Originally posted by ArMaP
What method did you use to create the 3D version of the photos?

And how do you know that the fact that you see black areas "floating" above the rest of the picture after it was altered to a 3D version mean that those areas were added later on the negative?

It's my secret It involves alot of work to add the depth.

Because that black is PITCH black. You can see 'true' the holes the black paint didn't touch and get a sharp line over other objects that are in depth. So it floats above the picture

Thank you very much Cygnific for displaying the 3D version of the Moon photos. John, what I do is use my 3D glasses to see the 3D photo I am looking at and then use a good optical magnifying glass in front of the 3D glasses to see the particular photo better. To zero in on different anomolies in photos wearing the 3D glasses tilt or refract the magnifying glass to distort anomolies, I call this stretching the anomolie in any direction to see it's shape much better. Some think I am crazy for doing this, but I can see the anomolies better most of the time and much better before the 3D photo has been blown up and pixelated. Rik Riley

Originally posted by greatlakes
I do like the 3d resolutions you're doing, that work MAY be able to draw out some anomalous features.

Not may ... does... and very nicely too.

If one could gather data to make a topographical map of the region (copernicus), it could expose some anomalous topographical features, but for now the above Copernicus image objects reveal nothing except shades of gray pixels.

USGS has had topo maps in great detail of Copernicus and other areas since 1961 and the Clementine data also has topographical 3D maps.. Unfortunately the mining anomalies are to small to show on a topographical map at this time

If we could get the Department of Defense copies of Lunar Orbiter series that show details to be able to recognize a card table on the moon, then we would have something...

Too bad those images are not available

[edit on 30-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by realyweely
Sorry to burst your bubble but I doubt there is anything you could show myself and a lot of other people here that will convince us. Simply because they dont speak up and say so doesnt mean they arent laughing.

LOL well that's okay, my bubble is made of titanium carbide... it's pretty tough material... so no worries...

And my U2U's and emails tell a different story from the silent watchers... so having to tolerate a few comments that add nothing to the discussion for or against is a non issue.

If in all the images posted since the beginning of the thread you can not see one thing out of place, you are certainly wasting you time here

Three weeks, 157 pages later( it was about 130 or so when I started and yes I read every one.), 2 panic attacks, hours and hours of following links and trying to understand what was being discussed in them, so many cross references, ananlysis', speculation (on my part), hours and hours of scanning photos and I'm finally here able to post a response.

1.OK I'm pretty sure that this was discussed a little but not in depth but the fact that one of the 3 people who hold the mineral rights to most of the moon is the director of one of the worlds leading camoflauge company's is incredible. Who better to be helping mask things on the moon.

2nd. That PDF file from the white house site just shows how secretive "NASA" is. How can anything that they publicly release be believed when they don't allow there findings to be put under peer review? Isn't that one of the guiding principles of science? I know they where discussing the mars photos and experiments but it is just as relevant here.

3rd. Boeing's sea launch platform. I think that this is certainly evidence on how deep this goes. And that GM is making the vehicles for the next Mars landing and have one in operational testing justs adds to it.

4th. If anyone can explain to me how Zorgon's "Ancient Derilict Excavator" could be a natural formation, please do. For me, this anomaly is really one of the best as is the original, Mr. Lear's "parking garage". But the "compound" is really top of the list. I will admit that I don't see every one that is posted but I can see most. I'm new at this, give me some time.

I have found a couple of anomalies that I haven't seen posted yet. They are from Copernicus 3. But I'll post them in a couple of days. I have to move tomorrow and it's getting late.


To John, Zorgon, Undo, Matays, SteveR, Borg and the folks from earlier and more recently in the thread, I say thank you. Thank you for posting finding and sharing these pictures.They have pretty much consumed my life for the last three weeks. I needed a new computer, and downloading all the finds has pretty much filled the old hard drive so I guess I'll stop putting it off.

GAOTU789, Congratulations you have gone where very few have taken the time to tread, completing, reading and researching John Lear's Moon Pictures thread on ATS. I am but a spectator and all the main participants you have mentioned have contributed greatly and are the backbone of this thread along with many more individuals. I am excited as you are to have the chance to wittness new discoveries brought forth by John Lear and his support team of the Earth's Moon. Rik Riley

[edit on 30-5-2007 by rikriley]

The above two files lack depth and was just a quick fix for zorgon, the biggest files coming soon and have depth in. So if you dont want to get dissapointed dont download them but wait a few.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Three weeks, 157 pages later

Thank you for that impressive summary of some of the key points in the thread. those points alone would make a conspiracy in most topics.

Welcome and thank you for taking the time to read

And I do apologize for some of the randomness, but this was a voyage of discovery for all of us and as soon as we searched out one lead, we found many more... and that is still happening today.

I hope one day real soon to do at least a priliminary summary of our finds, what we are saying, and where this will lead... but I haven't even presented the best stuff yet

[edit on 31-5-2007 by zorgon]

Nice job on the webpage and hosting Zorgon, maybe we can put it on the firstpage to together with the originals.

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by realyweely

Sorry to burst your bubble but I doubt there is anything you could show myself and a lot of other people here that will convince us. Simply because they dont speak up and say so doesnt mean they arent laughing.

If you want to burst my bubble tell me why that is happening if it was an original unedited photo.
[edit on 30/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Thats the point, neither I, you, nor John lear knows what anything is but unlike yourself and Lear I dont go wildly speculating about what they 'Could' be. Whats the point?. If its for simple amusement, then fine but please say so, and stop staing that you 'Know' what they are as fact. You and Mr Lear are actually suggesting that these things are real, when you have no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Take a look at some Earth photos from space and start your speculation there, then you can have proof, as you can go there and check.

Excerpts from HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
Revised edition, (C) 1997 by Daniel Drasin

Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

[...]

Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

[...]

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)


[...]

Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.


[...]

In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

[...]

Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties. Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with hammers.

Source
/2c5fxw

Sorry made wrong reply

[edit on 31/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by johnlear

How much longer until the hi-res?

Cygnific, let me say again that this effort of yours to put the Copernicus photos in 3D is absolutely brilliant. I see at least twice as much as did before. Many thanks for your effort it is greatly appreciated!

You are very welcome John.

It's only possible because you gave the originals. I was very surprised also by the amount of detail you see this way. Zorgon has all Hi-res.

Do you have more pictures of Copernicus?

No more Copernicus Zorgon answered that. The other low res on the web is no good for 3D.