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.

 

John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

page: 161
164
<< 158  159  160    162  163  164 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee
Why would we use anti gravity to get to Mars then use non anti gravity to roam the surface ?


That one is easy... I can describe anti gravity spaceships, but as yet I have no way to convert that to an easy to use ground transport...

It may also be a matter of cost. It may not be economical to use your anti gravity for everything... I believe we have the tech, I don't believe it is proliferent enough for commuting or exploring the surface. Beside since they told us we have the Humvee, how would they explain that its suddenly powered by anitgrav or some other exotic unknown tech?




posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakesThe Mars-1 IS NOT GOING TO MARS IN ITS PRESENT FORM. Its an experimental test vehicle.


DOH! I guess I missed that...



in its PRESENT form




To All...

I may be taking a break from these threads for awhile, even if it means having to play "catch up" later...

A few recent links sent to me are going to require some serious thought... and I have a lot of repair and catch up to do on the website if I plan to maintain it...

I will stop in to look, and you know some things will drag me back kickin and screamin but I need a vacation...

There is also another thread here currently active that has given me cause for thought, as it is in direct connection to the theory that NASA and Space Command have it in mind to arm space and generally make us out the "bad guy" out there...

Here is the thread... those who know me will understand my concern...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And thus it begins...

To the Pegasus group...

I will be emailing you all tonight

There are many things of which a wise man might wish to be ignorant.
/
Ralph Waldo Emerson

[edit on 3-6-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

There is also another thread here currently active that has given me cause for thought, as it is in direct connection to the theory that NASA and Space Command have it in mind to arm space and generally make us out the "bad guy" out there...


Of course the US wants to weaponise space. Should not come as a revelation to any that have done any preliminary research into this area. The US government and military make little effort in HIDING or making this agenda secret, its all available for any that are willing to read it, on the web
For starters, check out this video:


Google Video Link


And this book, "Space Weapons Earth Wars" by the Rand Corp.
The book if available in full (no need to purchase it, just click the pdf's)
www.rand.org...

Acquisition of National Security Space Programs
www.fas.org...

Space Control and the Role of Antisatellite Weapons
www.fas.org...

Prioritizing Army Space Needs
www.fas.org...

DOD Space Technology Guide
www.fas.org...

And lots more - all out there for anyone and everyone to find and is willing to spend some research time on the subject. I was going to start an ATS thread on the topic but haven't done so yet...

And quoted here:

"To make this transition (the goal to weaponize space), the US must overcome current legal and political impediments to doing so. It is assumed that the political will to weaponize space will lead to overcoming these obstacles. In addition to these hurdles, the USAF must overcome certain technical obstacles to make military operations from space a reality. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board's report, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century, outlines in great detail the technologies necessary to accomplish this objective."

From:Weaponization Of Space: Understanding Strategic and Technological Inevitabilities by Thomas D. Bell, Lt Col, USAF January 1999, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

[edit on 3-6-2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Earth based high resolution Moon imaging.

This guy:
www.mikeoates.org...
Is using:
Mak-Cass127mm focal length of 1500mm

I have my eye on a:
Orion SkyQuest XT12 305mm focal length 1500mm

Here are some samples of his results:

www.mikeoates.org...
www.mikeoates.org...

I have been thinking of getting a telescope anyway.
My question is do you guys think it may be worth all of
the trouble to try and duplicate what he has done here?

Other than this guys site most say dont even try, including NASA.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
If I wasnt unemployed I would get the cash togther and buy all that I would need to set my self up... My little brother had a cheap telescop when we were young and when looking at the moon, well it was something I will allways remember. I think you will enjoy it.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Getting to know some new software...!








posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Tommyknockers, absolutely go ahead purchase a new telescope or good used telescope. My thinking is your telescope will be viewing and taking photos of the Moon at a slightly different angle or coordinates. I covered this website a couple of pages back and if I remember correctly he had fair viewing conditions.

You may hit excellent or good atmospheric conditions and get a better photo of the Moon. This of course is all about where you live and how bright the city lights you have in the background. It is the thrill of the hunt when looking for anomolies on the Moon. It is a great hobby you can look at stars many many light years away and planets in our Solar System. This opens up a whole new world or should I say Universe. The great thing is your telescope is portable and you can take it with you to different parts of the country with your digital camera. There are clubs and societies you can join also. Rik Riley



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Thanks for the encouragement Rik. I am about 30 minuets outside of Omaha and it will not take much to get away from the lights. My 3 year old daughter is my motivation. She insists on going outside to look for the moon everyday as soon as the sun goes down. If I can capture anything good I will be sure to share them here. I have a few servers up at the local ISP, maybe I will even setup some live video feeds



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


To All...

I may be taking a break from these threads for awhile, even if it means having to play "catch up" later...


