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: 232
164
<< 229  230  231    233  234  235 >>

log in

join
share:
GEX

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
reply to post by GEX
 


Thanks GEX you seemed to have put the lid on the dotted line for us.

It's useful to have someone who can read Russian here.

Welcome to ATS



Any time sherpa.
Thank you for the welcome.




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
A little trip back in time... here is some REAL disclosure for you

Watch this video...


Google Video Link


Now we all know that you can't see stars in NASA photos of the Moon...

And we have all heard the skeptics reasons...

Well in the above press release taken just after they got back Micheal Collins cannot remember seeing any stars...

I guess his memory improved a lot... since in his new book "Carrying the Fire" he makes THIS remarkable statement...


``Outside my window I can see stars, and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars. To compare the sensation with something terrestrial, perhaps being alone in a skiff in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a pitch-black night would most nearly approximate my situation.''


scholar.lib.vt.edu...

So what is the reason for this turnaround? Surely both versions cannot be true... So either he had a memory lapse... or he outright lied in the press release...

Now another twist to the story....

Browsing around APOD (NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day) I found an composite image of what the sky would look like on Earth IN THE DAY TIME if there was no atmosphere....



antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So that leaves me with two possibilities...

A) NASA airbrushed out all the stars in the Moon images
or
B) The atmosphere on the Moon is dense enough so you cannot see Stars in the daytime...




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon, I will have to go with plan B that the atmosphere is dense enough during the daylight hours to block out the stars on the Earth's Moon. This lends more credence that the Moon has possibly a breathable atmosphere. I believe John Lear is correct in that they programmed the astronauts on what to say during their interviews with the press.

It makes sense to me that they kept the astronauts in so called quaranteen in Houston for the purpose to debrief and brainwash them on what to say. This was Above Top Secret alright on what they saw on the Moon and to this day the lie goes on and on. With all the anomolies and geometric design on the Moon this could not have been created out of thin air. This as you and I already know these anomolies were and are created by intelligent design. Rik Riley



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Not to change the subject go to marsrover.nasa.gov... take a look at Opportunity Navigator camera raw photos Sol 1355. There are ten photos look in the background of each photo. Are these clouds, fog due to moisture evaporation or blowing dust. Rik Riley



[edit on 17-11-2007 by rikriley]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Hi Zorgon, I have a photo for you to look at, but can't upload because I dont have enough posts. What next?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by cockadoodledo
Hi Zorgon, I have a photo for you to look at, but can't upload because I dont have enough posts. What next?


standauffish@earthlink.net. If the file is bigger then 18 megs use yousendit.com



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So that leaves me with two possibilities...

A) NASA airbrushed out all the stars in the Moon images
or
B) The atmosphere on the Moon is dense enough so you cannot see Stars in the daytime...


Z, I am going to play Devil's advocate here and go with option C:

Cameras and visors on the lunar surface were calibrated for high intensity light



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas

Cameras and visors on the lunar surface were calibrated for high intensity light


Which was why few stars would have been seen from the surface and depending on the position of the CSM in relation to the sun Collins might or might not have seen stars.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So what is the reason for this turnaround? Surely both versions cannot be true... So either he had a memory lapse... or he outright lied in the press release...


Or, Zorgon, you have completely twisted your two sources out of context, either knowingly, or by oversight.

As I and others pointed out in the "NASA Scientist Fired..." thread where you posted the same thing, both "versions" can indeed be true. In the video clip, Collins was talking about not being seeing any stars while on the daylight side of the moon. In the interview you linked to, he is clearly talking about seeing stars while travelling behind the moon, i.e. on the dark side. There is no "memory lapse" or "turnaround" and he is not describing the same event in any case.

I am not pointing this out as a skeptic, I am pointing this out as someone who is able to read.

I'm sure you read the whole article you linked to, so it really irritates me that you would put together this completely disingenuous post in not one, but two threads. Because many people will read your post without checking the source, and go away with the idea that Collins is a liar, which is not worth a few extra ATS points for you.

Deny ignorance. Please.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by skip_brilliantine


I still think it an important point... but it seems its not going in the direction I intended... I will try a different approach when I find that document I lost... so in the meantime I will lay the star issue to rest...



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I am still going through all the documents you sent me, if I came across it I will let you know. Much of these arguments will never be fully resolved without actually going to the Moon. You can't be expected to carry it on your shoulders.

I still say surface gravity has very little if anything to do w/ the distance of the neutral point, and atmosphere exists but extensively in a rarefied form. And I still think many of those anomalies are just substituted aerial photos to be used as filler for the "fake" missions, but not all missions were false.

