John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

It's just some rocks, I'm sure. I thought it looked kinda cool.

I was really just posting the LROC link for anyone who cared to look.

ETA: I didn't "zoom"... it's pixel-for-pixel from the LROC mosaic.

edit on 13-7-2012 by Zarniwoop because: (no reason given)

Guess what if you can see pixels you HAVE zoomed to much

^ I want to apologize for the above statement I didn't realize there are 275 pages to sort through with probably a few dozen with original photos posted over time. I'm curious as of now if anyone can direct me to the most astonishing photos of clearly what look like non natural formations but ruins or structures still left. The highest resolutions as well. Just to save me from gong through this many pages. Or of different threads you can link me too. This sites been up for years and if anyone wants to link, please do so. No trolling or "Look for it yourself" please. I'm not up for newbie hazing.. especially since I'm not really new. Just haven't been on in years and I believe I just browsed but may have created an account with an older name. edited: oops Please-K thanks

so cool!!! Why arent we exploring the moon more?

so cool!!! Why arent we exploring the moon more?

reply to post by stew4media


This is the best place to start I think.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

There's other stuff out there, and this isn't totally up to date (not sure if they still do updates), but it's a huge compilation, and even if they're "reaching" on alot of stuff, it'll get your eye on the right track of looking for anomalies yourself, and being able to for your own conclusion on whether you think there's something interesting in amages. Start with section 1, and work your way down all those links. And many of those links will bring you to other links. Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole, don't hurt yourself on the way down. lol

And I'd like to offer just one or two tips before jumping in: Understand that the labels these guys put on things are tounge-in-cheek, and even if it's not, and they are saying outright that something "IS" something, it still really is tounge-in-cheek because without ground truth you can't look at a series of light and dork pixels and tell what they're used for. Yes, maybe there is interesting geometry that may even appear to be artificial, but there's no way to tell what they are other than "worth looking into".

The only time you can really start making educated guesses on what things actually are, is when you're looking at a ground level, close-up image, only then do I put any stock in the labels put on these "anomalies", like the image of Shorty "crater" from Apollo 17 you may come across in your journey. Now THAT'S an image you can start putting definitive labels on some things.

And the last tip, when looking at anomalies from satelite images, you can used google earth as a great way to make comparisons to similar things you know for sure were artificially constructed here on Earth, from the same angle.

Enjoy......and hey, a little extra tip.....don't let it drive you crazy. And don't push the issue with people you know in real life. If you see they aren't open to it immediately, drop it. Because you have no idea how crazy this stuff sounds to someone not open to it, which is ALOT of people.

reply to post by stew4media


Hi If you want to see the Moon in some real detail look here.

LRO Target Map

Link here to show how to use it quickly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Resolution is up to 50cm/pixel will not be long till full Moon has been pictured at this resolution none of John Lear's claimed Moon buildings ,roads,quarries or machines have shown up yet

reply to post by Springer


Hi John
I was wondering if you can tell me if there are any strange anomalys that I could get pictures of using my own telescope ? I just did a thread a couple of days ago called my moon pics with iPhone and $600 telescope.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I was trying to show ATSers that if I can get this quality from my back yard for that kind of money then why aren't we getting better pictures from NASA.
I would love to be able to gets some strange images myself.
Is there any areas you could recommend that I should point my scope towards that may be large enough for me to phograph?
Here's a picture to give you an idea I how close I can get


I know you have spent a lot of time exploring the moon and would love to get your input on weather I can get some of the strange things you have found
I have a moon map so all I need is some areas worth viewing
Thanks for all the work you have done and the risks you take

reply to post by jaffer44



Hello.

According to his profile, John hasn't logged onto ATS since...

Last Visit: February 29, 2008

You can pretty easily find his email address if you google it.

Good luck in your searches.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Thanks for the info I will do that

Originally posted by jaffer44
reply to post by Springer

 

Hi John
I was wondering if you can tell me if there are any strange anomalys that I could get pictures of using my own telescope ? I just did a thread a couple of days ago called my moon pics with iPhone and $600 telescope.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I was trying to show ATSers that if I can get this quality from my back yard for that kind of money then why aren't we getting better pictures from NASA.

