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: 219
164
<< 216  217  218    220  221  222 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
I have some questions for John Lear:

John, i've noticed this "tower-shaped" object near Neper crater:



Since i think to have seen something similar before somewhere else (on the Moon) my questions are:

- Do you remember to have seen something similar elsewhere?
- Do you know what is it an what should be its height?

Of course i'm wrong, but i find really odd that a so shaped object could resist to the impact of a crater...

Thank you in advance


[edit on 4/10/2007 by internos]


Hope you don't mind, used your pic and made a few notes on it.




When looking at the small craters, the Sun position seems to be directly @ 90 deg, or on the right. The "tower' shadow is somewhat offset from that.

The black line runs before and after the "tower" and even after the small ridge past it on the far left. Possible geological formation?

Also, I wasn't aware of craters impacting the moon




posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Is it just me that get a Page 219, but the thread stops at Page 218?

Not to be off topic or anything


edit: never mind, just fixed itself. Had the last page stuck at 218, and my post was on 219, and a whole bunch of empty pages after that. As you were lol



[edit on 4/10/2007 by whatsthatthingy]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsthatthingy
 


Hope you don't mind, but if someone asks something to someone ELSE than you, probably this "someone" hopes in a better answer than the one you are able to provide, and since you weren't able to find the source of the pic, you AREN'T able to answer to my question.
After said that, next time maybe we'll meet on a grammar-based forum, so you'll feel free to correct me as many times as you want, since english is not my mother tongue language. (BTW: how many languages do you know? you can show it to me in the chat.)


www.lpi.usra.edu...


www.lpi.usra.edu...

So, don't mind, anomalies are called so till someone ABLE to, can explain them. (Someone did it BETTER than you via u2u and this case was already CLOSED, for me): i leaved my previous post just in order to be correct.


[edit on 4/10/2007 by internos]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsthatthingy
Is it just me that get a Page 219, but the thread stops at Page 218?

This is one of the "bugs" this forum has. I have noticed many times that the last post does not appear on the last page. Changing the address so it points to the next page will show the page with just that post.

 


Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by sherpaThe reference dots that cover the image, when are they originated ?


The technical term is a FIDUCIAL MARK .They are etched onto a sheet of glass , known as a RESEAU PLATE.
I don't know how those fiducial marks were made, I am still searching for it and not founding anything about it, but being white marks they could not have been made by a sheet of glass in front of the camera (unless that was made with a two-pass photo, one positive and the other negative), they were probably made by flashing a little light on the negative, that is the best way of getting a white spot on a photo, and apparently that is one of the ways of making fiducial marks.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by whatsthatthingy
 


Hope you don't mind, but if someone asks something to someone ELSE than you, probably this "someone" hopes in a better answer than the one you are able to provide, and since you weren't able to find the source of the pic, you AREN'T able to answer to my question.
After said that, next time maybe we'll meet on a grammar-based forum, so you'll feel free to correct me as many times as you want, since english is not my mother tongue language. (BTW: how many languages do you know? you can show it to me in the chat.)


www.lpi.usra.edu...


www.lpi.usra.edu...

So, don't mind, anomalies are called so till someone ABLE to, can explain them. (Someone did it BETTER than you via u2u and this case was already CLOSED, for me): i leaved my previous post just in order to be correct.


[edit on 4/10/2007 by internos]


Didn't mean ANY disrespect AT ALL in the previous post. Apologies if you found it offensive to you, but I fail to see where it ever was in any way offensive. And BTW English is not my first language either. Third language... If you post on a public forum, is it not assumed that someone else is going to give it a shot? Is it not the purpose that everybody gives it a shot?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPI don't know how those fiducial marks were made, I am still searching for it and not founding anything about it, but being white marks they could not have been made by a sheet of glass in front of the camera



The film is held precisely in place by pressure against a movable glass stage plate that contains reseau marks. Fiducial marks are flashed on the film marking the optical axis at midexposure time. Simultaneously, the time of exposure, to the nearest millisecond, according to the spacecraft clock is recorded on the data block on each frame.


history.nasa.gov...

