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: 243
164
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Again, Zorgon, could you kindly provide a curve describing the Cherenkov spectrum as you propose it exists in this crater, and an estimate of how much gas is needed to produce the "glow" based on some baseline assumption about the particle flux.


Zorgon, since you are obviously not posting any corroboration of the claim you made of the exact match of the crater spectral properties, with the Cherenkov radiation spectrum, let me point out that this claim of yours is content and merit-free (well it's not the only one).




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
hello john, and all.

i am not going to go through 230 odd pages to find out if these have already been studied, so will post here and run for the hills.


at first glance, along the 'ridge', this first one seems to of been doctored.



*************

and this one is plain obvious.



************

both may well be an innocent anomaly.

anyways, love the work and effort by you john, zorgon, and by all.

( ufocasebook.conforums.com... )



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Originally posted by liv074_v.2




at first glance, along the 'ridge', this first one seems to of been doctored.


Thanks for your comments liv074_v.2.

Since you didn't show a pointer, or circle around the area you think has been doctored I assume you mean the horizontal line. That horizontal line is the edge of the 'framelet' scan on the Lunar Orbiter camera. M-frames or medium frames have 26 framelets. H-frames or high resolution frames have 86 framelets on each picture.

If that is not what you are talking about as 'doctored' please show me the area you think has been altered.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
hello john


the area of your massive image that i found interesting were these ghost-like 'uprights' that seem to be running along the ridge.



as i did not see this 'faintness' amongst any other area of the pic, it drew my attention.
*****************

on the other image, it was the heiroglyph-like 'drawings' on the wall face, that i felt were of interest; and can image were previously noted.

***********

ps: i am on dial-up;
...do you have any idea how long that huge image took to download!!!!



**************

pss: in my study of lo1-102, one of the guys has asked a couple of questions in regards to your version of the image.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by liv074_v.2
 


Hi, liv074,

Umm, aren't the pics you posted just two of the same, one positive and one negative? Help us, please, to clarify your points...

Thanks



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


sorry, i can be a little undescriptive sometimes.

yes indeedy, each of the two images has it's 'inverted colors' duplicate.
hence '& inv' in image details.
(ONLY to show a different view of image. i have a habit of doing that to see if anything new can be seen. sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't)



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Random LO pic surfing...

This looks like possibly a saucer or perhaps a domed structure in the middle of a small-ish crater.

Image Source



Happy Holidays to y'all!



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
at first glance, along the 'ridge', this first one seems to of been doctored. )


Any particular reason you have labeled those images as AS10-32-4810



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



yes, ron; yes there is.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
yes, ron; yes there is.


Well I popped in to the other forum you linked to... seems you enjoy deliberate misdirection... Keith Laney's Apollo images have nothing in common with John Lears images in this thread and the versions you posted over there are the lower res versions that are not at all easy to spot the anomalies in..

So what's your game?

Anything to do with this?



on Oct 13th, 2007, 12:37pm, matlivo wrote:
as for the 'kill john and associates agenda',





posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
let me point out that this claim of yours is content and merit-free (well it's not the only one).


Feel free to point out anything you like... Its a free country
I will post what I have when I have time...




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
yes, ron; yes there is.


Well I popped in to the other forum you linked to... seems you enjoy deliberate misdirection... Keith Laney's Apollo images have nothing in common with John Lears images in this thread and the versions you posted over there are the lower res versions that are not at all easy to spot the anomalies in..

So what's your game?

Anything to do with this?



on Oct 13th, 2007, 12:37pm, matlivo wrote:
as for the 'kill john and associates agenda',







um, am lost for words, ron.

i have no interest in misdirection.
what bloody misdirection!!!!
(i admit i don't put in enough details, but that may of had something to with i thought it was somewhat obvious what i was refering to. it was not, it was pointed out to me, and i explained what i was refering to.)

'i' thought/think i took that image from the living moon, as it was named at the site..?!?
so what am i supposed to write??

(and if i've efing made a mistake, with the image no or the site i got it from, let me know, but don't be a mean prick about it!
....mr lear, it is your image i've used, isn't it..??help, i'm being attacked and i'm not at all efing sure why..???!!??)

and as for the "kill john and associates" quote,
PLEASE, feel free to read the previous two or three quotes, and and the next five or six.

i am bloody new to this game, and got attacked for using john's image by a member of Casebook, i'll think you'll find; hence my "..i know nothing about a 'kill john and associates' agenda" post. read what i wrote again please!!

JEEZ!!!!!

(i take it my 'free energy device' i sent you designs of has upset you, ron.
cuz your acting like a prick, and i didn't spot you as one or i wouldn't of sent it to you.)

i'm saddened and disillusioned by what has just transpired, ron.
i really efing am.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
i am goingto make a satement, for what it's worth.

i have a few personal issues at the present time. (..anyone notice..??)
i have a serious problem with my temper, with 'over-reacting' at the moment; and it appears to of come to the fore again.

i would like to take a step back, and clarifiy a few things to the best of my ability.

unlike a LOT of you, i am new to the internet.
there are a lot of things i am unaware of, including any others previous hard work, any rivalries, and bad practices and false representations.

..and along comes me, showing my research, (not realising others had previously put in hard work too), and stamping big casebook logo's and (somewhat) non-descriptive id's on images.

the thing is, i did not mean to upset anyone.
i came from a little place called casebook,
the work (i have moved here) was primarily my own,
and in doing so (because i am slack) the logo's came along with me.

i did not mean to take credit for anything other than my hard work,
and the labels were 'originally' put on the images because i would venture into other forums and see my photobucket images being used with no reference to casebook in the posts.

i would like to again apologise for getting off on the wrong foot,
and will put more effort into being descriptive and open into the future.

to zorgon, to john, to anyone that may of taken offence,
i am sorry and will try to be more carefull in the future.

sincerly,
mathew liversidge,
melb australia.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
i have no interest in misdirection.
what bloody misdirection!!!!


