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: 248
164
<< 245  246  247    249  250  251 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
Why don't you show us a four dimensional image like undo said ..


Z can lead you to the water, but you have to the drinking. He is not a god ya know...yet...

Or you can listen to me. I am just as every bit as capable too.

Any extra element can be considered to be an extra dimension. A 2D object exhibits the third as perspective, the fourth as depth (usually it can flip), the fifth as a further derivative of the fourth, perhaps color as the sixth and all subsequent dimensions of coloring, shading, texturing, etc.

Heck, if you doused it with perfume that would add an extra dimension. But picturing all that morning breath on the monitors gives me the creeps...

But of course! Of course! You already knew that! O-K, I got it, you're the paparazzi of de bunker class. 'Fraid I can't help ya there, mate.




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Flat images. Any interpretation, shading, perspective, color, whatever....is generated solely through the "best guess" of your mind; with it's associated expectations, experiences, and desires.

You can claim it has all the dimensions you want to imagine. The fact remains, no amount of "head tilt", binocular vision, or other attempts to "see" the image will reveal true perspective and depth. Can't do it.

Yes, undo...I can in fact see houses in an aerial photo and make a very good determination as to there placement. Because I actually have the experience of seeing houses, from both ground level and above. It's very good experience, happens on a daily basis. Lacking any such experience about the moon, Mars, or any other celestial body....drawing conclusions from the available images is at best a W.A.G.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Any extra element can be considered to be an extra dimension. A 2D object exhibits the third as perspective, the fourth as depth (usually it can flip), the fifth as a further derivative of the fourth, perhaps color as the sixth and all subsequent dimensions of coloring, shading, texturing, etc.


You just wrote your self a ticket to the "no credibility" zone. The third dimension is the depth. Smell, colors and texturing is just for your senses/amusement and has nothing to do with dimensions.

Glad I could help..


Heck, if you doused it with perfume that would add an extra dimension. But picturing all that morning breath on the monitors gives me the creeps...


If you spray your pictures with perfume, you add smell ( a sense ), not dimension.



But of course! Of course! You already knew that! O-K, I got it, you're the paparazzi of de bunker class. 'Fraid I can't help ya there, mate.


I've been working professionally with design and imagery for 12 years. So yes, I know what I am dealing with. Do you?

Btw: what's a paparazzi of a debunker class?


[edit on 20-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by internos
 


The jagged lines going roughly from the upper left to the lower right corner are images of alien soul manifestations commonly found on the Moon. Skeptics will say that's just defects of photoemulsion, but don't listen to them for a second.

Since you replied to me, here's my 2 cents.
If i was interested in an asinine answer, i wouldn't post this question on ATS. PLease, be nice, ignore me if you are UNABLE to provide a serious answer to my serious question, and BTW you are unable to distinguish a photo from a CGI so your opinion is the last one to which i'm interested. Pheraps you think to be BETTER just because you're sceptic, and i admit that you have good bases in the field of PHISICS: but keeep away when you talk about IMAGES with me, unless your purpose is to make me laugh.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Hello All,

I am definitely no expert, but it appears to me that there is a small city in three different levels/terraces along the left side of the #4 image, clean cuts along the edges of very flat bottom valleys, with crossroads and many right angles and rectangular looking structures. The edge of the photo cuts through the lowest and biggest flat spot, the second level moving up and to the right appears to have a rather tall structure in the left corner casting a shadow also with straight lines. These flat bottoms look too flat to be natural and at the third level there appears to be five evenly spaced excavations or craters of roughly the same size and some spillage down into the flat valley bottom. However, they look abandoned as there are some craters in the flat areas.

Also, has anybody watched the apollo fly by video of the alien craft or the video of the moon structures that are currently on youtube? If these things have already been mentioned...sorry, I have little desire to read through the mountain of comedy.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Internos, just take it easy, will ya. I like most of your posts and if I thought that a scratchy photo was a little funny, well, that's just that. Relax.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Hey Zorgon, have you looked at the photo i emailed to you? If you like, please post it here for further viewing..thanks



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377The third dimension is the depth. Smell, colors and texturing is just for your senses/amusement and has nothing to do with dimensions.


So, you are saying magic eye is depth, and not an extra dimension? Perhaps we are defining dimension differently.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by internos
 


Internos, just take it easy, will ya. I like most of your posts and if I thought that a scratchy photo was a little funny, well, that's just that. Relax.

buddhasystem, you just can't ask this to me, plain and simple. Frankly, i was expecting a possible explanation from you: i'm always fair and i join a discussion just in case i have something to add to it. If i have NOTHING to add, i just SHUT UP. I like how you discuss with John and Ron, and i already said that you got BASIS, reliable ones, so i will always respect what you post here dude, keeep it in mind next times, please. I'm just disappointed because i was expecting much more from you, and since you joked with my last post, all i can do is to think that you aren't taking me seriously. And i don't like to not be taken seriously.


[edit on 21/1/2008 by internos]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
and since you joked with my last post, all i can do is to think that you aren't taking me seriously. And i don't like to not be taken seriously.


It looks like your ego got the best of you in the face of my (arguably) poor attempt at humor. If it helps any, I don't take myself too seriously, so I can't be asked to do what I really can't. Post more pics, I always enjoy that bit. You are on this side of the credibility line, and let's leave it at that.



