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: 179
164
<< 176  177  178    180  181  182 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
There is an interesting thread developing about some NASA coverup with real proof...I suggest having a look, especially recent developments
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I've posted there alot as well and have determined fairly conclusively the John Lenard images to be that of the ISS as imaged from the ground by not-too sophisticated equipment, hence the blurs and wipes of the images. The other type of JL images there seem to be satellites, I still need to find some amatuer sat pics that match.

The reason other amateur astronomers KNOW that what they're imaging is the ISS or a satellite is because to image these fastmovers, you need specific set of equipment to track them and image them. You also need to know the orbital track to locate where to look in the sky. This leads me to believe JL to be a fraud, purposely misleading the audience, he has taken too many images of the ISS and satellites to be by chance alone, he knows where to look, according to published orbital tracks of satellites and stations. I'm
so far on this one and I've done much of the research there.

Its noted however that I found out that the NASA posts were deleted and I'd posted it to that thread, but this could have been for any number of reasons

It's also noted that Jose Escamilla new video, "Interstellar" seems to be images that JL has posted at space.com, and its also possible that these two are connected somehow as well.

[edit on 6/21/2007 by greatlakes]




posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
i found interesting info in the background of the images posted in that thread. i did a series of "Clarify" on 6 images and found similar but not identical, disk shapes in the backdrop. two of them, however, appear to be on the surface of a planet. the first one is......i dunno what. it's like two gates in a cliff face or something. unless it's just an impossibly big ship (i've labelled it "1"). the second one is...erm...anyone recognize that thing under it? (I've labelled it "2")

First, here are the two i mentioned:

Clarify with Brightness Contrast
#
Split HSL with Brightness Contrast


-

And the rest were just Clarify, no Brightness Contrast

#1

#2

#3

#4


My favs are the Split HSL, #1 and #2. the split HSL and #2 looks like it's on the moon. #1 looks like it's on mars.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I posted the link to the thread so people could got there to read and discuss it not to drag in into this thread


But I am going to go off topic here for a minute on an issue that disturbs me. For some time I have been skeptical of using wikipedia as a resource for the simple reason that ANYONE can alter the pages there anytime they want...
So where is the check and balance? and just WHO decides if an article should be there or not?

Is the choice unbiased or does the person(s) making thge changes use their personal bias?

Several months back in the stargate thread there was a section in wikipedia pointing us to some interesting info... while we were discussing this point in the thread... it was edited out of wikipedia... Now in that case the older versions were still there, so I was able to track it back to when it was deleted... about 2 days after we brought it up... I have since saved that info and the page before the editing...

Now today I find out that the article on John Lear has been totally deleted... there is no cached page of it at all only two entries showing it was deleted... one by the deletor and one by an administrator who does not agree with the deletion...

* 01:58, 17 June 2007 Rklawton (Talk | contribs) deleted "John Lear" (this article has already been AfD'd
- do not recreate it)
* 12:37, 13 June 2007 Herostratus (Talk | contribs) deleted "John Lear" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lear)

John Lear

If every person considered to be excentric, "far-out", freaky, etc, is to be excluded from Wikipedia, certainly we'd have at least
hundreds of articles deleted! This is the reason I believe the exclusion of John Lear to be biased, unfair and totally contrary to
the popular appeal his ideas have in the mind of a LOT of people.

User talk:Herostratus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

A while back here in this thread I challenged JRA to put up and show me where all thse images from NASA were... while backtracking one link I followed... I found several hi res .tiffs. While we were discussing one image that was obviously tampered with... the .tiffs of the Apollo set were ALL pulled and replaced by low res .jpegs that had been "adjusted" Several members here were in the process of downloading the .tiffs at the time...

Now we get the Lenard incidence and posts at the NASA forum are completely deleted even though Lenard made no mention of the images as UFO's or Alien Ships while it was discussed in an ATS thread..

So It would appear that there are those out there who watch in here and "take action" I for one from now on will make sure I have a copy of the data I discover BEFORE I post my sources

The John Lear deletion in my books is stupid and cowardly and I can see now why schools do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a reference


[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
That is one of the problems with Wikipedia: any one can create an article but an administrator can delete those they do not want.

Unortunately, the Internet Archive only has a 2006 version of the Wikipedia page about John Lear.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
the arguments for deleting john lear's wikipedia entry were pretty flimsy and mostly based on whether or not he was anybody to consider.

it dawned on me at that point, that consideration wasn't about whether he was right or not or even had a good argument or interesting information to share, but that he was just not important enough in the scheme of things. huh? this is wikipedia we're talking about. the folks that are supposed to be at least open-minded enough to allow free thought and speech and the dissemination of knowledge. it appears ATS may need to make its own Wiki



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Wikipedia information I take with a pinch of salt. The info there is much 'watered down' (not how I like my whiskey either) and just doesn't have much 'bite'. But it is a good workhorse site for general information, stuff that is pretty much common knowledge and you need a quick dirty source to...


Originally posted by undo
it appears ATS may need to make its own Wiki


ATS does have its own wiki, called Tinwiki....

[edit on 6/21/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Important person or not, who cares who is on Wikipedia? It is not that you are forced to watch anybody there. And what criteria is considered to be important?

