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: 43
164
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

NASA says so. if there is no atmosphere on a planet, the shadows have to be dark black. gray shadows are caused by atmospheric interference.


ok , maybe a picture will help :



hi-res

those are the moon no atmosphere

as you can clearly see - the shadow is pure umbral , with no atmospheric reflection

now for comparison , the earth :



hi-res

see the difference ?

both are shot against a relatively flat landscape - with a high Albedo index

the shadow of the snowman is clearly softened by atmospheric reflection - allowing the camera to capture details within the shadow

the one on the moon had no such detail - clear evidence that no atmospheric reflections are occurring .




posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Just a little snippit of what the Russian's are talking about...



Earth's moon is growing an atmosphere Also, the moon is growing an atmosphere that's made up of a compound Dmitriev refers to as ''Natrium.'' Dmitriev says that, around the moon, there is this 6,000- kilometre- deep layer of Natrium that wasn't there before. And we're having this kind of change in Earth's atmosphere in the upper levels, where HO gas is forming that wasn't there before; it simply did not exist in the quantity that it does now. It's not related to global warming and it's not related to CFCs or fluorocarbon emissions or any of that stuff. It's just showing up.

Source


Just a thought, probably nothing...

What about HAARP interfering with the atmospheres? Doen't it do something to the Ionosphere? There are several sites linking Natrium with HAARP, but are all in German, so I can't read what they're about ! Since this Resnick guy did work wth HAARP. Is it possible they would try to alter the atmsophere purposely ?




[edit on 28-10-2006 by violet]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape...both are shot against a relatively flat landscape - with a high Albedo index


Ape, this is a real good college try. It is just that the Albedo of the Moon is low, but the intensity of solar radiation is so high the camera sensitivity still has to be set down far enough to prevent blinding. BTW this picture proves we went to the Moon, since no stars are visible in the background.

Yes, solar radiation is that intense. Recall Skylab? Too many solar panels on that one.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
both are shot against a relatively flat landscape - with a high Albedo index

the shadow of the snowman is clearly softened by atmospheric reflection - allowing the camera to capture details within the shadow

the one on the moon had no such detail - clear evidence that no atmospheric reflections are occurring .


:bangs head against table:

i take it you've skipped over the past 42 pages of this thread? if you didn't, you'd know by now that many people believe that the sky in the moon is airbrushed to look black, along with many other things on the moon. possibly shadows also. it's common knowledge on ATS that NASA employs professional airbrushers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trimmed quote as the pics are still at the top of this page for easy viewing.

[edit on 103131p://upSaturday by masqua]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

i take it you've skipped over the past 42 pages of this thread?


No , I have read it all with steadily increasing mirth



if you didn't, you'd know by now that many people believe that the sky in the moon is airbrushed to look black


Yes , I am aware of the delusions of some ATS members ,

PS :



hi-res

What airbrushing ??


along with many other things on the moon. possibly shadows also.


So if a picture has “ grey shadows “ it is evidence of lunar atmosphere , but if presented with evidence of pictures with black shadows – and the explanation why – you scream “ its NASA tampering “

That sir is ludicrous Ad-Hoc waffle , you are just making it up as you go


it's common knowledge on ATS that NASA employs professional airbrushers.



So chuffing what ? that does not make the claim true .

Now its my turn to bang my head against a wall :

Your original claim was that “ grey “ shadows were evidence of atmospheric scatter and reflection

When presented with photographic evidence that photographs from the moon do not show the “ grey shadows “ you claim they should – if there was an atmosphere

You attempt to dismiss it claiming it was airbrushed – so a question – why wasn’t your “ grey shadow “ picture airbrushed ?

It seems to me you are just throwing out ad-hoc waffle to justify a preconceived belief in “ NASA tampering “ for which you have shown no evidence

Only speculation , innuendo and the appeal to authority that “ it is believed on ats “

Has it entered your head that cliffs and other extreme variations in topography may have created natural reflectors in the pictures that do have “ grey shadows “ ????

Further what is the resolution of your “ grey shadows “ pictures ?

PS :

here is an Iconic Apollo image



hi-res

Note the fact that the shadow is pure black – but the front of Aldrins space suit is illuminated ?

That is because the lunar surface acts as a reflector

As the terrain is relatively flat – it cannot illuminate the terrain at his feet – as the altitude differences are too small .

Also important details in this picture are :

1 : the sky above his left shoulder is clearly not solid black – it has not been airbrushed

2 : this is an archive image – not some cropped or edited scan found on a conspiracists site or in a book . or press release

Read this :

5903_image history


The simple answer is that when Neil took the original photograph, AS11-040-5903, the top of Buzz's OPS was at the top edge of the field-of-view and, therefore, that the original image necessarily does not include the antenna. When the image was prepared for release for publication soon after the mission, it was cropped at the bottom and sides and a black area was added at the top to give the released version visual balance.


