John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

I'm not going explain because it will require an answer. And then i have to reply again...


[edit on 28/6/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by Cygnific...But i'm not going to waste my time on it anymore.

You'll be around Cyg, maybe not here, but you will be around. You have the seeker's mind which cannot rest without knowing. The forests of Mars, the cities of Mars, networks of towers throughout the solar system, the undiscovered links to our past and our future, these and more, much, much more remain for us to explore.

And whether we do it alone or together is a matter of choice. I prefer the company of others of course, but that is me. I hope we have the opportunity to hook up later on.

Originally posted by Cygnific

Maybe his thoughts are not that far out even.

Really? First of all the moon is far, far older than 4 billion years in my opinion. Second, I doubt if it was placed into orbit around the earth more than 20,000 years ago. At least this time. Third, if any of the millions of pepole that live on the moon are reading this thread you can be sure they are rolling on the floor laughing at the water and electrical etchings some are making their structures out to be. Not to mention trying to make their fission reactor out to be a milk drop!

Anybody who seriously thinks those 'etchings' where formed by dripping water or positive voltage are really visiting the wrong thread. But they are welcome anyway whatever they believe.

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The image here is interesting. It looks almost as if either water or electricity has etched the surface some how.

Hydro means fluid or water, electro means electrical or by electricity. As bigatfurrytexan said, "...as if either by water or electricity..." I thought that hydro-electric was appropriate.

You can't arbitrarily put the two words together, he said water OR electric etching (or erosion), not both together, thats really twisting or taking out of context someones words John, to TRY to make his post SEEM silly. You know it and I know it, and it seems others know it as well on this thread.

Originally posted by greatlakes

You can't arbitrarily put the two words together, he said water OR electric etching (or erosion), not both together, thats really twisting or taking out of context someones words John, to TRY to make his post SEEM silly. You know it and I know it, and it seems others know it as well on this thread.

Greatlakes. Your posts are appreciated. However I don't think its fair of you to say that bigfatfurrytexans categorization of etchings as either electrical (electro) or water (hydro) 'seem' silly. It certainly doesn't 'seem' silly to me. All I wanted to know was the basis for the claim of electrical etching and what exactly that might be. To somehow claim that I am making bigfatfurrytexams post 'seem silly' is presumptuous and unfair to me.

Silly to me would be someone posting a stop-action drop pf milk and claiming that it was actually the blue dome-shaped object at the location Aristarchus is reported to be.

Would it be too much trouble to apologize? Thanks.

A little take from an outside source on the Electric Universe (EU) theory.

It is similar to what I am studying as it has to do with the solar system's journey through our galaxy's spiral arm. I see the connection when the solar system encounters a dense interstellar dust cloud.

Also of interest a high surface charge such as on the Moon produced by cosmic radiation will attract water vapor and form low lying clouds.

Originally posted by johnlear
Would it be too much trouble to apologize? Thanks.

Thats a delusional request John, but I guess thats to be expected in this thread.

These are your posts I feel are ridicule tactics to those that oppose your viewpoint (just concerning this one specific topic mind you):

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He never said it was a fact, he just merely said it "looked" like to him of erosional effects, undeserved of your ridicule in my view, but hey you are a "conspiracy master.."




[edit on 6/28/2007 by greatlakes]

John, any thoughts on the object I circled in green? Doesn't that look like a nuclear explosion?

I think that the device used may have caused some confusion. Perhaps if he said "hydro/electrical etching" it would have been more appropriate.

Regarding hydrology and its ability to etch the system, you would most often expect it to occur around limestone type surfaces, where the water can undergo a ph change and dissolve the softer segments of limestone. Or, in another case, perhaps the rapid movements of water that is known to carve away at beach rock.

This is mundane and highly unlikely as a cause.

I doubt that the "swiss cheese" effect would be caused by something along the lines of impact, or the cooling of melted rock.

There isn't much in the way of regolith cover in this area, at least not to the naked eye. Shortly i will move to my other computer where i have photoshop installed to see if i can provide more in depth photo analysis of the larger image Zorgon linked to.

Regarding the electic universe, i have some info on that and will share a portion of it here just as it is relevant to this discussion (as requested by Senor Lear).

Matyas "stole the thunder", to use a bad pun, and provided an explanation of the electrical universe.