Well, you deserve a break my freind. I don't think this thread would have gone on for 9 months without you


Don't stay away too long...Still more to be found


----EDIT-----
Well. I can't get to sleep, so I'm gonna edit this and post another random LO pic.

This one looks like something with pretty straight edges as compared to it's surroudings. Doesn't look like a camera artifact or dust/fuzz either
hmmmm




Source:
ser.sese.asu.edu...




[edit on 4-6-2007 by Zarniwoop]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Well, you deserve a break my freind. I don't think this thread would have gone on for 9 months without you


Thanks Zarni... it won't be long, I promise... And I will pop in once in a while briefly on this thread... and I will leave you with this little blue gem...



Originally posted by tommyknockers
Earth based high resolution Moon imaging.
This guy is using:
Mak-Cass127mm focal length of 1500mm
Here are some samples of his results:


Yup Kevin has a good shot of Aristarchus... taken on a bad day as he says...





However I much prefer the images taken by his friend and fellow, Sir Patrick Alfred Caldwell-Moore...



There is a series of 4 images all showing the lights on
These were taken with an 8" scope and are at least as good as Mike's if not better..

Now isn't it amazing how Aristarchus changes when taken on a "bad day"


Source



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes
Of course the US wants to weaponize space.


Ah but YOU say WANTS to...

We say been there done that and are ready for a big fight...

That's the difference. But thanks for all that great research to add to the pot. Its really nice to have free research assistants LOL



Werner von Braun said we would manufacture four enemies to justify arming space just before he quit NASA..

Russia (been there done that they never were our enemies)
Terrorists (Daily News)
Asteroids (been a LOT of talk about NEO's lately, with NASA smashing ships into planets and comets for aiming practise
) ( A sport the Chinese are playing too with the satellite killer)
and last but not least...
Aliens ( and now we are talking about shooting Grays at ATS)

It would not surprise me if in a few years we hear announcements of an Alien Invasion...



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I didn't get the memo. Checked my email, no pressingly important email from Zorgon was in there! Where is it? What is it?



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   
So I popped Mike's Aristarchus into paintshop and used "Clarify" on it (supposed to correct images that are overly bright. and this showed up...




Look very closely at this image. What do you see?

[edit on 4-6-2007 by undo]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this helps or causes more questions. When I'm trying to determine a "fake" or whether a pic has been manipulated, the first thing I do is look for any "clone stamps," meaning identical spots that have been brushed together. However that doesn't apply to this image because "cloning" wasn't available to the developers of this image ... at least not digitally. It would have taken A LOT of work to "clone" something back in the 60's. So with this images I focuses on lack of detail and/or blurring of the image.

First, I combined all images by overlaying landmarks. Next, I dropped guides over all the crosshairs that I could find. Not all the crosshairs lined up perfectly. I suspect that there may have been a small tilt when the negatives were scanned, leading to a gradual difference as the guides progress across the image horizontally. It seemed to line up rather well vertically.

This image is a screen shot after I placed guides.


Notice the abundant crosshair marks at the bottom of the image and the lack of marks closer to the top. And I realize that I may have missed a couple, so please point these out if you find more. You can look at the difference both ways. Either the top of the image has been "touched-up" and crosshairs were not replaced, or the bottom of the image was "touched-up" and too many cross hairs were placed back into the image.

Here are a couple areas (in red) I believe to be doctored, either for lack of detail or for blurred spots that do not appear to be natural. These are just basic regions, I'm not attempting to pinpoint a specific spot:





posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
I'm not sure if this helps or causes more questions. When I'm trying to determine a "fake" or whether a pic has been manipulated, the first thing I do is look for any "clone stamps," meaning identical spots that have been brushed together. However that doesn't apply to this image because "cloning" wasn't available to the developers of this image ... at least not digitally. It would have taken A LOT of work to "clone" something back in the 60's. So with this images I focuses on lack of detail and/or blurring of the image.

First, I combined all images by overlaying landmarks. Next, I dropped guides over all the crosshairs that I could find. Not all the crosshairs lined up perfectly. I suspect that there may have been a small tilt when the negatives were scanned, leading to a gradual difference as the guides progress across the image horizontally. It seemed to line up rather well vertically.

This image is a screen shot after I placed guides.


Notice the abundant crosshair marks at the bottom of the image and the lack of marks closer to the top. And I realize that I may have missed a couple, so please point these out if you find more. You can look at the difference both ways. Either the top of the image has been "touched-up" and crosshairs were not replaced, or the bottom of the image was "touched-up" and too many cross hairs were placed back into the image.

Here are a couple areas (in red) I believe to be doctored, either for lack of detail or for blurred spots that do not appear to be natural. These are just basic regions, I'm not attempting to pinpoint a specific spot:



Thankyou Tyranny22


The fact is the images used throughout this gianormous thread are mostly very old by any standard....Those who post try to gloss over this by saying, "Well, they're the best images we have..."

