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: 217
164
<< 214  215  216    218  219  220 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

"all the available Lunar Orbiter 1 through 5 photos are contained in the report "



LOL I love that I want the ones that are NOT available


The 1600 pictures captured and sent to the U.S. Government's Defense Mapping Agency

The ones that....


The first three missions, dedicated to imaging 20 potential Apollo landing sites, were flown at near equatorial orbits as close as 22 miles above the lunar surface.


Of course all this has been covered and collected on our website


www.thelivingmoon.com...




posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Guide To Lunar Orbiter SP-242
Photographs

(kk) Site IIIS-29

The Moon As viewed By Lunar Oribiter NASA SP-200

LO-3-213
Spacecraft Altitude: 59.0 kilometers
Camera Tilt: 66 degrees 30 minutes
Frame Center Data
Latitude S3.20
Longitude W59.50
Sun Elevation 7.30
Framelet Bearing N41.30



Top half of photo:




Eek, that horizon is loaded with structures, along its edge. Turn up the contrast and light. Immense objects. wowzers.

That's big. it's hard to make out what they are, as only the bottom portions are discernible, but you can see them vaguely rising into the sky



[edit on 2-10-2007 by undo]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 




Fantastic image. What in the sam hill is it? It definitely looks artificial from what can be discerned.


[edit on 2-10-2007 by undo]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Been a while.. but I couldn't resist to stop by and do a bit of colorizing....

Very interesting image indeed..







[edit on 3-10-2007 by JohnnyAnonymous]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I'm just catching up... I found a couple of other interetsting items in the photo Sherpa posted a couple pages back.



source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


... yes, I was getting more at a atmospheric anomoly or fog ... I do believe that some pictures surely show clouds, like the one in response to my post earlier that you also have labeled. In fact, that is so obvious, I cannot see how someone could not admit it was clouds.

I would almost say to conduct an experiment with such a person, and find a cratered area on earth with clouds and simulate a moon photo appearance and see if they 'debunk' it as nothing, then show them the real photo ... it may make them mad, but the point would come across that sometimes things actually ARE as the appear, and not our brain adding in information.

I think these recent pictures should be more obvious of something than the ones earlier on in the thread ... and your findings that SETI is looking into what you have put so much effort into, is quite a supporting find ... too bad they cannot hire you or give you some reimbursement for all of your tiring efforts!



I fully agree with atmosphere on the moon (good because it is true) and I feel the evidence shows a 'possible' ancient inhabitation of the moon ... but that would get into a newly developing theory in my . of what has happened over the past 20,000 years ... which has no place here (and would surely gain a lot of negative attention, even in skunkworks).


I just want to say thank you to all those who put in so much effort. It is great to have open minds that are willing to look outside the norm ... and it is great you have such excellent pattern recognition skills. Kudos and keep up the great work. Whether people believe or not, I am sure most respect your efforts.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
For perspecitves sake, could someone specultate or tell me what the earth would look like if viewed with a telescope from 220,000 miles away? What I am asking is would you be able to see cities / structures or would it be difficult to spot any life on it?

Thank you in advance.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Isn't that covered somewhere in here already? When i joined this conversation i had to read quite a bit to get caught up...but did so faithfully. I think they were around page 135 at that time? Maybe 175....who knows, but it took quite a while.

You will appreciate the investment you put in.


reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


That is a good colorization. It looks very similar to something akin to the Shuttle or Aquila. I will have to look at the surrounding terrain....perhaps we should move this to one of the Mars threads? I have not seen it before...it is worthy of "further review".


[edit on 3-10-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
I think these recent pictures should be more obvious of something than the ones earlier on in the thread ... and your findings that SETI is looking into what you have put so much effort into, is quite a supporting find ... too bad they cannot hire you or give you some reimbursement for all of your tiring efforts!


