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: 87
164
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Hey John, this thread is amazing. Based on what we're talking about here with the mining operations and the fact that you feel that NASA didn't go to the moon, how do you feel about Enterprise Mission and Hoagland, because a lot of his moon artifact beliefs are based around pictures "taken on the moon" by the astro-nots.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by braddman]

[edit on 30-1-2007 by braddman]




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg...I'm just trying to puzzle out how they could manage to do something so monumentally difficult right under our noses, without us noticing..


There was this chap that went down to Antarctica but he was into injecting methane and OD'd at a beer party...

Go ask the godDeSS (Dead Scientists Society) Perseis when she is six feet under!

And consider the ambivalence by the public in a scenario when a giant UFO lands on the W/H lawn and three occupants emerge to give a speech in a foreign tongue then re-enter to depart. At least 50% of the population will be convinced beyond a doubt of its forgery.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by braddman
Hey John, this thread is amazing. Based on what we're talking about here with the mining operations and the fact that you feel that NASA didn't go to the moon, how do you feel about Enterprise Mission and Hoagland, because a lot of his moon artifact beliefs are based around pictures "taken on the moon" by the astro-nots.


I feel NASA didn't go to the moon? Not so.

Apollo's 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 went to the moon
Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 landed on the moon.

Richard Hoagland is my hero. He has done a lot of work
uncovering and exposing artifacts on the moon.

His video Moon-Mars Connection set me off on my search.

He is a good friend and I thank him for all he has done.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Matyas,

Care to explain that a bit more clearly? I can't even begin to understand how that's supposed to clear up how difficult it would be to ferry supplies to the Moon from Earth on a nearly continuous basis. People would notice that, since they're watching the skies. There are several astronomers that watch for space activity all the time. Watching space is what they do.

Just confused is all...

TheBorg



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by braddman
Hey John, this thread is amazing. Based on what we're talking about here with the mining operations and the fact that you feel that NASA didn't go to the moon, how do you feel about Enterprise Mission and Hoagland, because a lot of his moon artifact beliefs are based around pictures "taken on the moon" by the astro-nots.


I feel NASA didn't go to the moon? Not so.

Apollo's 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 went to the moon
Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 landed on the moon.

Richard Hoagland is my hero. He has done a lot of work
uncovering and exposing artifacts on the moon.

His video Moon-Mars Connection set me off on my search.

He is a good friend and I thank him for all he has done.


I aplogize John. I thought you felt as though Apollo didn't land on the moon. (Moon Hoax.) I thought I had read that somewhere in the thread. So you believe the moon landings were legit....

John I'm gonna go see Hoagland at the conference in 2 weeks are you going?

[edit on 31-1-2007 by braddman]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg...Care to explain that a bit more clearly?


Well, I guess I owe you (and the board) an explanation. I got a little carried away with the fun of being melodramatic and enthusiastic because I havn't been here for some time!

You are right on about the sky watchers. In fact if I recall there are at least three separate agencies that monitor the sky 24/7, and if anything unusual happens one of them will know about it.

But these agencies and the people who work for them do not report to the public. And as far as one of "ours", even less so. Add to that my own experiences, such as the recent flyover my house a few years ago by a considerably large slow moving UFO. It was bright, distinct, silent, right over the city in a flight corridor, the whole incident lasted about 10 minutes, but not a single person called in to any station, posted anything, nada, zip.

So the ones who are watching generally don't talk for various reasons, the majority are not watching, and any solid evidence will be met with at least 50% skepticism, hence my scenario. You read it here, I am naming it a gullibility factor.

Now let's consider these launches can be made from Antarctica without looking for documentation as to whether it provides advantages compared to the equator. There many launches can be made without even the aforementioned agencies detecting them, or any other foreign power for that matter.

Now for advantages. Why put so much hardware on the Moon? Well, if I was in charge of military operations for a budding superpower in the beginning of a cold war I would be looking for leverages other than the ultimate weapon, and the Moon represents the ultimate highground and contains the ultimate element of surprise.

And launches from the South Pole also reduces energy expenditure as it can be used as a natural magnetic boost for a gauss gun plus the added feature of reduced risk to health for personell and electronics since it circumvents the radiation belts. True, you won't get the Earth spin, but polar orbits were used for various purposes before, thus proving it can be done.

Am I a little clearer now?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Matyas,

Much clearer, and thank you for that. While I can somewhat understand how a polar launch could be accomplished, I'm left now to wonder if anyone has checked into this as a possibility. Has there been any recent activity around Antarctica in relation to such an endeavor? And if so, does anyone have pictures? Not to mention, wouldn't we still be able to see the craft as they approach the Moon? Or are they hidden by a backside approach?

These are just a few of the questions that might arise out of this possibility. I do appreciate the time you've taken in further explaining that for me. It DID help a lot. Thanks again.