C'mon guys...Whilst I'm of the mind that there is something VERY strange going on on the moon, which is most likely attributed to humans, in my opinion, further back in human history than 40 yrs ago, not in the last 40 yrs as demonstrated by the "derelict" condition of much of the machinery outlined in this thread...

I would want to see recent images of the moon, 40 yr old images of the moon do not cut the mustard here, with regard to suggesting recent human goings on on the surface of the moon...

Thus far, on this thread, there have been none...Save for the Ari.C pics which show various parts of the crater glowing blue

Again, proving or disproving the reason why the crater glows blue , including its so called *cough* reactor of some sort requires those stating this case/opinion to put up a reasonable argument with regards to what has already been argued by common science...

This to my mind has not even remotely be done...

What a waste of a lot of people's time...




[edit on 4-6-2007 by Rilence]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Originally posted by Rilence




C'mon guys...Whilst I'm of the mind that there is something VERY strange going on on the moon, which is most likely attributed to humans, in my opinion, further back in human history than 40 yrs ago, not in the last 40 yrs as demonstrated by the "derelict" condition of much of the machinery outlined in this thread...






Thanks for your insight Rilence, I thought you were gone.
I've heard this mentioned before that NASA did find some incredibly ancient machinery in Copernicus and that is what we are looking at.

If you have any way of contacting those 'incredibly ancient' people you might want to let them know that they left the machines running. Thanks.





posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Amen John


If we could only contact them, then we would really be on to something, eh ?


Keep up the good work

Tony



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Ok, john...

so you create more questions than answers with your last post.

You have heard that incredibly ancient machines were found on Copernicus? Quantify "incredibly ancient", if you can.

Would this be related to the ship recently reported (and shown on YouTube) of the ship? It looked like it was incredibly ancient, too, and I seem to remember the time frame of 1.5 billion years. There is also a report of skeletons.

What would have caused this extinction? Obviously something big, right? They left the machines up there in mid action. The ship was left, and unrecovered bodies were left inside?

What happened? Where was the rest of their people? No one came back to check on their comrades or gear?



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan




You have heard that incredibly ancient machines were found on Copernicus? Quantify "incredibly ancient", if you can.


This post was in regards to a post on this thread many months ago alleging that NASA had found ancient machines.

I believe that desparate attempts are being made by NASA to contain or limit the damage to their credibility with the pictures of the mining operations on the moon being posted on this thread.

They can't say its somebody else from earth because they are supposed to be in charge.

They can't say its aliens using bucket wheel excavators they'd look ridiculous.


Would this be related to the ship recently reported (and shown on YouTube) of the ship? It looked like it was incredibly ancient, too, and I seem to remember the time frame of 1.5 billion years. There is also a report of skeletons.

What would have caused this extinction? Obviously something big, right? They left the machines up there in mid action. The ship was left, and unrecovered bodies were left inside?

What happened? Where was the rest of their people? No one came back to check on their comrades or gear?


This video of an alleged spaceship and this story about skeletons would, in my opinion be NASA's Directorate of Disinformation at work in an attempt to deflect the portent, if not outright incrimination of the photos of current operations on the moon. How is NASA going to explain the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs if the public finds out we (the U.S) have been mining the moon since the early 60's?

Watch for posts that contain reference to mining equipment as 'ancient' or 'derelict' such as:


originally posted by greatlakes

.....not in the last 40 yrs as demonstrated by the "derelict" condition of much of the machinery outlined in this thread...


Do you see any 'derelict' machinery? I don't. I see operational machinery a huffin' and a puffin' up and down the sides of Copernicus.

NASA's hope was to dovetail the so-called 'back to the moon in 2024' effort so that it would look like we just got there. But the pictures on this thread are ruining everything. I'm pretty sure my day is complete.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Watch for posts that contain reference to mining equipment as 'ancient' or 'derelict' ...yada yada yada...

Yes WATCH OUT for those nefarious
posts that mention "derelict" or "ancient"...within the posts or threads...

"YOU MEAN LIKE THIS POST???!!!



Originally posted by zorgon
The Ancient Derelict Excavator




zorgon mentions the words ANCIENT AND DERELICT
in the SAME POST, O noes! Are you alluding then Lear that zorgon has switched to the DARK SIDE and is now posting NASA disinfo?


So which is it, are all of these crazy (AND HUGE I might add) contraptions of yours on the moon:

a) Ancient
b) Derelict
c) NASA built and transported via antigravity in the 60's
d) Soul Collectors
e) None of the above
f) All of the above



[edit on 4-6-2007 by greatlakes]



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 158  159  160    162  163  164 >>

log in

join