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: 22
164
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Bucket excavator with hovercraft tracks and platform of sorts:



Cheers

JS




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Hovercrafts:

The closest one is being viewed from a 10pm viewpoint. The one at the back (to the left) is being viewed from a 7pm viewpoint - you can see the cowling.

Each hovercraft has a dome of attached to the top. Each hovercraft is parked and their noses are facing downwards.



Cheers

JS

[edit on 30-9-2006 by jumpspace]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Bridge with question-mark at top of tower. Tower has large holes in it and you can see the guy wires:



Cheers

JS



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   

You have voted jumpspace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


[edit on 2006/9/30 by TrappedSoul]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
I’m still really enjoying this thread.
I still don’t really see anything.


Sorry your not seeing anything but glad that your enjoying it.



Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I’m faced with a whole new landscape of questions, based on the following assumptions:


You can normally spot a genius but the volume of questions he wants answered.



1)
The mining operation is run by humans from earth. (If aliens are running things up there then these questions are obviously pointless.)


The mining operation may have long ago been started by the high tech civilizations that left us so much mythology and artifacts or by a even earlier race from another sun or another planet in our solar system. There might be activity in and around the old excavations but it's very likely not currently a mining operation but a military facility with some kind of direct energy weapon. Suffice to say ancient tunnels and structures makes for good storage and cover if your going to start a shooting war


2)
The humans hail from a single country (that is to say, it is not a multinational effort…call me a skeptic, but China, Japan, Britain, the U.S. cooperating on something like this and keeping it absolutely secret? Nope.)


Check out the game ' battlezone' to get a feel for what might well have happened on the moon while we watched the moon 'race' and such. Whoever currently operates that facility they probably long ago( late 60's or 70's) gained the upper hand and have been fortifying and expanding their bases ever since.


3)
The humans are mining Helium-3 as an energy alternative for use here on earth. (I know there are other valuable resources up there but, I think we can agree, none more so than He3.)


I just do not think it's viable to imagine that a active mining operation would be in operation to ship 'energy sources' back to earth and it certainly wont be something as simply as He3 anyways. If anything is in fact being shipped back to earth you would need to be operating rather large anti gravity craft to ship back enough to make it worth the while but imo those resources would be FAR better used to build up a industrial base on the moon using the shuttle/anti gravity craft simply to shuttle personal and critical equipment with.


So here’s what I don’t get (and there may be perfectly good answers here...I just don’t have the knowledge to come up with them):


No one has much knowledge to start with and if your not actively going to go search for it you better keep on asking questions!


1)
Once the initial MASSIVE expenditure is made to establish mining operations (and I default to the word “massive” only because I can’t think of a single word that would do the monetary amount justice),


Money is a artificial creation that has no basis in reality ( numbers on a computer screen) and to imagine anything impossible based on the monetary cost just suggest a very average perception of what they want you to think of money. Whatever the case my be the US GAO (Government Accountability Office) cant seem to track down a few trillion dollars ( X times 1000 000 000 000 ) worth of pentagon spending so if they actually spent that money on equipment/research they might very well have damn Walmart's on the Moon/Mars and probably a few of Saturn's moons. I obviously think they just pocketed most of it but I've been wrong before. If it's not clear yet there are simply NO technical hurdle's even if you want to do all this with a Saturn V!


almost 15,000 tons of regolith (lunar soil) has to be warmed up to about 1500 degrees (F) in order to produce 1 ton of He3. Does an operation like this really make economic sense?


If that is true ( i have no idea) it becomes readily obvious that their not there to do that and i would be surprised beyond belief if whoever is active there relies on rocket power to get anywhere....


2)
Obviously shuttles would need to be heading back and forth, picking up the He3 payload and bringing it back to earth. I think those of you living in California or Florida will agree: you can’t exactly “sneak” those things into our atmosphere…it’s a very recognizable event. One that doesn't go unnoticed.


As i said it makes very little sense to fly such a poor energy 'source' around burning that volumes of energy so i am rather sure that's not what their doing. Had they been that insane i assume that's what you would use a place like Diego Garcia for and from there you could launch a rocket a day without very many lay persons being the wiser. Not one trusts fishermen stories anyways!


3)
As you may have heard, the fossil fuel lobby is very strong here on earth.


Actually the energy control lobby is strong party and since they consider fossil fuels wasteful and easy enough to control that's what we are stuck with.


(No Bush jokes please…) An abundant source of He3 puts them, essentially, out of business.


Not while you can get a barrel of crude on the surface for probably no more than 50 US cents in Saudi Arabia and 300-600 cents in Russia.... Oil is still cheaper than water and peanut butter and He 3 flown by shuttle from the Moon ain't gonna change that reality any time soon.


That’s a lot of power evaporating. As we know, power like that doesn’t really evaporate…it has to be ripped away with a bang.


I think you can even try take a shotgun/tank/airplane/nuclear weapon to that kind of power and it's unlikely to have much if any effect. They have their feelers spread out rather far and wide and your more likely to do it by civil action and mass movements than by whatever violence you can apply.