Well I had one 'suggestion' to join the AF Image Analysis dept ( I forget the exact title..
)

But consider this ... this image has only recently been 'added' to the collection at LPI.... this makes three images that have... (in my opinion) been 'leaked' for us to find (not counting any on Mars) One is the 'compound' from the Apollo archives, the second is the one Jack showed the structures around Tsiolkovsky and now this one... I have no idea what the 'smoke column' is but I know its on the negative... because as Sherpa pointed out... the Fudicial marks are above the 'smoke'

Also there are some rectangular objects at the bottom of the 'smoke' This will take some time to work on as it still is only a jpeg... buy its the best one since John's Copernicus image and one that everyone can at least see the object in question




I fully agree with atmosphere on the moon (good because it is true) and I feel the evidence shows a 'possible' ancient inhabitation of the moon ... but that would get into a newly developing theory in my . of what has happened over the past 20,000 years ... which has no place here (and would surely gain a lot of negative attention, even in skunkworks).


Don't be to sure... our stargate thread is doing well and it too explores what we think happened thousands of years ago... but if your worried about 'bad press' you can email me your thoughts and I can create a page... not in this thread... but I would be interested in those thoughts


Whether people believe or not, I am sure most respect your efforts.


Thanks for all of us... and you have a U2U (will
)



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Maybe someone can play with this as well?



Ok. that didn't work.
Try here, then 2nd pic down. Very curious. AS8-12-2209

photovni.free.fr...

And on John's stuff here
landoflegends.us...

On the 3rd pic down 1/2 inch to the left of the colorized 'tube' almost exactly in the bottom middle, are at least two kilometers long rectilinear buildings in a sort of upside down V shape. very dark, but very obvious.
Has anyone noticed them before?
Could someone lighten this and enlarge it?
As someone once said "nature doesn't do straight lines" Esp. for kilometers!


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Alexander the o.k.]



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Now that I am looking at that LO image set, i am finding TONS of stuff. To discuss the original point of the photo...the "Plasma Trail" (no one else named it, unless you want to call it the "Polyester Fiber"
).

If you look at the base of the anomoly, there is some sort of rectilinear construct at the "emanating point". I am unsure what else to call it, but as you can see, it does knotted twisting before aiming "upwards".




If you scan along the horizon (zoomed WAY in, of course) there are some other linear formations. Many are individual, or consisting of a pair. But this one in particular caught my attention, as it is pyramidal:




Here is it adjusted a little:




Just below the horizon, on the right hand side, is what appears almost ice or water like:




Perhaps not...where is this image taken from, geographically? There are other spots that bear an uncanny resemblence, but this one appears to be dust collected in a crater (if you are applying fluid properties to superfine dust in the explanation). That would intimate some sort of weathering factor to help accumulate all this superfine dust into a crater, or some sort of in situ erosion that is primarily more evident in the material composing this layer of soil.

Regardless, it is interesting nonetheless. Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
To me the moonlake doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the picture. It looks more like an edit to cover the area to me. It is hard to tell when things are zoomed in like that though. When you get so close on these moon pics, everything starts to look fake to me.

Did anyone notice the tower looking *structure that is in the shadow to the lower left of the smoke cone on the zoomed in picture? It is in a shadow inside one of the craters. Looks odd.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Alexander the o.k.
 


Hey Alex, those are comm. towers


So what if large portions of the universe are entangled? And a classical comm. link is the way to exchange states.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

In fact, that is so obvious, I cannot see how someone could not admit it was clouds.



I assume you are talking about this picture :





I can easily say it's not clouds, because it's not clouds. The effect you are seeing is due to a slight overexposure due to the brightness of the surface, which is why the brightest white seems a bit "fuzzy".

If you look at the smaller craters in the picture outside of the big crater you will see the same effect and notice that the "clouds" only are shown in the parts of the crater that are lit. Also, take a close look at the north and northeastern ridge of the big crater, and notice the small craters that actually dip *below* and into the line of "fog". If these were actual clouds you would not see the shadow of the crater because it would be covering it up. Matter of fact you can see quite a few craters all through the "clouds", now is it reasonable to think the "clouds" would skip over the craters?