Edit: Richard Hoagland and David Icke have a page to, so what is so controversial about Lear but not about the other guys?


[edit on 21/6/2007 by Cygnific]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Undo, Your finds of Split HSL with Brightness contrast photo and your #4 photo are finds I put in the catagory of greatness. You actually found a Space City not what most exspected. This is a magnificent geometric complex in many ways with far advanced mathematical design. I call this the Cathedral City because of the complexity, its like an out of this world fine tuned pipe organ integrated into an elaborate city. This is not a pipe dream there are literally thousands of design combinations and patterns in the photos. Ultra modern humanoid statues many viewers from Earth will not see the structures at first it is like playing multi dimensional chess for the first time.

Remember what I have said when an alien city is discovered and can be visualized it will have a different mindset as far as thought out construction design and structures. Make sure you keep back ups you know how photos lately have disapeared. Rik Riley

[edit on 21-6-2007 by rikriley]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnific
Important person or not, who cares who is on Wikipedia? It is not that you are forced to watch anybody there. And what criteria is considered to be important?

Edit: Richard Hoagland and David Icke have a page to, so what is so controversial about Lear but not about the other guys?


[edit on 21/6/2007 by Cygnific]


Because John Lear sticks his neck out and dares to go where others fear to tread. It is real simple I call it instinct and John is closer to the truth or the powers that be would not be responsible for jerking his thoughts, discoveries, ideas and photos. This is my stand on the matter period! Rik Riley



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Sorry if this has been posted before.

www.lpod.org...




Recently Danny Caes, the indefatigable explorer of ancient Apollo photos, reported that he had found two images of the concentric crater Crozier H. This LPOD shows the Apollo 16 view (in a sepia tone to indicate antiquity) and a Lunar Orbiter IV view from a previous LPOD. At the high sun of the Apollo view the concentric crater (upper left corner) looks like a big donut in a small saucer (or for American readers, a Cheerio in a spoon). The inner ring does not look like a crater rim as it would if it were a chance impact in a pre-existing crater. It is very rounded and doesn’t look like any other type of lunar landform. Previously I have suggested that inner rings of concentric craters could be some type of volcanic feature, but that is total speculation based on a lack of real evidence of what the rings are. I am stumped – what do you think

Chuck Wood

Rukl Plate 48

Tomorrow's LPOD: Northern Arc



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Hey undo: I finally installed the software you use (i think) Paintshop pro 9...
Is yours demo still, I think I'm under that too...have to find a 'workaround' heh.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Thank you Zorgon for your words before!


Here, playing golf (?). But that pin is massive!


www.lpod.org...




posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
This is most likely the Greatest and most thought provoking thread on ATS and dare I say on any forum on the web. The amount of pro's and con's and provided analasys from so many demographics up and down the spectrum that this is the Best continuing story of news Ive ever come across period. Thank you all too both Pro Moon happenings(my belief as well) or purely Scientific debunking folks alike.
John,Zorgon,Undo,Mikesighn as well as many others provided observations and along with my Own investigative web skills have discovered as many including John believe that there is plenty going on around us besides the Company line. I look forward too tons more input both ways and hope too contribute more in the future than the tiny bit Ive posted as of now.
And Johns record is available in plenty of Public records for anyone to scrutinize. A simple investigative foray can verify much. Johns more real than 99% of us here. Just saying.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by VType]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnific
Important person or not, who cares who is on Wikipedia?


If I was on Wiki I would most likely delete myself


Its not about who cares... its about deletion... seems there is a lot of that going around these last few days. It seems that certain people who just don't want certain ideas heard just feel its okay to wipe it out, whether it's in Wiki or the Nasa forum

So have we taken a step back in freedom of expression or are we at the mercy of a new form of self styled censorship?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Hello, i have spent the last 5 days reading every single post on this thread. Ive gotta say one thing. Ill never look at the moon in the same way anymore. Alot of what has been said is very interesting. And at the same time kinda far out. Alot of what Mr. Lear and zorgon and Undo see i personally do not see at all, maybe im untrained or maybe im just oblivious to the obvious but either way its been quite a read. The only image that stands out to me is what zorgon calls the "compound". The big structure inside the crater. I am really surprised this has not been investigated further. I started out reading this thread thinking to myself "These guys are on crack or something". But now ive got that "What IF" thing going on. Good job guys and i hope one day we get that smoking gun that just baffles all of humanity.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
From the other thread: Here's the moon picture with the towers, enhanced by me.

Brightness and Contrast applied


Brightness, Contrast, and Sharpness applied.



Towers zoomed.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
This looks like a excerpt from a TV film



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
double post '\

[edit on 22-6-2007 by MethylEthylKetone]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So It would appear that there are those out there who watch in here and "take action" I for one from now on will make sure I have a copy of the data I discover BEFORE I post my sources

[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]


Z... I have noticed the same thing over the last seveal months. Pics and URL's disappearing before my eyes.

To all other contributors to this thread, DO NOT POST good stuff before you download the source data for safe keeping .


[edit on 22-6-2007 by Zarniwoop]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by VType
I look forward too tons more input both ways and hope too contribute more in the future than the tiny bit Ive posted as of now.
[edit on 21-6-2007 by VType]


Welcome back and bring it on Vtype...



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 176  177  178    180  181  182 >>

log in

join