And few here are going to change their position, even in the face of good evidence. Borg and others were exceptions. We need a Moon ride, and that is the bottom line.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Some great new photos being released last week from Japanese JAXA Kaguya lunar probe using a HDTV camera. They're holding onto the HD images... just low res online.

Maybe some near term promise for more detail in and around the Copernicus crater??

Can someone intercept the JAXA digital transmissions to get the raw data?



[edit on 19-11-2007 by RigelFive]



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatyasWe need a Moon ride, and that is the bottom line.


Uh huh... I agree and ummm whose department is that I wonder?



Originally posted by RigelFive
Some great new photos being released last week from Japanese JAXA Kaguya lunar probe using a HDTV camera. They're holding onto the HD images... just low res online.


Thanks Rigel There is an ongoing thread tracking the Japanese craft here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We had one on the Chinese craft too, but for some reason it was moved to BTS



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Hi all.

great work everyone.

Heres a little bit of info i found on a site. it's kind of relevant i think and might even shed some new light on things..

"Moons like the Earth's - which are formed in catastrophic collisions - are extremely rare in the Universe, a study by US astronomers suggests.

The Moon was created when an object as big as the planet Mars smacked into the Earth billions of years ago.

The impact hurled debris into orbit, some of which eventually consolidated to form our Moon.

The Astrophysical Journal reports that just 5-10% of planetary systems in the Universe have moons created this way.

"When a moon forms from a violent collision, dust should be blasted everywhere," said lead author Nadya Gorlova of the University of Florida in Gainesville, US.

"If there were lots of moons forming, we would have seen dust around lots of stars - but we didn't."

full story..
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


Thanks for the link and participation, Extralien.

I wonder how the heck these astrophysicists expect to know this, or if the author realizes how full of phooey they really are?

This whole presumption relies on the accretion disk theory, and is disproven by observations within our own solar system.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Sorry to post this here in this section, but thought i'd bring it to your attention seeing as the section i have posted this in originally does not seem to have as much interest as this.

This is Mars from this link
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

this is a section from that main image. I just wonder what it is in the area i've highlighted.



and this is the link to the section I posted it first hand.

www.abovetopsecret.com...#

hope it's ok.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
look like to me some kind of Ancient Structure or ruins. But thats what i
see


:



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 

Looks like compression artifacts. There is a clear grid of squares on this picture. And you are right it does not belong on this thread.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The more I look at the latest Nasa trickle downed Color Clementine HiRes images the more I believe Many Craters have Rare(here on earth) Minerals and
Advanced composites. Some images show vivid Sliver laden rockscapes in craters and others show Gold like masses and the Glass like Green Blue formations is much evident as well.
Even if the moon was formed the way Nasa says ie: a chunk of earth ripped off from some sort of collision the chances of those deep Earth -Vulcan riched minerals should be more accessible and exposed and in Vast amounts. I say Nasa and the Others whom mine there know full well the place is literally a Diamond,Gold,Silver,Platinum,Etc.... Mine with Vast quantities and accessabilities not seen here by Us on Earth.
Makes perfect sense to have mines on the Moon and too keep it all"Exclusive" if You get my drift..

Happy Holidays All.


[edit on 25-11-2007 by VType]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by VType
The more I look at the latest Nasa trickle downed Color Clementine HiRes images the more I believe Many Craters have Rare(here on earth) Minerals and
Advanced composites.


Oh, so you have knowledge of Advanced Composites? Great! We all can benefit from a presence of such an expert on this and many other boards! Now, could you please define what Advanced Composites are? How are they different from not-so-advanced composites? Or from rather-lame composites? Pray tell. Also, if you can explain how you can make such determination from a few photos, this will be also appreciated.


Some images show vivid Sliver laden rockscapes


That sounds really cool! How were you able to assay the silver content of "rockscapes"?
You seem to possess a considerable talent indeed.


in craters and others show Gold like masses and the Glass like Green Blue formations is much evident as well.


Same question. Are you sure it's not glass but giant globs of Jell-O? We all know how space aliens love Jell-O. Maybe they mine it there as well.


I say Nasa and the Others whom mine there know full well the place is literally a Diamond,Gold,Silver,Platinum,Etc.... Mine with Vast quantities


How is 'Vast' different from more commonly used 'vast'? Is it even more vast? Should you have spelled 'quantities' with capital 'Q' to emphasize the enormous purity and value of the supposed Diamond, Gold, and Silver? One thing I don't get is the enigmatic
'Etc'. What is It?



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 229  230  231    233  234  235 >>

log in

join