See – what you think was airbrushing for nefarious purposes was actually for artistic license – visual balance


Only people who have never done any real research believe the NASA altered the image as part of a conspiracy

As the actual archives show unedited images – always look at the archives – that is basic research protocol

Please peruse the alsj

You will learn something

PS- can you show any evidence that the picture I presented was airbrushed ?

Because you seem to be dismissing it simply because it falsifies your shadow theory

Not because of any evidence it was tampered with .


[edit on 28-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I think this King Mongkut website is pretty straightforward and informative. Thailand has no hidden agenda to keep knowledge from the public as some mainstream sources have been criticized of late.

Note solar radiation outside the Earth's atmosphere is five times as great! And note the predominance of XUV, EUV, FUV, and MUV not present on the Earth.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Apples to oranges...

The atmosphere on Earth is dense with lots of water vapor and several MILES high... hence lots of reflection and dispersal of light rays...

The atmosphere on the Moon at best is a few thousand feet high, little if any water vapor and certainly nowhere near as dense as Earth...

As I say apples to oranges... show me pictures of shadows on other planetary bodies that have only a slight atmosphere... and receive as much solar radiation as the moon does... then we will talk...

And can you tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt at what densitity an atmosphere would have to be before it would show grey shadows? How about a cloudless sky compared to a cloud covered sky thatr diffuses the light? And all that snow on the ground? Try some desert photos on Earth for comparison...

Show me the grey in these shadows...



The above image has not been enhanced or contrast adjusted... and the sun is about the same angle as the first picture you posted [and yes I have that in Hi res here somewhere]

Anyone who has ever taken desert photographs can show you black shadows. I can make black shadows on bright days on Earth, just adjust the contrast as was done in those last two pretty NASA poses above...

But go back and look at the shadow in the first picture you posted... I see a diffused gray area around that "black" shadow quite distinctly... good indicator of a thin atmosphere... Thanks for the picture LOL great evidence for our side





[edit on 28-10-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
as you can clearly see - the shadow is pure umbral , with no atmospheric reflection
now for comparison , the earth :
see the difference ?
both are shot against a relatively flat landscape - with a high Albedo index
the shadow of the snowman is clearly softened by atmospheric reflection - allowing the camera to capture details within the shadow
the one on the moon had no such detail - clear evidence that no atmospheric reflections are occurring .


I'm not wanting to get into this slugfest, but it seems to me that your arguement might have carried more weight if you had not used for comparison a photo of highly reflective snow which would help make the shadows appear more 'grey-like'. The amount of ambient reflectivity bouncing around and off of snow will soften/lighten any shadow...

And are we taking into account that a camera can easily auto adjust/compensate the gamma information before the shot is taken which should easily dismiss a concrete, comparison as both of these shots (regardless if shot on the moon or earth) were taken with differant cameras. The pov of the target subject is to the side and the sun is not directly behind the Snowman/Cameraman (as in the moon shot) so again can't be used as a viable comparison with regards to shadows.

Wouldn't Occams Razor agree with that train of thought?

Sorry and I mean no offense to either side... I'm just someone thats been behind a camera-lense for over 32+ years throwing in his 2cents of curiousity with regards to the subject matter.

[edit on 29-10-2006 by JohnnyAnonymous]

[edit on 29-10-2006 by JohnnyAnonymous]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon... I see a diffused gray area around that "black" shadow quite distinctly... good indicator of a thin atmosphere...


Not necessarily. That could be the penumbra, but the sensitivity of the camera is so low you can't know if the umbra is truly black. The picture is at best inconclusive regarding the presence of an atmosphere on the Moon.

The Lunar atmosphere is so rareified and pure I seriously one could actually photograph any diffusion. The only diffusion would occur at sunrise and sunset when dust becomes ionized and is visible on the horizon. Pitting by micrometorites on glass spheriods indicate that any atmosphere would not be thick enough to provide a barrier. This also holds true for the presence of He3. Yet we see unmistakable evidence of an extensive atmosphere rich in sodium. That would mean it is an extensive thin atmosphere, one I am still not willing to take my helmet off in.

If a human being could decompress to that level, I say let them try. I will watch from the safety of my helmet and visor. If your blood don't boil, then it will fry from the radiation instead. This is what we get for not taking small animals to the Moon. Conjecture and inconclusive results.

Electricity always wins out in the end, ha! Ask any competent scientist and they will tell you the same, and they could be from Bankok as well as from NASA.

So the next question is, just how ionized does the Lunar atmosphere become?