It sure does look cool, but it is not clouds, nor is it evidence of an atmosphere on the moon.



I would almost say to conduct an experiment with such a person


I will accept that challenge.



but the point would come across that sometimes things actually ARE as the appear, and not our brain adding in information.


Which is exactly what happens when people jump to conclusions that the image above shows clouds, on quick glance it sure can fool you into thinking that's what it is, but upon closer examination it's obvious it's overexposure...a picture of the same area that is not overexposed should put that notion to rest.



I fully agree with atmosphere on the moon (good because it is true)


Bearing in mind that meteoroids hit the surface of the moon constantly, leaving small craters in the rocks, which alone proves that there is no protective atmosphere on the moon or otherwise objects that small would burn up, let's examine why there is no air or "breathable" atmosphere on the moon as has been proposed by several people in this thread.

If I may impart some knowledge by way of a small physics lesson , backed up by actual footage of experiments on the moon , so you don't have to take my word for it, you can look all this stuff up yourself if you really want to learn the truth, and not something someone just posted with no basis other than an idea and some still photos of the moon.

This is pretty simple and standard stuff, but if you need help following please send me a message and I'll try my best to explain it to you better or point you in a direction with material that's easier to understand.


Aristotle was erroneous in predicting that the natural state of a body was to be at rest and that it moved only if driven by force. It was believed for almost 2000 years that an heavy object would fall faster than a lighter one since it would have a greater pull towards the Earth. Funny thing is noone ever bothered to experiment to see if it was true until Galileo came along.

By rolling 2 different weights of balls down a slope he observed that the increase in speed was the same for both. These measurements were the basis and foundation of Newton's laws of motion. The actual effect of force is to change the speed of an object not to just get it moving and if no force acts upon an object it will always continue on a straight line at the same speed.

Now, an object will accelerate when acted on by a force at a rate that is proportional to that force, and the acceleration is less the greater the mass of the object. The force of gravity is such that every object attracts every other object in proportion to each objects mass, as an example the force between two objects would be twice as strong if only one had it's mass doubled.

Continued...



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   
This is why all objects fall at the same rate, an object 10x the weight will have 10x the force of gravity pulling it down but it also has 10x the mass. These two effects will cancel each other out and acceleration will be the same.

So in effect you can drop a bowling ball and a marble from the Empire State building and they will hit the ground at the exact same time.

What does all of this have to do with an atmosphere on the moon?

Let's try the same experiment, still on Earth, but this time with the marble and a feather. Well the marble hits the ground first, seemingly breaking Newton's law while the feather lazily floats it's way down quite some time later.

Why does that happen?

Air resistance.

Because the Earth has an atmosphere (with breathable air~!) the feather and actually many other objects, for example a sheet of paper, will drag in the air and not cut through like a smoother more aerodynamic object will.

Now, the point of all this, let's take it to the moon. Since the moon has no air there should be no resistance keeping the feather from falling at the same rate as a much heavier object. If there is any air at all, a feather will never ever hit the ground at the same time as let's say a hammer, right?

Well low and behold, Commander David Scott of Apollo 15 did this exact demonstration on live TV from the surface of the moon.

Here's a web page about it :

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And here's a link to a youtube vid of the experiment :

www.youtube.com...


Sorry, there is no breathable or protective atmosphere at all on the moon. The meteoroid evidence, experiment and observation all tells us that this just isn't so. I will take years of proven science (which states there was once an atmosphere there, but the gravity of the moon was too weak to hold it) over someones opinion and surface pictures anyday. Please believe what you like, however I know one thing, I wouldn't be too quick in taking off my suit or helmet while visiting.

I look forward to your Earth cloud crater challenge, it sounds like fun!



