolution. However, your date of the universe as being 4 billion years old is incorrect by most accounts. But, i know where you got this date from. It is our own sun and solar sytem that is dated as being between 4 to 4&1/2 Billion years old. After the mirror imagery problem was fixed on the Hubble Telescope, the evidence produced in measuring the spectrum shifts and Doppler Effect produce evidence of a universe that is between 12 and 18 Billion years old. This would mean by most conservative scientific estimates (supported by the research) that the universe existed at the very least 8 Billion years before the sun Earth revolves around did.

Plenty of time for any intelligent life to evolve and journey out amongst the stars. And, if one couples the two facts of the Drake Equasion with the fact that we can not with our current understanding say that time travel in either direction is impossible, then any species anywhere, anytime, that evolves technilogically to a point of viable space travel and time travel, then our odds of being known to them increase drastically.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
2 things I would like to mention. One, the Hubble telescope never had a probelm. In the first place there are 2 Hubbles in orbit. One was strictly military one was supposed to be civilian. Something came up where the military needed both so a problem was invented for the civilian one until the military was finished with it. I mean, c'mon...you didn't really buy that after all that work and preparation that someting REALLY went wrong with Hubble? Did you?

The other is that the universe is infinite and billions upon billions of years old. To believe that the vast space that we look out into every night is only 18 billion years old? Not a chance.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argos
If you believe in the Ashtar then they are making preperations, if they come in wipe out the NWO then they are going to seem hostile, and un-peaceful. As to most on lookers it would just be ET wiping out our governments, and then the whole transition after first contact could spiral out of control.



It was the Christians who decided the time was right for the return of Jesus. They self-fulfilled everything they believed would happen or was supposed to happen. The NWO is a creation from the mind of Christians. They predicted and oh what a coincidence that everything they have predicted is happening. This is what is called self-fulfilled prophecy. The aliens are not making any preparations to wipe out the NWO. If you want to get rid of the NWO you will have to do it yourself. The aliens will not deliver you from the monsters that you yourselves have created for yourselves. They do not interpret the scriptures the way Christians do.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Originally posted by grasshopper



It was the Christians who decided the time was right for the return of Jesus. They self-fulfilled everything they believed would happen or was supposed to happen. The NWO is a creation from the mind of Christians. They predicted and oh what a coincidence that everything they have predicted is happening. This is what is called self-fulfilled prophecy. The aliens are not making any preparations to wipe out the NWO. If you want to get rid of the NWO you will have to do it yourself. The aliens will not deliver you from the monsters that you yourselves have created for yourselves. They do not interpret the scriptures the way Christians do.




Amen.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
2 things I would like to mention. One, the Hubble telescope never had a probelm.


The Hubble telescope did indeed have a problem.

Source Link:
www.fact-index.com...



Launch and initial disappointment
The telescope was launched by Space Shuttle Discovery mission STS-31 on April 24, 1990. This had been postponed from a 1986 launch date by the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in January that year.
The first images back from the telescope were generally regarded as a big disappointment for astronomers and all concerned in the project. They were blurred, and despite image processing could not match the predicted resolution. It was determined that the main mirror had been ground slightly too flat at the edges, a problem that could have been tested for on the ground if the funds had been available.

Servicing Missions
The telescope has been revisited several times by spacewalking astronauts in space shuttles in order to correct malfunctions and install new equipment. Because of atmospheric drag, the telescope slowly loses height (and gains speed) over time; the shuttle pulls it back to a higher orbit every time it visits.
Servicing Mission 1, December 1993 (STS-61) installed several instruments and other equipment. The most important astronomically were: the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR), which was a set of five corrective mirrors; and the Wide Field/Planetary Camera (WF/PC-II), an upgraded version of the previous ultraviolet detector which also incorporated the corrective optics. On January 13, 1994, NASA declared the mission a complete success, and showed the first of many much sharper images.
Servicing Mission 2, February 1997 (STS-82) replaced High Resolution Spectrograph and Faint Object Spectrograph with Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph and added Near Infrared Camera / Multi-Object Spectrograph.
Servicing Mission 3A, December 1999 (STS-103) replaced faulty gyroscopes and fine guidance sensors (reusing one returned by SM-1), installed new computer.
Servicing Mission 3B, March 2002 (STS-109) repaired and upgraded several items, requiring lengthy and delicate spacewalks. Fixes to the telescope included:
Update of its Power Converter Unit, which was particularly tricky as it was not designed for in-orbit replacement, and also required taking the satellite completely off-line for the first time since it was put into operation.
Replacement of its solar arrays. The new arrays were derived from those built for the Iridium comsat system. They are only two-thirds the size of the old tattered arrays, resulting in less drag against the tenuous reaches of the upper atmosphere, while providing 30% more power. The additional power will permit all instruments on board the Hubble to be run simultaneously.
Replacement of the "Faint Object Camera (FOC)" with the "Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)". Both the FOC and the ACS are about the size of a telephone booth.
Installation of a mechanical cryocooler unit into the nonfunctioning "Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS)".
Replacement of a reaction control wheel.
The completion of this servicing mission, considerably enhanced Hubble's capabilities, some enthusiasts claiming that it is now effectively a "new instrument".