Nice pictures there Ape. I like them for the quality, not leverage in the debate.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Electricity always wins out in the end, ha! Ask any competent scientist and they will tell you the same, and they could be from Bankok as well as from NASA.

So the next question is, just how ionized does the Lunar atmosphere become?

Nice pictures there Ape. I like them for the quality, not leverage in the debate.


You brought up an interesting point, and one that I'd like to elaborate on. According to NASA, the surface of the Moon gets ionized by the Sun, which causes an unusual phenomenon to occur. The dust levitates sometimes meters above the surface of the Moon, causing what a passerby might percieve to be a crude atmosphere.

Moon Fountains

Now, I know that the conspiracy angle on this is that NASA is just covering for the ultra top-secret Black Ops government mining operation going on on the surface of the Moon, but please give this idea some consideration. At the very least, this shows an alternative to an atmosphere. It even begets the question of how our atmosphere came to be. Perhaps our's was brought about by much the same affect. Maybe the Moon is growing an atmosphere??

Just a few thoughts.

TheBorg



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I am going to hit this from the skunkworks angle...

*We have here, a significant body of evidence that finds a potential atmosphere, that could be expanded thru human intervention, and presence.

*We have a group of three men, who have monopolied the moon for potential mining...
One owns an advanced Camoflage company, used by the US military, and foreign interests.

*we have evidence that there is significant resources within a small area

*Enough time and money can do anything, and we see with a very easy prospectis, that mining the moon pays off BIG time.

*We have been told of advanced operations that would be required for these changes in the atmosphere to persist, and these operations are the exact operations with seeming proof...

Logic falters in the face of opposing views that are also seemingly logical, and profitable

for if there is one thing for which we can be certain of the elites, it is that they will abuse monopolies to their favor, everytime...
and in the abscence of oversight, and regulation, operations of this nature are just too sweet to pass up.

in fact, the only thing truly lacking here, is potential evidence of a "consistant milkrun" of the mining products back to earth... (and delivery vessels to perform the run)

but hey, we have much less evidence of spacecraft that are already accepted as being in service (ie: triangles, auroras)

I am forced to reconsider my thinking on this...
Thank you JohnLear, Zorgon, and other persistant researchers.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg...The dust levitates sometimes meters above the surface of the Moon, causing what a passerby might percieve to be a crude atmosphere.


And don't forget this link!

By the lightning and thunderbolts of Jove I think we are on the same page at last Borg!

Ape, how about you? Do you feel scientific? I have an idea.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

but hey, we have much less evidence of spacecraft that are already accepted as being in service (ie: triangles, auroras)

I am forced to reconsider my thinking on this...
Thank you JohnLear, Zorgon, and other persistant researchers.


Thank YOU for that summary


Finding circumstancial evidence has been time consuming, but very interesting. It seems the more I question, the more I dig up...[like the mining rights] and that leads to more links in the chain.

I have noticed another trend too.... NASA seems to have two faces [
]...

On the one hand they make publicity statements that say one thing.... but when you do some serious digging you find an amazing wealth of data that at times even contradicts their own press releases.... yet is still available to the public if you look hard and read a lot of technical papers...

I find this very strange... perhaps it is an indication that secrecy is falling apart...

Another sample of this is Los Alamos National Laboratory... we all remember them right? The place where all those German scientists ended up? The home of the A-bomb and all that cool stuff?

Well seems they have been very busy....there is a database of physics papers and studies available to the public...[note: It IS a federal gov website...so they do monitor traffic] but the topics they are working on are truly amazing. Not that I expect full disclosure, but just extrapolating what they do say.... to what that means they must know or have...

Remember that unusual concentration of zinc on the moon? remember we were "hinting" that to make the moon mine work they would need anti gravity?

A Gravitational Shielding Based upon ZnS:Ag Phosphor

Warp Drive and Anti-Gravity

This is only a couple of samples... but looking at the formulas etc... these boys are serious... granted it is heavy reading and most people will get lost when the tech talk starts [usually paragraph two
] but the titles alone ought to tell you something...

For those who really want to know what they are up to... take the time to search their site and archives. The tip of THIS iceberg is huge...

I will state again that these files are available to the public... but I strongly suggest you read the terms of use page first...

LANL Terms of Use

Main Site Map for Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos National Laboratory Archives



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Lazarus, Borg, it is nice to have you aboard. Let us help those who do not understand and proceed with caution.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I wonder if putting the same altitude in google earth will give a good idea of the resolution.


Hey, when will Google Moon hit the market? That would be a cool toy to play with. What? you know it's just a matter of time...



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
google has a plan to build a moon base within the next 50-60 years. they've had the plans for many years.