What i propose is that, to continue on that principle, we occasionally see periods of increased electrical activity in our solar system. This is what has caused the vast majority of craters. Ever notice we don't see impacts that create craters, yet there are millions of them in the solar system? Has this occured to any of you?

Consider that each body in the solar system has an electrical charge. You increase that charge potential, you increase the outward electrical signs. Plasma flow is the most common sign of this, and often it is completely invisible. Occasionally you can see some more outward signs.

Ancient men saw these plasma displays in our ancient skies:




thunderbolts.info...

The geometric illustrations above (beneath the rock art images) graphically illustrate the laboratory and simulation formations observed in the phase of intense plasma discharge corresponding to the rock art images shown here. The illustrations are taken from Peratt's recent paper in "Transactions on Plasma Science" of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in December 2003.

So, there is evidence this has happened in the ancient past, it would explain why we see all the craters, but never witness an impact that creates it.

Consider the nature of outward electrical reactions:




The delicate tendrils of plasma (reminescent of comet tails, huh? That is for another day...but comets are not "dirty snowballs") are obviously capable of etching a surface, correct? Electrical etching is a well known phenomenon that is used commonly in industry to machine very small pieces.

Now, i want you to compare this picture from the moon of a crater chain:




To this image of a "crater chain" from electrical machining:




For good measure, here is something similar on Mars, too:




If you want a little more info on this, refer to the following:

www.thunderbolts.info...

If you think this is "fringe science", think again. While you may not be fully aware of this concept, your government is fully immersed in learning more about the electrical model of our universe:

Los Alamos National Laboratory has a webpage on their research:

public.lanl.gov...

Originally posted by Zenagain

On second look, there is a lot going in in the area bounded in green. The "Object" bounded in blue is either a free standing object of immense proportions, or is something that was in the crater and in the milliseconds of the photograph snap, launched from the crater and made a 90 degree turn pulling dust behind it in a trail. The "thing" circled in red just isn't right. Or maybe I just have an active imagination.

It sure looks like an exlosion of some kind. I have looked at this photo for hours and can't tell whats going on. The NASA airbrush corps really had their work cut out for them on this one. In trying to hide what was really going on they only made it more obvious that something was going on they didn't want us to know about.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Electrical etching is a well known phenomenon that is used commonly in industry to machine very small pieces.

That method of machining is called EDM, or electrical discharge machining, and as you say, used on small parts and also parts or places of parts that would be difficult or impossible to machine using traditional methods.

Interesting photos, the mars one is particularly interesting...Its refreshing to see other theories presented here.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Now, i want you to compare this picture from the moon of a crater chain:

In regards to your crater chain what do you think is causing those square shadows? (Blue arrows) Or actually they might be triangular shadows. If those are craters they sure got mighty strange sides to them. You think they might be one of those 'plasma' thingies you're taking about?

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Now, i want you to compare this picture from the moon of a crater chain:

In regards to your crater chain what do you think is causing those square shadows? (Blue arrows) Or actually they might be triangular shadows. If those are craters they sure got mighty strange sides to them. You think they might be one of those 'plasma' thingies you're taking about?

John, i really can't say for sure. But on the moon picture you provided i did find this area that, to me, displays significant machining:




The sharp edges are what you would commonly see in a machined edge, as you can see by the sheer cliff walls on this image (for example).

To me, the important thing to remember is that this concept is only as proven as the currently accepted one. It requires the action of phenomenon that have yet to be witnessed in modern times. So, to me, the question is completely wide open as to what causes craters and its' impact on our civilizations collective mythos.

To confound things even more, you have other artifacts that are not normal in an electrical environment. Copernicus, for example...it could be electrical, but the similarities to strip mining are significant.

Consider the rilles on the moon surface, however. This is where you can easily see (and imagine) the electrical phenomena that caused the pock marked moon surface. And, even further, can explain the surface of Mercury and why it is so "battered".









If you want to see parallels on other moons/planets, see:

thunderbolts.info...

The part that really stinks is that these images are interested, to say the least, but have the jpeg artifact interfering with any meaningful inspection. Photoshop can remove the artifact to some degree, but i am still figuring out the program and am having little success with the limited time i can spend learning (and working, and raising kids, and whining about it for you right now... )

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

If you want a little more info on this, refer to the following:

www.thunderbolts.info...

