John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

double post, sorry

[edit on 7-12-2007 by undo]

And to suggest something is "clear" when it simply isn't is also to reduce the debate to a slightly frustrating level. In my view.

the problem with that angle of argument is, that the same "observation" skills are used to deny anomalies as they are to accept them, so why would my ability to see a cloud of smoke/dust/whatever, be any less substantive or useful than your ability to, say, tell zarniwoop that the perfect circle in the image he just posted is in the wrong perspective? that's an accurate observation, and i agree with you on it. so why are my observation skills no longer useful if i see a cloud of smoke/dust/steam? let's just suspend for the moment, that you know everything there is to know about the moon or that everything you know about the moon should supersede what your own eyes are telling you. use your observation skills like you did with the circular object zarni posted.

what is this?




don't try the pixellization route, as this is from the famous hasselbad camera used for the copernicus images that inspired this thread, and it doesn't pixellate, no matter how much you increase its size.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
why would my ability to see a cloud of smoke/dust/whatever, be any less substantive or useful than your ability to, say, tell zarniwoop that the perfect circle in the image he just posted is in the wrong perspective? that's an accurate observation, and i agree with you on it. so why are my observation skills no longer useful if i see a cloud of smoke/dust/steam?

*Sighs*

I didn't say they weren't, Undo. You observe smoke/dust/steam. I don't disagree they could be said to look like that. All I've said is I suspect it isn't actually that, and I don't agree that you can say for sure that it is. That isn't a comment on the value or otherwise of your observational skills. Perhaps it is smoke. Perhaps it's a trick of the light. Perhaps it's a badger. I don't know and you don't know. All I'm saying, for the umpteenth time, is that I don't agree you can say it's "clearly" anything. You can say what you believe it to be based on your observations, and I have never indicated that I don't respect your eyesight.

let's just suspend for the moment, that you know everything there is to know about the moon

I don't know anything about the moon at all, and haven't claimed to. So that's not a problem.

or that everything you know about the moon should supersede what your own eyes are telling you. use your observation skills like you did with the circular object zarni posted.

what is this?

I don't know, Undo. To me it looks like a very grainy image various lumps of rock casting indistinct shadows in various directions. Someone has coloured one bit of it yellow, I don't know why. I genuinely don't see anything else - do you believe it to be steam or smoke again, or is this different? Either way, fair enough, unless you start suggesting it's "definitely" or "clearly" anything in particular, in which case I would (respectfully) suggest you cannot be so sure.

Hope that clears up what I'm saying - I think you believe me to be insulting your intelligence, or disrespecting your opinions. I'm absolutely not. I'm only interested in and replying to the thread because I find the debate interesting and worth pursuing. I'm only concerned that the manner of debate is unnecessarily reduced to stating things as fact when they aren't, and anyone who disagrees is in some way blind or ignorant. I don't see how that helps us get to the bottom of anything much. OK?

Love,

LW

Originally posted by undo
don't try the pixellization route, as this is from the famous hasselbad camera used for the copernicus images that inspired this thread, and it doesn't pixellate, no matter how much you increase its size.

If viewed on a computer monitor, it will pixelate. Regardless of the source, all images on monitors are composed of pixels. If the image is scanned and digitally stored, it is composed of pixels.

Originally posted by MrPenny

If viewed on a computer monitor, it will pixelate. Regardless of the source, all images on monitors are composed of pixels. If the image is scanned and digitally stored, it is composed of pixels.

i agree, but the anomalies in the original image are not the result of pixellization. the anomalies are exactly what you see - no artifacting. see what i mean? the quality is much higher, from the outset. the camera was capable of taking crystal clear images from great distances.

reply to post by undo


But we can't see the original image. The only image available to us is a digital copy. And every single one of them is subject to the limits of monitor resolution and/or scanner capability. Unless you actually have the negative and can view prints made with film emulsion, you too are seeing an image composed of pixels. And I doubt you have seen the original; the true film image.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by MrPenny]

To me it looks like a very grainy image

Well that's the problem. You think it's a very grainy image, but in fact, it's not that bad compared to most images of the moon. I made a little film of the image (copernicus1), found on the first link on the first page of this thread (the op). I start with the whole image and then zoom in on the area so you can see it in the context of its surroundings. if it still looks very grainy to you, it may be your monitor. Granted, it isn't as clear as say, a building in your neighborhood, but it's darn good considering it was taken from half way across the copernicus crater.