4. Is Google Moon a result of your Copernicus initiative?

Glad you asked, and yes, the development of our lunar hosting and research center continues apace. We usually don't announce future products in advance, but in this case, yes, we can confirm that on July 20th, 2069, in honor of the 100th anniversary of mankind's first manned lunar landing, Google will fully integrate Google Local search capabilities into Google Moon, which will allow our users to quickly find lunar business addresses, numbers and hours of operation, among other valuable forms of Moon-oriented local information.

www.google.com...

interesting enough, it's in Copernicus! could it be the moon is currently being mined by google? seriously. they're big enough.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369...could it be the moon is currently being mined by google? seriously. they're big enough.


I think current estimates puts the published satellite population around 820. How many ships were at sea in the Old World before the New World became public knowledge?

Just another case in point.

[edit on 10/31/2006 by Matyas]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369...could it be the moon is currently being mined by google? seriously. they're big enough.


I think current estimaes puts the published satellite population around 820. How many ships were at sea in the Old World before the New World became public knowledge?

Just another case in point.

i'm afraid i'm confused by your analogy. are you stating that there may be 820 satellites registered, but that there may be many more unregistered and flying around secretively?



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
JohnnyAnonymous:

A valid point , but the light intensity during the lunar day , is many magnitudes higher than the light intensity at o7:45 on march 4th 2006 in northern England

And as albedo represents the percentage of received light that is reflected – then I felt some justification to use a more reflective back ground

The Apollo astronauts reported that they could go 2 f-stops lower on the moon than they would have expected .

So I stand by my choice of shot – and its validity to this discussion .



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Zorgon :

The “ camels picture “ – is very pretty – but totally irrelevant , I am well aware of that image

Here is another picture by same artist , same environment , same technique :



Hey grey shadows


Now a Far more relevant
its actually taken in the same plane , and at a similar range



Whoo hoo – grey shadows !

Your art shot – is fro hundreds of feet up , aiming vertically down onto the subject – hardly a reasonable comparison

Plus – it was taken as a FINE ART SHOT by a professional photographer attempting to create exactly the end product you see .

The image file has not been edited – because the picture was shot on slide film and Mr. Steinmetz is vehemently opposed to Photoshop manipulation of his works .

But that does not mean he does not tweak camera settings etc to get the effect he wants – and who knows how many shots were taken – to get that “ perfect one “ that is sold world wide ?

So quite disingenuous for a man crying foul of “ apples and oranges “ comparisons .

BTW – please re read why I posted what I did – it was in direct rebuttal ; to the claims made by ATS member ChocoTaco369


now, if the moon had no atmosphere, all the shadows should be dark black, correct? you can't have gray shadows with no atmosphere. hmmm...


He is / was referring to grey smudges – on very poor resolution shots which have been compressed , then over magnified by ATS members squinting too long at pixels .

And I addressed a number of points in relation to his claim , which were all ignored – bloody typical .


And as for this :


show me pictures of shadows on other planetary bodies that have only a slight atmosphere... and receive as much solar radiation as the moon does... then we will talk...


Would you like them in colour ? or black and white


Unless you are simply trolling and attempting to ask the impossible :

Please specify which celestial body you have in mind ?

The intensity of sunlight is inversely proportional to the square of the distance – so please specify what body fits your criteria

Because it seems to me you are playing silly buggers , and I am not in the mood .


Lastly , For some one so quick to condemn NASA for “ tweaking contrasts “ with no evidence that this ever occurred – other than your wishful thinking

I will say it again , as it obviously isn’t sinking in :

The NASA archive is a warts and all archive –p it includes ALL shots taken ,

Such as :



Captioned “ over exposed “

This and many others have never been published

You and others seem to have got the myth NASA photo tampering from magazine covers and centre spreads – which were edited for visual balance and aesthetic impact

But the archive has never been tampered with – stop being lazy and look


PS :


If the lunar atmosphere is “ Breathable “ , so how “ much thinner “ is it – rather than nebulous hand waving – I would like to here some numbers – because so far you are changing its specification and properties on an ad hoc basis to shooe horn it to fit multiple conflicting demands .

As for your claim of “ little / no water vapour “ – well done , that contradicts the claims of those who see cloud formations in the alleged lunar atmosphere .

You cannot have it both ways .

You claim it does not obscure the display of baileys beads

Nor does it provide any barrier to solar radiation or micro meteorites

But it is breathable

And chocotaco claims it is visibly diffusing shadows to the extent that it can be seen from lunar orbiters .

These are mutually exclusive claims – bloody hand wavers


Lastly :

If this atmosphere is “ breathable “ why does it not show any interaction with lunar dust in the Apollo hi res colour video from later [ 15 , 16 , 17 ] missions – where the rooster tails of the lunar rover can be seen in great detail ?



[edit on 31-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join