TheBorg



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg...Or are they hidden by a backside approach?


I have already considered this part of your deeper inquiry. The backside is ideal for concealment, add to this reduced energy cost in comparison to Earth launched waves of missiles. That is why I doubt the Chinese will make it to the Moon, not any time soon. We will have a cold war with them first and you have ten years to see if I am right.

So, in my opinion it always has been a top secet military operation, and is meant to be continued as such in the forseeable future. This is just to test the public's technical access skills which may compromise security.

Edit fo' gram'er & spel. Me were noked out.

So, did I throw a monkey wrench in here? I know how to tell...

[edit on 1/31/2007 by Matyas]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
Has there been any recent activity around Antarctica in relation to such an endeavor? And if so, does anyone have pictures? Not to mention, wouldn't we still be able to see the craft as they approach the Moon? Or are they hidden by a backside approach?
TheBorg


Well I'd like to interject that if we are to believe that we can have a large (or small) craft be able to make frequent trips from undisclosed (if not desolate) areas, it would stand to reason (at least in my opinion) that were using a stealth and cloaking technology to hide these trips/projects.

I've been kept apprised of some wonderful "see-thru" technology being developed out of Japan that is truly amazing. Now if we assume that any technology gets released to the public usually 15-35 years after it's initial development (as I was told once by a former High-Ranking Officer of R&D), then I could see how it would be extremely easy for many past years that it's being utilized in 'cloaking' any number of devices land or air based..



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
Has there been any recent activity around Antarctica in relation to such an endeavor?



Please google (or your favorite search engine): NASA Cargo Antarctica Pegasus



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
this is interesting.....





In 1960, the USGS established an astrogeology program on behalf of NASA to support lunar and planetary exploration. A prime activity of the program is the systematic mapping of the stratigraphy and structure of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the moons of the outer planets.

Many USGS maps of the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Venus, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are now available for purchase by the public. These maps are in the Miscellaneous Investigations (I) Series.

The maps include geologic, topographic, photomosaic, and shaded-relief maps.

The scales, projections, and sheet sizes of these maps vary widely.



from :

erg.usgs.gov...

and


So 9 years BEFORE Apollo the USGS was already creating topographical and mining maps of the Moon - Zorgon


from : [url=http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Cosmic_Conspiracy2.html]http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Cosmic_Conspiracy2.html[/ur l]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
So anyhow, the boosters are refitted with MHD generators that produce a powerful magnetic field shaving off some fuel use and they finally get all this hardware up onto the Moon, then what happens? It starts breaking down, here, there, everywhere a breakdown because of the dust. Timelines are hampered, the mission goes critical. A new plan is needed, one where the dust can be repelled from the equipment. Powerful electrostatic charges are applied to equipment in the sites and "clouds" of electrostatically charged dust form that has nowhere to go.

Meanwhile on Earth other compartments of the defense industry for their respective superpowers are working out strategies for global thermonucler war. And there are other watchers who feel Earth is their home too, so something must be done!

Deals are made, the noose of secrecy grows even tighter, nuclear testing in space is outlawed, the Moon project is diminished or discontinued, and MAD becomes the new doctrine. But it is too late for the Moon, we already have a stake in her, so we follow up with a few checks during the Apollo era. This becomes a great time to play the political card and garner international support.

'Twould make a great sci-fi story a la Tom Clancey style, don'cha tink?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

and can you cite evidence that " the russians say it is ready to fly "



Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: Reply with quote [Mark post as unread]
What many Americans don't know or choose to ignore is that Buran was maintained by the Russian military in flight ready status, ready to fly on 3 days notice, until it was handed over to Kazakhstan on January 1, 2000. It wasn't shut down in 1988 as some people claim. I already posted my email to KBKhA; they retained plans, jigs, etc., do need a new CNC milling machine but are willing to swallow the cost of retooling on the condition they get a solid order for new engines.
SOURCE


Ptichka, like Buran 1.01, is now the property of Kazakhstan after a space shuttle for credit agreeement (yes it's true!). While photos of her are exceedingly scare, she can nevertheless be easily recognised from Buran 1.01 by the red fixtures along her payload bay doors and her forward tile pattern variations.

Ptichka has always been stored with great care at the Baikonur Space Port in the MIK Building. She may have been moved from this facility, however, as the picture below would seem to indicate she is outside and on an Energia


SOURCE


Russia To Bring Space Shuttle Back From The Grave

Last week Energia, the state company which built Buran, opened its hangars at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan to show Western aerospace engineers that Buran is ready and waiting for relaunch....

Energia built two Buran shuttles and three main boosters to carry them. While the Soviet Union was crumbling around them, Energia's engineers continued to get funding because the military saw Buran as vital to any missile defence system similar to America's Star Wars. Buran's only imported component was heat-resistant paint....