the film is a large file size because i saved it at 100% quality and 30fps. it's like 229 megabytes .avi movie (the latest windows media player can be set to view .avi files). but if you're seriously interested in the anomalie in its setting, it's worth a gander. i suggest pausing it occassionally to get a better visual acuity of the surroundings. allow your depth perception to tune in. give your optical center a chance to hash out what should and shouldn't be in the image, based on shadow, light and depth of field.

it took some time to figure out how best to create the film and show it, and a great deal more time to upload it to my server. please do me the courtesy for my efforts, and actually watch it. it's huge file, i know, but that was the only way to do it justice. i didn't want to lose any data from the filming and saving process of the file.

understand, i don't think NASA is bad. I just think the situation is alot more complex and that the general public is not on the "need to know" list. it's understandable that some things are not necessary for everyone to know, but this info black out is getting out of hand.

the ability/tendency to use "secret data" to the advantage of only the very rich or most powerful members of society, increases by the year and to the detriment of everyone else. anyone who thinks about it for a few minutes, knows that with our technical capabilities and equipment that they surely have clear images of every square inch of the moon, with detail down to the size of a pebble and yet, the best we can hope for on that level are the films from the apollo landings, which were in very limited and controlled areas.
stuff like that, in the hands of a reading, and well-educated public, causes distrust, rumor and anomosity. that's not good for the nation or the world, for that matter.

so, of course, the inquistive amongst us, start researching and pouring over what IS available and asking questions, making conjecture and determining what is and isn't visible on the images, for themselves. that's not unusual or unexpected, considering the situation in its current status. we are bright, observant and curious beings. it's a natural part of our brain function to seek out and discover, and if what we see/discover, doesn't jive with what we are told we should be seeing, we're going to ask questions, make theories of our own, and arrive at our own conclusions. this is normal, not the sign of lunacy , kookery or idiocy, but a hallmark of the human capacity to learn and explore. I don't think it should be punished by endless insults and insinuations that we are nutjobs. If that were the case, all research and exploration would be the result of kookery.

Here's the FILM
thestargates.com...

/steps off soapbox, picks it up and wanders off.



[edit on 7-12-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo

the film is a large file size because i saved it at 100% quality and 30fps. it's like 229 megabytes .avi movie (the latest windows media player can be set to view .avi files). but if you're seriously interested in the anomalie in its setting, it's worth a gander. i suggest pausing it occassionally to get a better visual acuity of the surroundings. allow your depth perception to tune in. give your optical center a chance to hash out what should and shouldn't be in the image, based on shadow, light and depth of field.

I will look at your film. I am at work at the moment, and I'm not sure the powers that be would appreciate me downloading a 229 Meg file! But I have a free weekend and will definitely look at what you've done - sounds like a lot of hard work you've put into it.

we're going to ask questions, make theories of our own, and arrive at our own conclusions. this is normal, not the sign of lunacy , kookery or idiocy, but a hallmark of the human capacity to learn and explore. I don't think it should be punished by endless insults and insinuations that we are nutjobs. If that were the case, all research and exploration would be the result of kookery.

Undo, I know you're not addressing me alone with that - but you must understand that I haven't accused you of anything like being a nutjob or a kook. I don't think you are a lunatic, or for that matter John Lear or Zorgon or anyone else you care to mention.

The problem here is that constant bashing of one side or the other leads posters to assume that anyone who disagrees with them does so with contempt. It's my view that both sides of the debate are guilty of it. It means that innocent posts questioning any element of what is said are regarded as attacks - and for my part I hope I never seek to attack, only to question.

But if we reduce the debate to the level of "I can see it - if you can't you're an idiot" - or vice versa, we just get absolutely nowhere. Too many threads in these forums become unreadable quickly because they just turn into insult tennis matches. I like most of the exchanges between Buddha and John Lear because just occasionally the process of arguing about things makes you think about something in a different way or reveals something you hadn't thought of. I dislike it when either side accuses the other of simply being "wrong", or "not getting it", or "failing to see the obvious", or whatever, because there's nothing to be gained from that sort of exchange.

I hope you keep your soapbox, and you keep standing on it, and I hope you keep going to the trouble you have to make these postings. Same goes for Lear and Zorgon et al. And I hope you don't mind enquiring minds asking questions of you when you do so.

LW

because there's nothing to be gained from that sort of exchange.

I apologize, it's a learned response. For example, look at Mr.Penny's signature. Now look at my signature. Do you see me calling people such as Mr. Penny a kook, lunatic or moron? Of course not. I don't think he has anything wrong with his mental faculties or his ability to rationalize, not one iota. i do think, however, that the status quo feels obligated to maintain itself at the cost of pretense and that's not what this is about. It's about not lying to myself when I see something that doesn't jive with the official story. Why he and others like him, would begrudge me the opportunity or ability to be truthful with myself, is beyond me, since it is their claim that they love the truth and reality.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

The point is it doesn't "clearly" show anything. If it "clearly" showed anything that picture would be gold dust.