Well your statement about NASA is BS here is a link to images you can only dream about taking!!!

LRO Target Map

If you want images like John claims it's simple, take a not so hi resolution image zoom in as much as possible open your mind so your brains fall out and then let your imagination take over, then like John you will see what you want to see and not what is actually there!

If your not sure how to use the LRO link look here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am posting here because it is a good thread.

I will come back in a few years and see how it has progressed.

I also wonder if the moon really is being strip mined.

reply to post by magma

I also wonder if the moon really is being strip mined.

If you are referring to the alleged strip mining in Copernicus crater, which started this thread...

or this thread...

Lunar Strip Mine in John Lear's Moon Photos??

Then it is highly doubtful. Here is a great LROC image of the area in question. None of the artifacts mentioned seem to be there in this high resolution pic.

LROC view of Copernicus Crater

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks to everyone for a great response to the photo of Copernicus.

In regards to what I see in the picture I would like to tell you a little story.

I used to show this same picture (Copernicus2) to Bob Lazar. He thought I was nuts pointing various objects I claimed were ‘something’.

One day, after showing him some more ‘objects’, as I was leaving his house he said, “You know John, I am going to have to kill myself if any of this stuff (moon stuff) turns out to be true.

I quickly had him sign a statement to that effect, dated August 23, 1996.

About 2 years later I found, what Bob calls ‘a box’ but which I called something else. After looking at it for several minutes Bob said, “Well that certainly doesn’t belong there”.

I reviewed our contract and told him that although I enjoyed having him as a friend that I expected him to fulfill his end of the bargain and kill himself.

He asked how he might save his life. I said just sign this, and gave him this note to sign which he did, August 5, 1998.

August 5, 1998

I, Bob Lazar, in return for not having
to honor my commitment to kill myself
if any of "John's moonstuff was true"
do FREELY ADMIT that the object in the
crater Copernicus on the moon saved as
"applecrate" is a box which I don't know
what is doing there.

(signed)
Bob Lazar

What I found and showed to Bob, and what caused him to sign the above statement is on the edge of the uppermost terrace of Copernicus2 slightly to the left of center. If you can’t find it in 2 years, I will show you where it is.

I have been reading this thread and thought this was quite funny. I think Bob and John would make a good comedy duo in Vegas, maybe for the workers that commute on the planes that are waiting for take-off to go to area 51

reply to post by Chaz


I know this was in 06 but with all there is to read on ATS, I just found this. WOW! Upper right hand in the pic someone reposted it looks like a star on the moon.
This pic to me is the weirdest. I know it is not what it looks like to me. To me it looks like a woman walking. Nice find..