SOURCE



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Digging through some old photos I found this picture of Venus from Venera 10. This is the image released to the American public at the time....



The "excuse" is now...

Soviet space images are sometimes printed in astonishingly degraded forms. This is partially the result of generation loss, and partly an effect of cold-war-era propaganda. Sometimes the only available glimpse of a device or an image from space is a photocopy from a Russian journal. The image above is the version released to the American public via NASA. This image is STILL on the NASA website about the Venera 10 Mission at NSSCD

This is what the picture actually looked like...



All the old Venusian images I have been able to find are HERE including the full size versions.

Its not the moon, but it shows a tendancy for NASA to "hide the truth" Sure it wasn't popular back then to let the Russians scoop us....


What I want to know is why does it look so small? The camera is wide angle to be sure, but it still looks to small... you can see the rocks at the foot of the craft and the horizon and sky in both upper corners....

Strange....

[edit on 1-2-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Okay I want to talk about a Lunar Orbiter image that has gotten only a little attention


LO-V-168H



The Story According to NASA

Lunar Orbiter 5, Frame 168-H2
NSSDC Image Catalog

Downslope boulder trail and boulder on the Moon

Lunar Orbiter 5 image of a boulder (just right of center) which has rolled and slid down a slope and left a trail on the Moon's surface. This is within the crater Vitello, and demonstrates the small role that such processes, called gravity wasting, have on the lunar surface. The main source of surface modification on the Moon is meteorite and micrometeorite bombardment. North is up.

SOURCE

[edit on 1-2-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   


Here are a few comments..



UFO Evidence Forums
UFOBeliever
5/21/2005 7:02:05 PM

Alien Machine Caught On Moon In 1967.

On August 17, 1967, satellite Orbiter 5 took the following image of the moon. It shows an object that has left a definite “track” in the lunar surface. NASA said it was a rock that rolled downhill and left the track in the lunar surface. But there are some serious flaws with that explanation.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

1) Looking at the “track” it left behind, the object is the same width as the track. Rolling rocks leave imprints that are narrower than their width. If it was something rolling, it must have had a cylindrical shape rather than a ball.

2) If you look at the “track”, the object went straight through a depressed part of the terrain without altering course or simply getting stuck in the depression. Then it went uphill out of the depression and continued in a smooth, undisrupted path.

3) How does a rolling rock leave such a complex pattern seen in its “track”? If it was a rock that’s round enough to roll that distance, then what kind of “tread pattern” could a rock possibly have to leave such a pronounced “track” that is the same width as the rock itself?

They knew about the alien activity on the moon way back then .


MORE OUTSIDE COMMENTS HERE Please take the time to read them...



The comments above missed a few interesting things about the trail of the object and the object itself. First the trail starts in the shadows [depression] near the top and it curves through several changes in altitude. Also the reflection of sunlight from the object is bright and intense, giving a slight asterism effect. But most important is the shadow! As mentioned in the comments above, this object based on the scale of the image, must be huge. But look at the shadow. This object must be very tall as well. The sunlight is at a low angle, to be sure, but compared to other objects in the area this one is very tall.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Nice discussion BTW TheBorg and Matyas


I will pick up on it next day off... its really busy for me the next few days...


Object Number Two

There is a second object in the same photo to the right. This one is much smaller, but the track is similar in pattern, it also changes direction, goes into depressions, climbs out of depressions and goes over hills. It makes an "S" shaped path that avoids craters.






Now NASA calls these "moving boulders" but neglects to tell us how a rock that's bigger than several houses across [based on the scale of the Lunar Orbiter images] can move, let alone go up and down hills and curve past craters.

Opinions?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Gravity is much weaker on the moon than what it is on the Earth's surface. Therefore, the boulders would behave differently when moving. They might bounce more, leaving differently shaped patterns in the dirt than we're used to on terrestrial soil.

Just because things behave a certain way here doesn't mean that they do the same everywhere. That would be a narrow-minded approach, and one that I'm not willing to even consider, since it'd be proposterous to assume something that we have no idea about. We can always guess, but being the creatures that we are, we fear change. Anything that jeapordizes said change isn't met with optimism as it should be. Rather, it's met with hostility and shunned, all because people aren't willing to admit they are wrong.

Well, I'm willing to admit that, but only after I'm proven wrong. If someone thinks I'm wrong, then by all means, prove it. This, I think, is the way that ALL people should think.. Then again, for me to push that would make me as bad as those that I am griping about. Which is why I'll instead say that it's my opinion, and you are all welcome to take from it what you will.

Sorry for the ramble, but I felt the clarification was necessary. Thanks for listening.

TheBorg



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
FYI regarding the shadow, just because the shadow is long, doesn't mean the object is tall. If the sun is at a steep angle it would cause this.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Wow on the Lunar Orbiter image.
I never heard about this before. Thanks for posting it.



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join