The point is that to a great many people it DOES show this clearly... If we did not see these clearly... I would not even post them... As in this one below... its is totally baffling to me how anyone can look at this image and say its "just a blurry rock" You skeptics ridicule us for seeing what we do... I on the other hand merely find it unfathomable that you do not see anything... but do I call you stupid or ignorant or a lunatic because you cannot see it? No... ( I do confess though the thought has crossed my mind once or twice... )

It might show something that might be "dust/smoke/mist/steam" - might I suggest that if it were clear enough to identify, you wouldn't need to give 4 options as to what it was? On the other hand it might be a trick of the light.

Well at least you say "might" so to me that means you see "something" that "appears" out of the ordinary... fine but the others don't see anything but blurry rocks...

I've no idea, but in any case the burden of proof is not with me.

No you are correct it is not... however if one is here to truly find out if anything is "going on" then it would seem logical to me that that person spends time seriously researching it on their own. We have our side of things... and do our best to present the evidence that we can find to support this theory... You do not have to accept it... no one is forcing you to be here...

Judging by the fact that I see the same group of skeptics in every thread we make... and going by the comments... its pretty obvious to me that they are not here to view that evidence objectively... and you only need to check the avatars to see that these "defenders of sanity" have only one mission here...

Fortunately there are MANY others who take our evidence as interesting and then go out and do further research on their own... and draw their OWN conclusions...

This is a conspiracy site and contains many alternative views... If I wanted to discuss main stream science I would be on a board like Bad Astronomy where they monitor posts and "screen" them for "correct" thinging before posting (or not)

I was responding to the implication in an earlier post that it was incredible that such "clear" evidence could be denied. We are all agreed that there is no clear evidence, and on that I rest my case.

That is mighty presumptuous of you... No we are NOT all agreed on that at all... if we were there would be no thread. You may rest your case all you want... but the other side is not finished presenting theirs...

Incidentally, I am not a basher or always an unbeliever in these matters - but I don't like it when a debate is reduced to "you either see it or you don't". I don't find that to be very satisfying, I'd much rather debate the merits of the evidence.

Alright so you are a believer in SOME things then... Fine perhaps you could share some of the things you DO believe with us and present us with some evidence to support that... As to the "you either see it or you don't" what do you suggest? How is page after page of debate going to change that opinion either way? I cannot force you to see... any more than you can convince me I am NOT seeing what I see...

It would be great if you could come over to my house and see this stuff on my screen and then I would know we are looking at the same thing... then I would at least know you truly don't see anything... but that is impractical.

John Lear often suggests that there are those of us who are not ready or not able to see these things - maybe he's right. But again, that idea rather shuts off the debate, which is frustrating to those of us who are forced to rely on silly little things like scientific evidence, rather than some kind of intuition.

The idea of not being ready to see things is not John's exclusively but that is a whole new thread, but tell me one thing... what will endless debate do to help the situation? You may wish to debate an issue but that is not why I am here... I came here looking for answers and when I started I was skeptical about a lot of things despite my 30 year interest in the possibility of Ancient Astronauts... All you have to do is look at the beginning of this thread and you will see that..

It wasn't until I found things ON MY OWN in the Copernicus images and found the same thing in two other Apollo images that I began to see... and since then I find tons of documents that to me indicate there is a LOT more going on than they tell us...

So debate if you wish... but explain to me how debate will convince you if the evidence I and others present does nothing for you...

Skeptics guffaw at remote viewing... fine... but the CIA, DoD and other agencies take it seriously and spend your tax dollars on it...

Abductees have told stories of being taken to other worlds... They claim that it was Venus and other planets in our system... I have no way to verify that... it may be that they were taken elsewhere and only thought it was Venus etc... it may be possible that there was a dimensional or time shift involve... I have no way of knowing this yet...

But it intersts me and I am looking for the answers... And endless debate at times is just a waste of time... Why would I need countless posts on the mainstream view when I can open any text book or "official" site and get that?

I look around .mil site, the National Labs archives, the universities and even at NASA, JPL and LPI in the not so easy to access areas and I find all sorts of intersting documents...

The skeptics say "Oh its all just research... none of it is real..."

Well if NONE of it is real... I would suggest you all get really upset that for over 50 years all these agencies have been sucking billions of dollars from you and have nothing to show for it...

But then you guys would rather debate... 3.5 TRILLION missing from the budget is not serious enough to get anyone's attention... but me personally... I think that would more than fund all the projects that we think exist...