Very nice images indeed. John, I have a little idea that I have been kicking around for years. It's crazy...so I know you'll like it. I mentioned it to some fellow engineering friends of mine as we were sitting around having a few beers, some of them are/were in aerospace, some in defense(not that there is much difference), etc., and myself which is unimportant. It was to build and launch on a small amateur rocket with a camera system that could be deployed to the moon. NOW... of course there was immediate uproarious laughter simultaneously from around the table and an emphatic...WHAT?? I continued to explain that readily available technology had now reached a point where this could be done relatively cheaply and I thought a group of reasonably well funded amateurs could do it. Effectively an amateur 60's lunar orbiter with better resolution. They all sat back in their seats for a moment and didn't say anything for what seemed like a long time. These are all very, no.... VERY, bright fellows and I knew from my own experience as an engineer on many projects that their minds had immediately gone into design mode. When an engineer gets quiet....look out! One sat forward(who worked at Goddard for a few years) and said, "Well...how much of a payload do you think it would require?" I said, "Well, as you know the LRO was something like 1 ton, but it's a NASA long dwell design with a bunch of extra crap on it that we really wouldn't need. This wouldn't have to survive very long. I think, for redundancy sake several very high density cameras, and maybe some infrared would do the trick, we're not on a mapping mission like LRO (supposedly. I say that because there was more to it than that.) was, I was just thinking of taking some very good Hi-Res imagery. And then run away as fast as possible. Nothing terribly sophisticated. More like the small 60's lunar orbiters. Small, light, with easy power requirements only with modern technology. Or possibly even a cluster of small devices that could in affect be...well like disposable cameras for space. Once they sent back the images. Who cares." They all got quiet again... kind of softly shaking their heads in mild disdain (again doing the engineering in their heads) When one of the others spoke up and said, "You know it's not as crazy as it sounds. It wouldn't be cheap, but I really can't think of a reason why it couldn't be done." Well anyway, it degenerated into a technical discussion if CCD technology would work and temperature stabilization and telemetry and guidance and on and on. But, since then(several months) there has been rather fervent activity among us to actually try and get this done. Early stages yet mind you. Although, we even have a pretty good deal of funding from a corporate third party. Who might quite possibly want to use this as a tremendous ad campaign. Now this would have to be done well...shall we say...as a civilian black project. At least at first. If they can go deep black why can't we? I'll keep you apprised of how it goes. Probably shouldn't say anything on here about it, but what the hell. If they can't even get Benghazi figured out they don't have much change of catching me any time soon. Take care. -Proto

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by stew4media

 

Hi If you want to see the Moon in some real detail look here.

LRO Target Map

Link here to show how to use it quickly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Resolution is up to 50cm/pixel will not be long till full Moon has been pictured at this resolution none of John Lear's claimed Moon buildings ,roads,quarries or machines have shown up yet

Most people who follow this stuff over any length of time speculate that an ongoing coverup has been applied to the subject of ancient (or even current) artificial structures on the Moon.

The theory is that during the 1960's and 1970's, outside of establishment agencies and organisations there was virtually no access to the levels of technology available to anyone today.

The coverup specifically in relation to imagery of the Moon taken during the 1960's and 1970's was in effect, but was very crude and unsophisticated..basic manipulation to 'revealing' images was even carried out using sticky tape placed over sections, and very crude and manual editing by eye...of course, nobody in the general public had access to digital means of enhancement, and the best that was available was a magnifying glass to look at the fairly low quality images.

NASA and the rest, couldn't foresee the levels of computing power available at our fingertips today, so the crude editing and obfuscation they used back then was adequate to hide the most obvious anomalies, with the much less obvious ones being overlooked and considered unimportant.

Those harder to recognise anomalies are easier to see now with the technology at our disposal of course.

Too late for the coverup types, as all the images were released during the low tech period...so they are out in the wild so to speak.

That's not the case for recent and future imagery though is it..which means of course, that 50cm/pixel or even 1cm/pixel res isn't going to make the slightest difference to debunking ANYTHING, as the theory quite clearly incorporates obfuscation, which is now very sophisticated indeed...much higher tech is available to those doing the hiding, than for those doing the searching...it's like a complete 180 compared to the images from 5 or 6 decades ago.

Even the Human element has been removed to a degree, as powerful and dedicated software is tasked with obscuring these anomalies, and it is far more effective than the Human eye at locating and then convincingly hiding what it finds.

If someone believes a coverup is in effect, they are certainly not going to believe imagery is not being expertly tampered with by agencies with Billions at their disposal if that is their intent are they?

Even 1mm/pixel resolution wouldn't make a blind difference to finding anomalies or reasonably be thought of as a difinitive tool to debunk or prove the non-existence of Lunar anomalies, if the technology designed to hide them is advancing at the same rate as the image quality...which it probably is.

A cover-up is a cover-up...the reasons for it don't ultimately matter, the fact that it happens is what's important.

reply to post by Protoculture

reply to post by solidshot


I believe the quality of camera's has since then advanced.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Lol for what ?

reply to post by youwillneverknow


Because since apollo 18, the astronauts were warned off by aliens that have been stationed there.