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.

 

A moon with a view!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Hello every one. This is my first post on this great site.
Does any one remember Richard Hoaglands a Moon with a view?
I was just wandering when the last part is going to be released because i've been waiting almost a year for it! What do you all think about it? I find it very interesting.


___________________________________________________
Edit: Here is a link sorry: www.enterprisemission.com...

[edit on 18-10-2006 by SKUNK]




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Has no one looked at the link??? It's more interesting than the pyramid crap.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by SKUNK]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Interesting shots of Iapetus, though IMO some of the close-ups are extremely grainy and hard to make out. My red flags go up when anyone shows me a photo of some gray sand and out-of-focus rocks and then paints red arrows on top with labels such as "architectural features", "tall boxed rooms", or as found elsewhere on ATS, C3-P0's head on the moon, etc.

The truth is, due to a fractal and generalization granualrity of an infinite combination of caolesced granules, if you looked long and hard enough, waited for (or generated) the right lighting, etc., eventually you could find a rock among gazillions of rocks that are square, show a resemblence to a human face, C3PO's head, whatever. Thsi is where we get the crackpots on eBay aking money from potato chips, toast, burnt marshmalloes, etc that "look like jesus", etc. There was a post on ATS not long ago about this specific topic.

Nevertheless, thanks for bringing it to our attention. IMO I really liked the photos of the 'great wall" on Iapetus - though my gut feeling there is a geologic explanation rather than the conclusion suggested on the site: "It MUST artificial and of alien origin!!!" My guess, and it's just a guess, that the little moon was slammed pretty hard by celestial collision with another moon/comet et al, and we are looking at the aftermath. Unlike the moon(s) that formed Saturn's rimgs, Iapetus was damaged severely but anaged to stay in one piece....



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I fail to see any resemblance to anything on the surface of the moon to anything artificial. I do admit the the ridge that runs along the equator of the moon is intriguing although i do belive that there must be a natural explanation for this. (It does look like the Death Star, although a coincidence, which is cool!!
)

If you look at the surface of any planet there will be features that look like they could be artificial but this is largely due to the angle of the taken image to the surface, the lighting and mankinds longing imagination. This also bears some credance to the coincidences of Arthur C Clarkes novel 2001: A Space Odyssey to the moon; but thats all they are - coincidences.

I admit I have only read parts 1 and 2 but after reading the 'evidence' laid out in these parts I couldn't bring myself to waste any more of my time!



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK
Has no one looked at the link??? It's more interesting than the pyramid crap.


SKUNK,
Regarding the apparent lack of interest, I can't speak for anyone else but I've had all of Hoagland's ridiculousness that I can stand. Your inclusion of his name in your opening post ensures that I won't be checking out your link.

Sorry.

Harte



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Those photos on that site are actually four photos put together. At least according to this site they are.

sci.esa.int...

“This view is a composite of four images taken in the optical part of the spectrum.”

If you look at a full shot of the moon it doesn’t seem to have that magical wall.

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Maybe some one did a bad job putting the images together and accidentally made a ridge.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
SKUNK Here is a link on ATS about this subject. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
SKUNK,
Regarding the apparent lack of interest, I can't speak for anyone else but I've had all of Hoagland's ridiculousness that I can stand.


It's good than you only speak for yourself. Why do you trust NASA when they say there are not artificial structures on mars when we keep catching them telling blatant lies about so many other Mars related topics? They lie about the atmospheric colour, they lie about standing water not being possible there and they keep denying there is life when it's so blatantly obvious that there is. Richard Hoagland has been right about all these things thus making him a far more credible source than most people who work at NASA.


Your inclusion of his name in your opening post ensures that I won't be checking out your link.

Sorry.


Dogmatism in action; wrong by association.


Stellar



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
Those photos on that site are actually four photos put together. At least according to this site they are.

sci.esa.int...


So he is then using official science material as presented to him and the worly by NASA, right?


“This view is a composite of four images taken in the optical part of the spectrum.”

If you look at a full shot of the moon it doesn’t seem to have that magical wall.
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Who said anything about it being 'magical' and why do you think not being able to see it from this aspect of the moon means that it isn't there and never was?


Maybe some one did a bad job putting the images together and accidentally made a ridge.


So basically NASA lies to us by accident and mainly because their a bunch of incompetent idiots? Well this is a perspective i have not considered before as the people working there seems to be well educated and they do occasionally manage to get scientific instruments to other planets. I think it's fair to say that if they put this image together it's either how it looks or how they want to present it to us. Maybe the entire thing is scam to embarrass Hoagland as with the type of logic your employing there really is does not seem to be a valid way to disregard much any theory, beside obviously the one's you don't like that is?

Once one goes down the 'accident' ,'coincidence', 'it just happened'' path of looking at the world you basically admit that you want to believe what you want and that whoever disagrees are simply stupid for messing with your reality.

I obviously don't care much for such a idiotic approach to life but each to their own!

Stellar



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
uh for you info , nasa covers up so much crap it isn't even funny, they have files and files full of confidential shi*. All governments do, the only to admit it was britian wiht the x files, yeah they really did have something called the x files. Nasa lies about almost everything they discover. i really dont understand why you have so much confidence in nasa considering its funded by the government. and to be honest i DO think that the people over at nasa are just a bunch of kids with telescopes.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by spaceman16]

[edit on 21-10-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Hoagland has made far too many unsubstantiated (and later proven false) claims about himself for me to simply take him at his word.


...and they keep denying there is life when it's so blatantly obvious that there is.


Please link me to any statement from NASA that says there has never been, and is not now, any life on Mars. If they really think that, why are they spending billions of dolloars to try to find out if there is life on Mars?

Also, where is the evidence for this "blatantly obvious" life? Are you not aware that the "face on Mars" as it was originally revealed was actually found in the photographs and pointed out by NASA itself, and not some conman like Hoagland?

Harte

[edit on 10/22/2006 by Harte]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Please link me to any statement from NASA that says there has never been, and is not now, any life on Mars.


They say that the conditions on Mars is too harsh for life NOW and while they admit that it might have been possible in the past before it lost it's standing water and atmosphere. If you can not find links to them saying that you have not done ANY research.


If they really think that, why are they spending billions of dolloars to try to find out if there is life on Mars?


There are not trying to find life on Mars. Saying that you are looking for life is not looking for life and i really wish you could do some reading to discover as much. before you continue please check some of my previous work on the topic to see what i have seen.


Also, where is the evidence for this "blatantly obvious" life?


It's called 'science' and 'history' but if you don't know about it i guess it can't be true!


[Are you not aware that the "face on Mars" as it was originally revealed was actually found in the photographs and pointed out by NASA itself, and not some conman like Hoagland?


Last i checked it was found by consultants working for NASA ; not NASA employees.

Stellar



new topics




 
0

log in

join