And don't forget that the negatives are MOON DUST now... they never came back to Earth... ( I would love to find those film cans up there
)

[edit on 4-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsthatthingy
Didn't mean ANY disrespect AT ALL in the previous post. Apologies if you found it offensive to you, but I fail to see where it ever was in any way offensive. And BTW English is not my first language either. Third language... If you post on a public forum, is it not assumed that someone else is going to give it a shot? Is it not the purpose that everybody gives it a shot?

Youre right, of course it's so.

What i mean is that before laugh (as you did, didn't you?)

there's to discuss and construct about: for instance, if you can't get where i think to have seen an anomaly, just ASK for it before... If you don't have seen at least three or more pics of the same area, how can you rule out any theory basing your construction (which was right) only on a single pic? I posted that pic after seeing twelve pics of that area and the only showing this anomaly was the one i've posted.
So i thought it was a pic "forgiven to be brushed".
, really.
Anyway, thank you for your posts, absolutely don't consider me offended from what you wrote.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Thanks ArMaP


Some cool pics at that site











posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Thanks ArMaP


Some cool pics at that site











I have a rather funny question to ask:

Are you sure those pics are taken on the earth?


sorry, too rich to pass up.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks ArMap, Thanks Zorgon that does seem to prove the time of creation of the fiducial marks, although I have to admit I am still perplexed by this anomaly because I think there has been some editing.

I can only assume this must have been done around the Fiducial marks in other areas.


And don't forget that the negatives are MOON DUST now... they never came back to Earth... ( I would love to find those film cans up there )


I admire your enthusiasm Z but there is redundancy in this comment, if you were able to get your hands on these you wouldn't bother, just go and have a look around yourself



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Good point undo because to me it looks as if they have tried to camoflage that building behind some trees.

It's a Nasa thing you know.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloistaccepted fact of physics.


There is no such thing
Its only a 'fact' until the next fact boots it out




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...


Well thank you Professor Soloist for that lesson in basic physics


Only thing is I have a couple of problems with this...

#1 Watching the film repeatedly and in frame by frame I can see the feather waiver... even in normal view this is obvious as the light reflects differently as the feather wavers on its way to the ground.

#2 Have YOU ever done this test on Earth? Drop a hammer at the same time as a feather from a height of four feet and recorded the results?


It *is* valid, no matter how much you seem to wish it not to be, you can't just discount 400 years of advanced scientific theory that has been proven. You should really read Stephen Hawking's book if you would like one of the most brilliant expert opinions on that specific experiment. I'm sure noone here is so sure that they can even approach his level of intelligence.


I gather with your 'preaching' "Low and behold..." that you are implying that one most have an IQ approaching Mr. Hawkins to be able to understand things.



If there had been ANY amount of air resistance, the feather could not have possibly hit the ground the same time as the hammer. No way. No how. There is no may not be, it's very valid.


Sure about this you are, yes? Hmmmmm? [Heavy Yoda accent here]

Well before you claim "No way. No how." I would suggest that you try it at home... you might be surprised [shocked] at the results...

Now air resistence would make the feather 'waiver' or 'twist' on the way down... as I see in the video. A height of four feet is not a long enough fall to show us much effect. and you would get a similar result on Earth

Don't want to try it at home? Well that's okay because someone did it for you...

4 minute video showing your version... then the Earth version at the end and giving both view points... very well done if I say so myself

LOW AND BEHOLD The Hammer and the Feather On Earth (and even here the feather BARELY waivers



Now then is there any way we can measure the time it took to hit the ground and figure out the actual height it was dropped from... and assuming they played this in real time...
we should be able to get an approximate figure for gravity whether is 1/6th or .64




[edit on 5-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I have a rather funny question to ask:
Are you sure those pics are taken on the earth?


Well actually... come to think of it

Project Lunex from the Air Forces claims Apollo was capable of going to Mars or Venus...




# 1.6 CAPABILITIES DEVELOPED

The development of large boosters, rendezvous techniques and maneuverable space vehicles, all required for the Lunar Expedition, will also provide a capability for many new and advanced space achievements. For example, the Space Launching System which will boost 134,000 pounds to escape velocity will boost approximately 350,000 pounds into a 300 nm orbit, or will launch a manned vehicle on a pass around either Mars or Venus.





posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
I admire your enthusiasm Z but there is redundancy in this comment, if you were able to get your hands on these you wouldn't bother, just go and have a look around yourself


Silly Lemming


Sure I can and will take my own photos and a few specimens here and there...