If it's all down to intuition rather than evidence, it seems to me there's not much point in anyone ever posting anything at all!

Well since none of those that are skeptical accept ANY of the evidence shown... seems to me you are correct... why bother posting anything at all?

Well MY reason for posting is to present the evidence that I find convincing... and share it for others to view and accept as they choose... and I will continue to do so... and if you are truly a believer in SOME things... perhaps it would be more fruitful if you concentrated your debate on those things... because then at least we would be on common ground...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


HERE HERE ZORGON!

You said it and some my friend. Sounds like 3.5 trillion reasons for us to believe and start questioning what is under the veil...
I wish I had the time to commit myself to put myself in there as much you have as well as some others around here. However, I can only do so much and a little at a time. But I will continue to do so, because I do believe there is so much more to what we've been taught and been led to believe.

Heres one good reason to question 'them'. Thanks to Internos for the pic.....(posted earlier on one of the Kaguya/JAXA Threads)



[edit on 7-12-2007 by spikedmilk]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by spikedmilk]

Originally posted by zorgon

You skeptics ridicule us for seeing what we do... I on the other hand merely find it unfathomable that you do not see anything... but do I call you stupid or ignorant or a lunatic because you cannot see it? No... ( I do confess though the thought has crossed my mind once or twice...

)

OK. Some facts about the Lone Weasel.

I never called anyone a lunatic.

I agreed that the image could look like smoke and steam. I simply suggested that it couldn't definitively be described as such, because it isn't that clear an image. My point was simply to raise the level of debate above saying "you're wrong and I'm right." I frankly wish I hadn't bothered now.

I have been grabbed by a large number of things that have been posted - more often than not by you, Zorgon. Off the back of your information I have indeed done my own research and interests in what it seems to me is an almost infinite amount of covering up, secrecy and often downright lies.

I resent being lumped in with "you skeptics" simply because I happened to find one image unconvincing. You talk about the same group of people making the same sort of comments - you cannot have read all of my postings and come to the conclusion that I am part of a bashing group. I've even stood up for you personally (not that you sound like you need or want anyone to stand up for you) when I thought you were being bashed for the sake of bashing.

This is a conspiracy site and contains many alternative views... If I wanted to discuss main stream science I would be on a board like Bad Astronomy where they monitor posts and "screen" them for "correct" thinging before posting (or not)

The idea of not being ready to see things is not John's exclusively but that is a whole new thread, but tell me one thing... what will endless debate do to help the situation?

... debate if you wish... but explain to me how debate will convince you if the evidence I and others present does nothing for you...

As I've already said, there is plenty of evidence you yourself have posted that has at the very least persuaded me to look elsewhere, and certainly "does something for me". Indeed I am grateful to you for going to so much trouble with your posts.

On some occasions it is other people's remarks and comments on the things you have posted that has made me think about something in a new way. On other occasions I have been swayed against something you've posted because of someone else's insights. I value the likes of BuddhaSystem's input just as much as yours - no more and no less.

That is the nature of debate, and it's why I visit these boards. This is a conspiracy site made up of forums. The whole purpose of it is by definition to debate these matters. If you are not interested in debating them, I would respectfully suggest you find a site where dictation of ideas rather than debate is the name of the game. For my part, I really hope you do no such thing - as I admire, enjoy and respect your contribution. I do not admire, enjoy or respect being told what I think or being lumped in with some supposed group or campaign against you. If I don't see what you see in an image, that's all there is to it. It doesn't mean I think everything you write is nonsense - and it shouldn't mean you have no respect for anything I say, either.

Long story short, there, Zorgers - I am not the enemy.

LW

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

I resent being lumped in with "you skeptics" simply because I happened to find one image unconvincing.

My bad it was not my intention to lump you with "them" I do apologize that the rest of the post to YOU did not make that clear... And I am glad you did bring it up...

It is difficult at times to avoid getting drawn into a useless battle...

You talk about the same group of people making the same sort of comments - you cannot have read all of my postings and come to the conclusion that I am part of a bashing group. I've even stood up for you personally (not that you sound like you need or want anyone to stand up for you) when I thought you were being bashed for the sake of bashing.

Yes again I am sorry I was not clear enough in not including you in the "bashers cult" that I was using generally... Didn't have enough coffee yet


[edit on 7-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
Long story short, there, Zorgers - I am not the enemy.

LOL Well I would like to think that there are no enemies here...

We do all come here for different reasons though... and no I am not going anywhere... they would have to drag me out kicking and screaming...

As to the debate issue... I have no problem answering questions and backing up what I believe with the best evidence available to me... but endless debate going over the same things in many threads by the same people is not why I am here... nor do I have the time for it...