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I understand what you are trying to say soloist in both posts.

but, I don't see the cloud effect on the small craters ... i did look. the small white clouds in the middle of the big cloud ... well, they don't look anything crater like, honestly ... and the other small craters, well, they look like perfect little craters but no cloudiness ...

and yes, I would say, a cloud is more likely to skip over a valley than a mountain ... if the cloud doesn't first form in the valley, of course, depending on other factors. Just like parts of the sea that have different salinity look like lakes within water ... it stays separated instead of diffusing into equal distribution throughout the water, even though it flows above it ... yes, I know, different densities, but the fact is, air at higher altitude is less dense as well. Not trying to claim the exact same interactions, but a way to relate to something you may know about of earthly origin.

I understand a little about physics. I was a teacher's aide for AP Physics in my senior year after taking H. Physics in my junior year of h.s.. I know all about the acceleration effect of gravity on earth being 9.86 meters per second per second. I know all about doing equations in a vacuum. I have watched the astronaut experiment on the moon. I definitely see what you are getting at, BUT ... and you won't like this ... we take for granted that film is from the moon and not done in a vacuum chamber. We take for granted how THICK our atmosphere is close to the surface and how much resistance it causes. Heck, even as a kid a neighbor and I used to see how well we could fold a piece of paper (airplanes) to make it stay in the air the longest with different nose designs, paper weights, dimensions, wing designs, air foils ... we were quite innovative for little 4 year olds with a stack of paper


I would say, the fact that our air is so thick here, it would alter our perception of reality elsewhere in different environmental specifications and possibilities of other conditions we also have no first-hand experience of ... unless you have a large scale facility that can manipulate air pressure and have conducted various experiments as to how things drop at minimal air density with little to no wind, and virtually no temperature and composition differences, or you have been to the moon personally.

The fact is, we know what we are told, and have to extrapolate data from very few poor condition photos from a half century ago. Trillions of dollars worth of photos that we are not allowed to view, that the public paid for, and what we do get is either on par with a telescope on earth, or has obvious smudge-work done on a photo manipulation program (photoshop/gimp). You may say it might be a data error. I guess you never touched up a photo yourself? I can say with personal experience, I have used techniques on gimp and can make it look the same, but, usually I can do so much better ... the point is, they don't care, it is obscured, and any extra effort would as or more suspect, so why bother. And once you admit they have lied about one thing, at all, then the trust factor should be diminished and anything they say should be questioned. If a wife cheated on you, then said, I am going to a hotel with an old high school friend, it is strictly plutonic ... do you believe it? If they lied about something smaller, wouldn't that just mean it would be that much easier to lie about something bigger? Logically yes. But they are the authority, we MUST trust them, right?

I respect your conviction and your opinion, even if I don't always agree, i give most that much (not everyone, spitefulness and hate I will not respect).

I would say to test you on photos, but it isn't as fun if you know you are being tested
It would be much more fun if you had no idea and were given a group of photos to analyze ... mixed with moon, earth desert, mars, and venus landscapes ... and guess which one is which. Of course, any obvious give aways would need to be cropped out (or smudged lol) ... and of course images that are not immediately recognizable or easily found with a quick search. In fact, I would enjoy the same test given to me, since I hardly see the structures unless they are more blatant, even after being pointed out, I couldn't pick them out again on my own ... I need the reference pictures.

But if you can honestly say that all things mean nothing, then that is fine. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I just have browsed a lot of threads and a lot or random sites and am starting to see links ... I am starting to form a possible time line in my .. Doesn't matter much, short of us finding a civilization elsewhere including text ... deciphering the text, then not allowing anything that doesn't conform to what is already believed to be labeled as fiction and fantasy ... we might get some enlightening information.