[edit on 21-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

It looks like your ego got the best of you in the face of my (arguably) poor attempt at humor. If it helps any, I don't take myself too seriously, so I can't be asked to do what I really can't. Post more pics, I always enjoy that bit. You are on this side of the credibility line, and let's leave it at that.



[edit on 21-1-2008 by buddhasystem]

No. There are no ego issues here. I've posted a photo, you joked about it and i got disappointed to say the lest: anyway, i think that he moon is a ROCK, i think that we landed there and i dislike the people who make otrageous claimings about the Moon, especially when they have ZERO evidences. Ah, by the way i think that you are one of our best conributors, you're just too against John, if you ask me. Anyway, i gave you stars in the past and i'll keep on giving you stars when you would deserve it in the future. Forget my photo, carry on and and end of story.


[edit on 21/1/2008 by internos]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by cockadoodledo
Hey Zorgon, have you looked at the photo i emailed to you? If you like, please post it here for further viewing..thanks


Yup I have and I will but I am extremely busy at this time I have not forgotten... I actually have a back log of several people who have sent photos some Via snail mail . I will try to catch up in the next few weeks



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
i think that he moon is a ROCK, i think that we landed there and i dislike the people who make otrageous claimings about the Moon, especially when they have ZERO evidences.









posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by internos
i think that he moon is a ROCK, i think that we landed there and i dislike the people who make otrageous claimings about the Moon, especially when they have ZERO evidences.







Naa Ron not talking about you nor John, come on



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
Naa Ron not talking about you nor John, come on



I didn't say a word


What do you think of the Martian Rat ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
edit: moved response to the appropriate thread.
Sorry.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
You just wrote your self a ticket to the "no credibility" zone. The third dimension is the depth. Smell, colors and texturing is just for your senses/amusement and has nothing to do with dimensions.

Glad I could help..


Well it wasn't much help really.... and Matt forgot to add sound to that list
And if you keep adding those that know more than you the the "no credibility" zone... how will you ever learn




To approach the sound dimension of an architectural project is to integrate a dynamic, omnipresent, impalpable and invisible dimension.


European conference « Building with sounds » - March 17 and 18, 2005
www2.urbanisme.equipement.gouv.fr...

Research Report
mqutry is to charactenze the salient dimensions of odor perception by ... mental work on smell-sound correspondences Juh^z (1926) sug- ...
www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00450.x

WNYC - Books: Brand Sense: Build Powerful Brands through Touch ...
The human being has at least five tracks—image, sound, smell, taste, and touch. .... touch, and smell we’d add another hugely substantial dimension?

All Refs on Smell - Jofish - Not for redistribution
Williams Joseph M Synesthetic adjectives Langugage 52 461 (1976) -- Descriptive words go touch-->taste-->smell and dimension/colour sound in there too. ...
alumni.media.mit.edu/~jofish/thesis/reflist.html


MIT that last one... I guess you better put THEM on your "no credibility" zone

Either that or do a simple google research before commenting... that is how you can best Deny Your Ignorance...


Now back to the MOON



Btw: what's a paparazzi of a debunker class?


Paparazzi is a plural term (paparazzo being the singular form) for photographers who take candid photographs of celebrities, usually by relentlessly shadowing them in their public and private activities.

Wikipedia

I am sure you can figure out the rest?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Zorgon, you really are a one trick pony. By all means necessary, you drag unrelated/irrelevant/distracting factoids into the discussion when your argument base runs dry (which is typically is).

You posted a bunch of disjoint links regarding synestetic metaphors, like "sound dimension", in quotes like


Originally posted by zorgon
To approach the sound dimension of an architectural project is to integrate a dynamic, omnipresent, impalpable and invisible dimension.


This, I would say, adds another dimension to your character, Zorgon. You see just how multi-dimensional you are?


Originally posted by zorgon
Williams Joseph M Synesthetic adjectives Langugage 52 461 (1976) -- Descriptive words go touch-->taste-->smell and dimension/colour sound in there too. ...


Same here. You want to present a linguistic exercise as some kind of study into imaging and photography. Just how desperate you are?


MIT that last one... I guess you better put THEM on your "no credibility" zone


When you really get desperate, you even give credit to teh accursed MAINSTREAM SCIENCE which is typically an anathema to you. Hypocrisy? Methinks, yes.


Either that or do a simple google research before commenting... that is how you can best Deny Your Ignorance...


You did indeed a simple google search and that's the degree of your expertise in most matters. In face of the evidence that can only be charactersized as overwhelming, I must admit that google search by itself, obviously, is incapable of fixing anybody's ignorance. Especially yours.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Um, yeah, thank you Z, I wasn't around to defend myself lately. But seriously, there is no need to worry about my "cred"... and these jokers can't add diddly to it....


Still though, so nice to know you are there to watch my back.
We all should be like that for each other...



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Here is a cross post from within this forum along with some other enhancements. Please check out the video...

First, the video-

uk.youtube.com...

"By the way this is a video of a thing that i capture with meade lx 200 gps 10inc telescope on yhe moon seems to me
standing on its four legs it is the darkest obeject in the video I dont think you can miss it"

My captures:

Raw:








[edit on 30-1-2008 by rocksarerocks]



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 245  246  247    249  250  251 >>

log in

join