BUT those film canisters would be worth a fortune... after all they would have serial numbers... They would pay the whole trip... and have you seen those ticket prices


Now about that City you found... seems to be a few 'structures' on those 'roadways'






Beats Hoaglands "LA" and "Arcology Row" by miles


















posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Yowzers, Zorg. That's some mighty fine specimens.
Wish I had my old paintshop 8 on this computer.
All I have is paintshop 4 :/ bleh.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well thank you Professor Soloist for that lesson in basic physics



You're most certainly welcome.



#1 Watching the film repeatedly and in frame by frame I can see the feather waiver... even in normal view this is obvious as the light reflects differently as the feather wavers on its way to the ground.


It appears to waver due to the weak live TV signal and the light reflecting off of it. Even if this was done in a vacuum chamber as you have suggested you should know that the only way it would move at all is if it were set in motion on the way down.



#2 Have YOU ever done this test on Earth? Drop a hammer at the same time as a feather from a height of four feet and recorded the results?


Why yes I have, this is basic Junior High physical science. We even experimented with using a vacuum pump and a tube to show that in a vacuum the feather does in fact fall at the same time due to it not having any air resistance.



I gather with your 'preaching' "Low and behold..." that you are implying that one most have an IQ approaching Mr. Hawkins to be able to understand things.


Sorry, you gathered wrong.




Sure about this you are, yes? Hmmmmm? [Heavy Yoda accent here]


Sure about this I am,yes.




Well before you claim "No way. No how." I would suggest that you try it at home... you might be surprised [shocked] at the results...


No way. No how. Sorry, I am not shocked at the results. They are exactly what I expect.




Don't want to try it at home? Well that's okay because someone did it for you...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

OMG, do you honestly believe that was real???? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Thanks for the best laugh I've had in this entire thread!!!!

Now, first of all in a rebuttal of a scientific fact (yes, they do exist) you post a video from a well known moon-hoax advocate!

As if that isn't telling you all you need to know right there, take a look at the feather as it hits the ground! Have you ever seen a feather clank back and forth like it was a solid piece of metal???? LOL !!!! It *could* be a real feather simply sprayed with a flat clear to make it solid and when dropped end down (notice the nasa vid , it's dropped sideways) which takes away the air resistance properties of the feather. Glue would do it too, but would most likely reflect light and not look real.

Please I urge you, instead of posting youtube videos of moon-hoax fanatics to go outside pick up a feather and drop it to see what happens. Ever own birds? Or been to a chicken coop? They literally float around in the air on Earth they do not plunge down to the ground!!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!

Ever hear the expression "lighter than a feather" ...where would that come from if on Earth they fell like rocks??? HHAHAHAHA!!!



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!

HHAHAHAHA!!!


Calm down now... the padded van is on the way...

As I said you obviously have never tried it... The feather for the 1999 movie, the one in the 'moon hoaxer's' test and the one Apollo used are not downey chicken feathers but fairly heavy (for a feather) wing feathers. All three were dropped quill end down... all three fell the same way

Just because the 'moon hoaxer' uses the same data for his own purpose, does not negate the data...

Perhaps you would humor me and show me a video where a feather that size dropped from 4 feet behaves any different in a windless environment.




posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
All three were dropped quill end down... all three fell the same way
No, in the Apollo experiment the feather falls sideways, in the same position as if it was on the top of a table.

Edited to add picture.


[edit on 5/10/2007 by ArMaP]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
C'mon, guys, the Natrium on the Moon is so rare it wouldn't make a difference if the feather was dropped sideways or end down. Not at that height anyway.

Prof. Soloist is correct, but I don't need to defend him, he has natural law to do that.

Zorgon is attempting to show the experiment is not conclusive in ruling out an atmosphere, not that feathers and hammers fall at the same rate in an atmosphere.

So, its time to move on, right?



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Communications dish in 3213_h1 ?




new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 216  217  218    220  221  222 >>

log in

join