I was referring to the images you posted with Keith Laney as source and a totally incorrect image number. Those of us here a long time know this is not the correct source or image number but anyone just joining who doesn't glance through the thread or read the first page... would not know this...

So when you answered "yes, ron; yes there is." I would have to 'guess' there is something afoot...





'i' thought/think i took that image from the living moon, as it was named at the site..?!?
so what am i supposed to write??


Well see I can guarantee you that you did not get that image from the living moon.... It would be appreciated if you take the time to check your source and include the link to that source along with your image (as you did in the other thread ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



....mr lear, it is your image i've used, isn't it..??help, i'm being attacked and i'm not at all efing sure why..???!!??)


Attacked is not correct... asking for clarification... Yes the Copernicus image that you made a clip of is Lo 162H... but it has nothing to do with Keith Laney, nor does John... something I wish you would clear up at the other site where I spotted this....

Now take a deep breath and calm down....




[edit on 28-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
start that again,
***************
as you suspected, the image No was incorrect.
big thanks for pointing it out.

here's where i got it from, and original link was correct,
(when i went back at a later date i grabbed the wrong image no/link; i guess.)

www.thelivingmoon.com...


****************
(when i have done twenty posts i figure it will allow me to edit posts, as doesn't seem to let me at moment. ???)

****************
so,, as you guys have been studying this image for some time, did you also note the anomalies i have pointed out??

if yes, can you point out the thread/page if poss so i can see what the consensus was?

and if not, does anybody have any thoughts about them?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by liv074_v.2
 


Ok livo I am trying to match the original image with your uprights, I know it is one of Johns originals but I don't know which one.

I havn't got time to match it at the moment but I will have a go a little later when I get back.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by liv074_v.2
 


Ok the image that has your anomalies in is Lunar orbiter 2 image 162H which can be found here:

Source

It can also be found at:

www.thelivingmoon.com...

But the site seems to be down at the moment, Zorgon ?

Here is a clip of the area you were looking at with the only thing I noticed highlighted in the red square, however I cannot see your uprights, sorry.




All credit for tracking down your source image should go to internos because I could not find it so a big thank you to internos who is possibly the worlds best researcher



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by liv074_v.2
so,, as you guys have been studying this image for some time, did you also note the anomalies i have pointed out??
if yes, can you point out the thread/page if poss so i can see what the consensus was?


Okay lets see if we can straighten this out here...

The image you linked to above is PIA00094 which is the whole view of Copernicus taken by Lunar Orbiter 5

Now this image has been identified as
"Apollo 12 : JPL image no PIA00094"

In fact it was taken by
Lunar Orbiter 5

Here is the best resolution available from NASA
PIA00094


What Torbjon noticed was that John's image copy of LO-2-162-H3 which is the original image from page one of this thread first posted 13-9-2006, is that even when he reduced it to fit on the Lunar Orbiter 5 image that is labeled PIA00094 it is still higher res than the best NASA version...

ALSO the LO 2 162 images overlays EXACTLY onto the LO 5 image which would mean the two spaceships had exactly the same angle setting...

Yet Lunar Orbiter 1,2 and 3 flew lower according to the defense contractor that made the cameras (ITT)
www.ssd.itt.com...

I personally suspect that they were both taken by LO 2... the PIA version with the 80 mm wide-angle medium-resolution lens and the bigger view of 162 with the 610 mm high-resolution lens

But since the LO 5 shot was renamed to PIA00094 its hard to tell... maybe a task to track it down... NASA has been know to make errors from time to time

Now the image you are looking at the anomalies in is LO-2-162-H3 which if you had taken time to at least read the first couple pages of this thread you would have known and there would be no mixup.

The images are cut into four sections due to the size of the original scan to allow those with dial up to d/l the full res versions

The anomalies that have been found over the past year have been recorded on the living moon site...

The front Menu is here...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

The Copernicus Grid and text menu listing all the anomalies we tracked so far is here....
www.thelivingmoon.com...

At the bottom of that page the anomalies are listed by name
www.thelivingmoon.com...

All the data on the Lunar Orbiter and how the images are created is here
www.thelivingmoon.com...

The anomaly that Sherpa marked is one of the cranes...





Now I hope this clears up your confusion and I hope you take the time to read the first few pages of the thread so you will have the correct information




[edit on 28-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
But the site seems to be down at the moment, Zorgon ?



That's weird its been up no problem from my end... but Mike in India said that too... I hope I am not being 'blocked' in foreign countries




Here is a clip of the area you were looking at with the only thing I noticed highlighted in the red square, however I cannot see your uprights, sorry.




There are similar 'tufts' on the flat graded roadway and are most likely tufts of dust from the mining equipment... here is the study on that and its where we find the derelict excavator and the "Keep"
GRADED ROADWAY

Nice to see a revival of the anomaly hunting in this thread
We never did finish all the sections

And in your image above... look to the lower left corner of your red box..








All credit for tracking down your source image should go to internos because I could not find it so a big thank you to internos who is possibly the worlds best researcher


Ummm why? The source image has been here all along on PAGE ONE posted and hosted by Springer and supplied by John Lear...



I know its an impossibly long thread but ummm page one is mandatory reading


[edit on 28-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Your site is working, at least for me.

I found some days ago a higher resolution (although with less detail) version of the photos from the first page, but I do not remember what site I have found them, I will look for it and I will post it when I find it (again
).




top topics



 
164
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join