Many oil folk have access to the most secret of information. If they caught even a whiff of this, they would blow the lid off it in a second. Wouldn't they?


The oil guys are bit players in a far larger picture ( who controls Royal Dutch shell- the biggest last i checked- and how on Earth do they manage it?) and to think that the common fat oil board chairman is in fact a menace to society is in my opinion ill informed. I have recently seen some information that suggest that without large subsidies most major US oil companies would have long ago gone the way of the dinosaur and if that is in fact true it would expose the energy control scam rather effectively in my opinion.


That’s what I have for the moment.
Feel free to tear up my assumptions and answer my questions.


Questions asked in a truly dispassionate way is never deserving of ridicule or abuse as it suggest a open mind with no evident ( consciously anyways) vested interested in one reality over another. True exploration and discovery may come from a obsessive/compulsive choice between possibilities but i for one don't think it's a good tool for discovering the vast web that revealed truth is part of.


I may be wrong…I really may…but logistically, it doesn't work for me.
Help me out.
Anybody.


Only amateurs ( so it's said) studies strategy so i can agree that with a rocket powered logistics system this is probably not a mining operation to return energy or rare minerals to the Earth.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Originally posted by StellarX


I just do not think it's viable to imagine that a active mining operation would be in operation to ship 'energy sources' back to earth and it certainly wont be something as simply as He3 anyways. If anything is in fact being shipped back to earth you would need to be operating rather large anti gravity craft to ship back enough to make it worth the while but imo those resources would be FAR better used to build up a industrial base on the moon using the shuttle/anti gravity craft simply to shuttle personal and critical equipment with.


I believe this to be a very accurate and thoughtful statement. I hope that they are not mining gold because the last thing I need is 20 tons of the stuff dumped on the open market. Thanks for your insight StellarX.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
To all:

For those in the hunt for "anomolies", I'd suggest concentrating on Copernicus-1 and Copernicus-2

Copernicus-3 and Copernicus-4 are too far away to identify anything and someone with an airbrush has had a field day with Copernicus-5.

I'd say that Copernicus-1 and Copernicus-2 have only been through "first stage" filtering (with an airbrush).

Also, Copernicus-1 and Copernicus-2 are closer than you think


I also found the following that *may* indicate the carpark is actually a film fault of sorts (unless they are the same object but I can't verify):

From Copernicus-2:



From Copernicus-4:



Cheers

JS



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
LOL...I was just wondering if any people are actually seeing these pictures or it's just me posting pictures to a "redundent" server somewhere in a redundent server farm...

Oh well, at least I'm having fun


Here's more for everyone (or no-one?) to ponder about the grate I mentioned earier. Notice how the ACV "impression" matches approximately the 20-25' length of the ACV's (hovercrafts) I pointed out earlier:



Cheers



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I just don´t know anymore. There´s a lot of images showing structural shapes but then again i could probably get a lot better images of "bases" shooting images of my bathroom floor. I´m kinda torn...it could be structures but a lot of it also just look like procedural noise.

Here´s an image shown just for illustration purpose, it´s a local base, rings show hardended shelters for F-16´s, very real structures but it doesn´t look like much and this is a capture from a highres map good enough for seeing cars on the ground.



The Copernicus images obviously has a lot lower resolution and structures would be a lot harder to spot. Beeing a pro photographer for some 20 years i would love to see the original negative as there could be values not beeing properly shown in the scan.

John, is the negative still available?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
tomra:

I believe the image you posted is a lot further away than Copernicus-1 & 2...plus the image is an aerial image of F-16 shelters and they are not only difficult to spot but are supposed to be camoulflaged. I agree, it should be very difficult to spot these types of images.

...however we are talking about a picture where you can identity the structure of an ACV directional cowling and also of a metal grate. That's good enough resolution I reckon.

I'd be interested in you taking some photos of your bathroom floor to see the comparison...and to see if we could also find a number of objects that are related in some way


It would be good if we had a drum scanner


Cheers

JS


Originally posted by tomra
I just don´t know anymore. There´s a lot of images showing structural shapes but then again i could probably get a lot better images of "bases" shooting images of my bathroom floor. I´m kinda torn...it could be structures but a lot of it also just look like procedural noise.

Here´s an image shown just for illustration purpose, it´s a local base, rings show hardended shelters for F-16´s, very real structures but it doesn´t look like much and this is a capture from a highres map good enough for seeing cars on the ground.



The Copernicus images obviously has a lot lower resolution and structures would be a lot harder to spot. Beeing a pro photographer for some 20 years i would love to see the original negative as there could be values not beeing properly shown in the scan.

John, is the negative still available?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Here's another one for the redundent server:



BTW, this is a junked ACV (or whatever).

Cheers

JS

[edit on 30-9-2006 by jumpspace]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Here's the first (and now un-used) slurry dump:



...and here's the new and improved version:

1) The dump (I posted earlier)

2) The new and improved pipe outlets:



3) The checking station (behind the ACV's):



Cheers

JS

PS: Of course, this could all be my over-imaginative imagination


DYOR



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I kinda forgot...i believe John was working on getting the scale for these images. Anyone know what scale we´re talking about?