I prefer to spend my time digging through data and presenting it so that others can have fun debating it

I thank you for the kind words... but I clearly see that you missed my intent... sorry about that... I shall attempt to be clearer next time...

"Curioser and curioser," said Alice.

You'll have to excuse me, but I'm having a blonde moment (i have alot of those, particularly because i'm blonde to begin with lol). I'm having trouble understanding why it would be necessary for the people you are defending, LoneWeasel, to expect us to agree with them wholeheartedly, that what we are seeing is nothing more than grainy pics of rocks and lights and shadows. YOU REALIZE, THEY ARE ASKING US TO LIE TO OURSELVES?! Why would I want to lie to myself? Not logical!!

How can so many people see the smoke, the shapes, the buildings, the devices, and so many more, not see it at all? There has to be a set of logical explanations. I've tried providing the pics in different settings (more light, less light, more contrast, less contrast, in different colors, and so on, and so has Zorgon) and the results have been almost the same - the same people can see it that could see it before, and the same people can't see it, that couldn't see it before.

EDIT: Oh, and pretty much all those (present company excepted,of course) that couldn't see it, never see anything, ever. It's all dirt and rocks, period. They see nothing unusual or out of place, everything has a perfectly logical explanation in mainstream science, and nothing is hidden. We are completely informed about what is going on, and if we aren't, it's more than likely because there's nothing to inform us about. That we happen to see otherwise is proof we are kooks and lunatics.

Is this like some masonic thing or what?



[edit on 7-12-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
How can so many people see the smoke, the shapes, the buildings, the devices, and so many more, not see it at all? There has to be a set of logical explanations.

In my case undo, it's not about "not seeing" a shape or something....it's the interpretation. Sure, a lot of pictures from Mars and the moon have odd, unexplainable things in them. But I'm not willing to walk way out on the limb and declare what they are....in my brain, they are amorphous shapes that could be interpreted in many different ways. I think it's intellectually wrong to declare "that's a bucket excavator"....or "that's a robot head"....or any number of things I've seen mentioned. I'm not saying you do declare these specific things, but some here do.

I want there to be remnants of a past civilization on Mars or the moon....signs of relatively recent activity would be mind-blowing....but I can't allow what I want to pre-shape my conclusions. And that's what I perceive many people to be doing......using extremely weak evidence to satisfy their views.

I happen to find the lines in my signature to be funny. Yeah, I have an odd sense of humor.

Mr. Penny,

Part of the problem revolves around religious prejudice. John Lear has his own approach to spiritual matters and mingles those with his stance on other subjects. Not everyone who agrees with him on some matters, agrees with him on all matters, and there are some who find most of what he says, perfectly reasonable. Then there are some who cannot abide his religious stance, either because he is not a mainstream belief, or because he is prone to come up with left of center ideas such as soul catchers and so forth. That's his perogative, and it should have no bearing on whether he is right about the rest of his data. In other words, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I realize that's not entirely your stance on his info, but it seems to color some of your opinions on his other data. Just set aside your religious differences.

Next is the idea that because you don't see it as clearly as someone else does, that that someone else must not be seeing it as clearly as they claim. Of course, that's not going to be an accurate appraisal of the anomalie. Only your perspective on it, which you are entitled to but dont expect my eyeballs to see what yours don't, because that would be self-defeating, would it not? And I won't expect you to see it, either, provided you don't call me an ineffectual kook because I see more detail than you do. that's like insulting people that have better depth perception or something. A foolish reason to belittle another human being.

why in the sam hill did someone star your post? it's the same line you always give -- oh i see plenty of anomalies but they aren't what you say they are, or you can't prove that's what they are, so just lie to yourself and say, i dunno wha' that dern thang is, but it sure enuff looks like rocks 'n' stuff. lol

okay, what are they, rocketman?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Just set aside your religious differences.

What in Sam Hill does religious differences have to do with photo interpretation? Or existent civilizations on other planets in the solar system? Or a breathable atmosphere on the moon? Or secret space stations? Heh.

Just so you don't feel so bad....I'll star every post of yours I come across. Happy Holidays!!

Originally posted by undo
oh i see plenty of anomalies but they aren't what you say they are, or you can't prove that's what they are, so just lie to yourself and say, i dunno wha' that dern thang is, but it sure enuff looks like rocks 'n' stuff.

I especially like it when others help to support my position.

That's not what I said in my previous post, yet you've decided to internally spin it that way because that makes your world happy. Completely screwing up what I posted. Although I'm delighted you wrote it in a vernacular that this ol' boy from Missouri could understand.