So I clicked on www.thunderbolts.info and then clicked on 'Moon'. Then I clicked on 'Lunar Craters-A Failed Theory' and this is what I got:

Mar 08, 2006
Lunar Craters—a Failed Theory
When seeking to test a hypothesis, it is helpful to start with clear and undeniable facts. But when the impact theory is applied to the prominent lunar “rayed crater”, Tycho, the theory fails even the most obvious tests.
Certainly the most conspicuous crater on the Moon is Tycho in the southern hemisphere. (For context, we have placed a full Hubble Telescope image of the Moon here). The crater is some 85 kilometers in diameter, displaying enigmatic “rays” that extend at least a quarter of the way around the moon.

So then I clicked on where it says “here” because I wanted to see a full Hubble Telescope Image of the Moon because I had heard that there were no Hubble Telescope Images of the Moon and here is what I got:




A January 17, 1946 picture of the moon taken by Lick Obsevatory. You know how I know? Because of the explosions that are taking place at the top of the moon where I put 2 blue circles. Imagine that? Here all I want is a Hubble photo of the moon and what do I get? A January 17, 1946 photo of the moon. Who are these Thunderbolt guys anyway? Hey bigfatfurrytexan.....are you funnin’ me?

Greatlakes

Please calm down. It's hard to concentrate on what you're saying when you start "yelling." When I read the words, I don't remember them, instead I remember the emotions you're displaying. I'd like to know what you're trying to say, so if you wouldn't mind, could you please not get so upset? It's understandable that people get irritated about these subjects, but if you want to reach the readers, being polite will really help. I'm not kidding.

Big Furry Texan,

Very interesting. I'm particularly interested in how this might tie into the "womb" as we call it. You know to what I refer? At this point, I still believe this is all interconnected: the anomalies, civilizations on the moon, the electric universe. It seems from studying the images, that they have created themselves a sort of organic technology (for lack of a better description).

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

If you want a little more info on this, refer to the following:

www.thunderbolts.info...

So I clicked on www.thunderbolts.info and then clicked on 'Moon'. Then I clicked on 'Lunar Craters-A Failed Theory' and this is what I got:

Mar 08, 2006
Lunar Craters—a Failed Theory
When seeking to test a hypothesis, it is helpful to start with clear and undeniable facts. But when the impact theory is applied to the prominent lunar “rayed crater”, Tycho, the theory fails even the most obvious tests.
Certainly the most conspicuous crater on the Moon is Tycho in the southern hemisphere. (For context, we have placed a full Hubble Telescope image of the Moon here). The crater is some 85 kilometers in diameter, displaying enigmatic “rays” that extend at least a quarter of the way around the moon.

So then I clicked on where it says “here” because I wanted to see a full Hubble Telescope Image of the Moon because I had heard that there were no Hubble Telescope Images of the Moon and here is what I got:

A January 17, 1946 picture of the moon taken by Lick Obsevatory. You know how I know? Because of the explosions that are taking place at the top of the moon where I put 2 blue circles. Imagine that? Here all I want is a Hubble photo of the moon and what do I get? A January 17, 1946 photo of the moon. Who are these Thunderbolt guys anyway? Hey bigfatfurrytexan.....are you funnin’ me?

Hehe. I clicked through the same links. Didn't you know Hubble was a black project in the 40's?... sheeesh.

Thunderbolts did provide this nice photo of Tycho's molten base... it's very high res if I might add.




[edit on 29-6-2007 by Zarniwoop]

Originally posted by undo
Please calm down.

I'm not upset ATS doesn't make it easy to bold or italicize as easily as just adding caps to emphasize words, sorry if its irksome.

I'd like to hear their theory on the womb image. NASA says it may be some kind of plasma. It's interesting that it never really changes. At least, not that's noticeable. Considering the size, I suppose it could change somewhat and not be noticeable. But it keeps that same womb looking shape in every image, no matter how many years separated, and yet, the Clementine color images, show it as being under a transparent layer of the "Mare".

Originally posted by undo
I'd like to hear their theory on the womb image. NASA says it may be some kind of plasma. It's interesting that it never really changes. At least, not that's noticeable. Considering the size, I suppose it could change somewhat and not be noticeable. But it keeps that same womb looking shape in every image, no matter how many years separated, and yet, the Clementine color images, show it as being under a transparent layer of the "Mare".

Ohhh... that sound familiar, but way back to the Clem pics.

What, again is the "womb" area?