Jumpspace, i believe the image i linked would be roughly like looking down from 3000-3500ft, i could be wrong, been a while since i was up in the air.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace
Here's more for everyone (or no-one?) to ponder about the grate I mentioned earier. Notice how the ACV "impression" matches approximately the 20-25' length of the ACV's (hovercrafts) I pointed out earlier:
Cheers


You mentioned 'footprints' ( or the like) but how is that possible at this type of resolution? I am not exactly keeping track of 'feet per pixel' math here but i don't imagine whatever their wearing for shoes is going to leave anything we could spot from orbit back in them days. What am i missing here...

Stellar

[edit on 30-9-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace
Bucket excavator with hovercraft tracks and platform of sorts:



Cheers

JS


Had that one LOL but you missed the statue at the front of that picture...

That slurry dump is hard to tell but it looks like C#1

Would this be the valve you are talking about?



I have a lot of finds on #1 just not finished the page yet.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace
To all:

I also found the following that *may* indicate the carpark is actually a film fault of sorts (unless they are the same object but I can't verify):


Cant be the same object sorry C#1 to #4 are four sections of one picture # 5 is the aerial view rotated 90 degress and about 50 percent scale of the first 4....

But at least you are finding things


I do believe this place is warming up



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
If a scale can be obtained for Copernicus 5 then it's easy to work from there.

John?

Cheers

JS


Originally posted by tomra
I kinda forgot...i believe John was working on getting the scale for these images. Anyone know what scale we´re talking about?

Jumpspace, i believe the image i linked would be roughly like looking down from 3000-3500ft, i could be wrong, been a while since i was up in the air.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomra
I kinda forgot...i believe John was working on getting the scale for these images. Anyone know what scale we´re talking about?

Jumpspace, i believe the image i linked would be roughly like looking down from 3000-3500ft, i could be wrong, been a while since i was up in the air.



Sighhhh the scale and size was posted on page one and two of this thread by both Springer and John Lear... and the four pictures are sections of one picture... and yes they ARE a long way away taken from orbit.


Springer - Four of them labeled Copernicus 1 through 4 are from Lunar Orbiter 2 H-162; Spacecraft Altitude 45.9 kilometers, camera tilt 69˚20’; Frame Center Data: LAT: 5˚30’N, LONG: 20˚00W, sun elevation 24˚40’. Framelet Bearing: N86˚40’W.



John Lear - I had 2 prints made, one a 16x20 print and one 20x24 which is now on my den wall. I took the 16x20 over to Bob Lazars and he scanned it in 4 sections: no. 1 is top left, no. 2 is top right, no. 3 is bottom right and no. 4 is bottom left. No. 5 is a scan of Lunar Orbiter 5-155M.

The LO-2-162H has not been retouched as far as I can tell. LO-5-155 has been retouched which is obvious from others photos I have of 155.

The Lunar Orbiter cameras were launched in 1965-1966 and 1967. There were 5 Orbiters. They sent back thousands of crystal clear photos of the moon. As I mentioned most of these photos have been retouched. Through some quirk of fate I not only received on that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative.


So that means the photos were taken mid 60's, no touch up on 1-4 and taken from 45.9 kilometers in the sky... so anything of importance will be small and hard to see at best. But once you become familiar with the scale it becomes easier.


Here are the four assembled as one.

The objects that would indicate mining like the crane are basically in a 1/4 inch square. So you would not see footprints...


Number 5 is about have the scale of the other four and taken with brighter sunlight so will be washed out... It needs a 90 degree rotation to make it match the others.

[sorry for repeating but I think it was needed]

I will try to add a scale ruler in the next few days I can use pixels to calculate it but it will take a while to get a good one... any math majors out there want to help U2U me.


BTW Many thanks to all you guys who appreciate my work. Seems my last thank you didn't get posted
. And thanks to all those who are finding things. I have put "first found" credits with each one you found. If I have missed someone let me know and point me to your post and I will add the credit.. I have some that are in areas not completed yet so if you don't see yours let me know anyway...




The results are being collected here.

landoflegends.us...

Page 4 will be ready in a few hours LOL "Roads and Tunnels"


[edit on 1-10-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
StellarX:


You mentioned 'footprints' ( or the like) but how is that possible at this type of resolution?


What resolution is that Stellar?


I am not exactly keeping track of 'feet per pixel' math here but i don't imagine whatever their wearing for shoes is going to leave anything we could spot from orbit back in them days.


Doesn't matter what they are wearing really - bare feet will even work. Since you can't imagine a scenarion, I'll provide one example: it could be that whatever they are walking on is covered with a light coloured soil/snow/ash/whatever and when they walk, it breaks this light cover and reveals a dark coloured soil underneath.


What am i missing here?


Scale


All I can say is two things:

1) You'd be surprised how close some of these images are
2) I am only posting objects that I see and it's amazing that the NASA bucket excavator that I posted earlier sort of fits in with the estimated sizes I am using. Look for one of my previous posts and you will see the real NASA bucket excavator.

Cheers

JS



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Zorgon:

Is it possible to get the scale of Copernicus 5?

Cheers

JS



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join