Another Source Link:
read-and-go.hopto.org...


Named after Edwin Hubble, it was launched into orbit in 1990 as a joint project of National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the European Space Agency. Initial optical errors were corrected in 1993, and high-quality imaging began in 1994. ......

Servicing Mission 1 (STS-61) in December 1993 installed several instruments and other equipment:
replaced the High Speed Photometer (HSP) with the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR),
replaced the Wide Field and Planetary Camera (WFPC) with the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2),
replaced the solar arrays and their drive electronics,
replaced two of the three Rate Sensing Units (RSUs), containing four gyroscopes, to leave Hubble with a full complement of six working gyroscopes,
replaced two electrical control units and other electrical components,
replaced two magnetometers,
upgraded the computer, adding more memory and a processor,
installed improvised covers on the magnetometers, which threatened to shed debris due to UV decay,
fitted an electrical connection box on the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS),
boosted Hubbles orbit. The most important change was the installation of the corrective optics package. On January 13 1994 NASA declared the mission a complete success, and showed the first of many much sharper images.




In the first place there are 2 Hubbles in orbit.


Any existing evidence?



One was strictly military one was supposed to be civilian. Something came up where the military needed both so a problem was invented for the civilian one until the military was finished with it. I mean, c'mon...you didn't really buy that after all that work and preparation that someting REALLY went wrong with Hubble? Did you?


?? Support for these claims would be appreciated.



The other is that the universe is infinite and billions upon billions of years old. To believe that the vast space that we look out into every night is only 18 billion years old? Not a chance.


Really? Because the Hubble telescope only recieves light from sources that produced that light approximately 18 Billion years ago. The Hubble telescope can look further, but nothing is visible in any direction beyond 18 billion years. We also know from utilizing the Doplar Effect that the galaxies are not only expanding away from a central point, but they are accelerating.

My point is the facts exist to support my claims. If you have information that conflicts with the accepted history of the Hubble in the early 90s, please supply it.

I am not saying your claims are implausible, but i have never come upon any evidence, nor been exposed to any source material that substantiates your claims.

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher




I am not saying your claims are implausible, but i have never come upon any evidence, nor been exposed to any source material that substantiates your claims.


Thanks ET for your very thorough and detailed outline of NASA's disinformation program on the Hubble telescope. I'm sure there are a lot of people buying into it. Since you didn't say one way or the other I assume you were not one of the astronauts that made all those repairs on the Hubble and so you are just relying on what NASA tells you. And I guess you are assuming that NASA ALWAYS tells the truth.

I, however, assume that its not too much of a stretch that NASA rarely, if ever, tells the truth.

So I'll stick with my (conspiracy) theory that there are 2, count 'em 2 Hubbles, and that the universe is much, much older than 18 billion years.

Thanks for your post and all the effort that went into it.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Here's my little theory: the aliens are actually the evil remnants of Atlantis and aren't returning because they feel too weirded out in doing so. At the same time they feel they can't destroy us however much we are in the way as they are already extremely too guilt-stricken to do so. The Sons of Belial is what Edgar Cayce calls them back in the good old days when Earth had amiable technology to brag about in our still crowded galaxy.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
johnlear,

before i respond i would like to say: I'll keep an open mind.

I did watch hours of the space walk videos to repair the hubble telescope and listened in detail to an interview with the one astronaut who took on some of the hardest work. He seemed passionate about the extent of work they did.

One major thing that has my attention about the occurances of the early 90s with respects to the Hubble Telescope is that everyone involved in it took a lot of heat and ridicule for it not initially performing up to par. Why endure so much ridicule for a 2 billion dollar failure if you did not fail?

I know there are plausible answers to the last question.

However their (the conspiritors) goals would have had to include a few goals to accomplish the reactions they got.

Did they need to be seen as incapable and incompetent?

Did they need to be seen as failing to succeed in a $2 Billion project?

What were they doing when they fixed the telescope? Did they really not do it? That is a lot of footage to get the astronauts to "act" while endangering their lives during the space walks, not to mention the work performed.

Or, just perhaps, they were unwitting participants??

Your perspective on this issue raises some crucial and pertinant questions for me. If true, could we not extrapulate some truth concerning motives and intentionality of said conspiritors?

I'll be honest. I know a fairly decent amount of information concerning what is released about our space exploration projects, and i'm always questioning all of it when viewed together with other information.

At any rate, it just raises questions that may or may not lead us down a road that is one that even raises more questions.

Concerning this subject matter i see few absolutes. Therefore as i stated first, i will keep an open mind.

I'd like to add, it's nice to disagree with someone in such a decent and respectfull manor. Seems we all to often endure too much hostility here on ATS, and it is nice to have a productive conversation.

Thanks.




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join