Either way, it is fun. That is what you have to remember. Have fun in life ... you only have this body once, make the best of it. Taken too seriously, life is a drag. Not to say live with your . in the clouds
Just with a smile and an open mind that nearly anything is truly possible, and we know about jack when it comes to our own dna, bodies, animals, plants, oceans, core, volcanoes, earthquakes, weather ... how do these jokers who send a few probes know so much about other worlds people haven't been to, or haven't for a few decades suppose to tell you everything about it with a straight face? Think about it ... they don't know what is at the bottom of our oceans ... they find new sea life nearly every year ... but they know what is going on millions of miles away ... HA ... you are a comedian. The only way they would know, is, if life was there and was telling them the answers they had come to for their own terra firma ...

so which is it?
do they know next to nothing and spout whatever farce they wish us to consume at that moment? or are they in active communication with other worldly beings? or, I guess one final one ... they know much more about our planet than they would ever tell us, and if they would lie to use about our own place of existence, what would stop them from lies told about all other things outside of this immediate realm?
The choice is yours ... but the logic behind limiting itto those decisions is rather sound in its own way


Thanks for putting up with me



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist


but, I don't see the cloud effect on the small craters ... i did look.


It's not the same effect because the smaller craters have very little area to produce it, what you can see is the same blown out shade of white on the lit areas. This is all because of overexposure and had we a zoomed in photo of the small craters you would see the exact same thing.



and yes, I would say, a cloud is more likely to skip over a valley than a mountain ...


The areas in the middle of the crater that show the blown out white are raised terrain. It is very odd that a "cloud" would almost fully surround several entire craters and you see nothing inside of them. Nothing.



we take for granted that film is from the moon and not done in a vacuum chamber.


But we are to believe that this overexposed picture is of clouds? C'mon now.



We take for granted how THICK our atmosphere is close to the surface and how much resistance it causes.


This experiment would have the same result no matter the thickness of the atmosphere, any air resistance at all would not allow a feather to fall at the same rate of a heavier object.




I would say...
we also have no first-hand experience of ...
unless you have a large scale facility...
or you have been to the moon personally.


Yet 400 years of science has accurately predicted these effects, among others we have no "first hand experience" of, black holes, the expanding universe, etc ,etc ,etc...




You may say it might be a data error. I guess you never touched up a photo yourself?


No,I didn't say that, I say it was a small overexposure from too much light, it's evident in the *entire* picture, not just the crate. And yes I have a bit of experience in graphics as I have helped set and implement color standards for the movie industry at several animation studios and have worked many years in such a capacity. This is not image manipulation, this is overexposure, very slight at that.



they don't care
And once you admit they have lied
anything they say should be questioned
If they lied about something smaller
But they are the authority


Who is they?????




I would say to test you on photos, but it isn't as fun if you know you are being tested


But it would be much more accurate of a test if known, otherwise you might get random results. If in getting them all wrong would actually say something if someone who thought they could tell the difference couldn't.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I think much of what is said about the lunar atmosphere deals with the assumption that it is primarily located on the farside. This would be due to the "locked" nature of its orbit (relative to our own).

On that photo, many areas that are truly overexposed seem to have portions of data loss or something. Perhaps it is a case of further overexposure?

Regardless, this is not the only photo of clouds on the moon, and it would certainly not be the first reporting of it.

I just don't know if i buy the "patent shoe leather" black sky. That seems pretty fake, and is in just about every lunar picture.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I think much of what is said about the lunar atmosphere deals with the assumption that it is primarily located on the farside. This would be due to the "locked" nature of its orbit (relative to our own).


But it does have a rotation of its own. Its rotation happens to coincide with its orbit around Earth; effectively keeping one side turned towards this planet.

My search for the possible tidal effects on the wispy atmosphere on the moon, may take longer than I thought. Does anyone else have an idea?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Well, the atmospheric composition matters as well, too.

I think that "tidal" forces are going to bring less impact on the situation that electromagnetic forces.

If there is free oxygen in the atmosphere, what effects would the Earths magnetosphere have on it? Our ionosphere?

True the moon rotates, but its relative position does not change all that much. It appears "locked", and therefore it would seem to encounter somewhat static effects from the interplay with the Earth because of this relative sameness of position.




top topics



 
164
<< 214  215  216    218  219  220 >>

log in

join