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.

 

NASA’s Moon Pics Slip-up!! Here’s The Evidence Of Artificial Structures!!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7Ayreon

Originally posted by TheOne1989
Ya think
what else would those blurs be by the way, what is the explanation for those blurs.of


I just contacted NASA public inquiries and asked them that question myself! There has to be an explanation, I'm eager to find out what rediculous answere they'll respond with.


Did not get an email, my hosting service got cancelled so could not get the response from NASA general inquirys.




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
According to many of the ancient texts of various ancient peoples, the kings and rulers were descendants (hybrids) of the gods. If these "gods" were extra-terrestrial (which we are going to assume since the descriptions seem to indicate they come here from up there), we have hybrid extra-terrestrials ruling our planet. It makes sense that some things related to their origins, would be considered for their eyes only. Afterall, how thrilled would the human populace be to learn the planet was/is/has been under the rulership of extra-terrestrial hybrids for thousands of years, who have themselves been in constant contact with their progenitor extra-terrestrial gods?

Consider the passages in the bible where a hebrew prophet is being employed to berate a hybrid king of Tyre. He is not actually talking to the king of Tyre, but the "god" controlling the king of Tyre. So not only do these hybrid rulers exist, but they are being manipulated by the extra-terrestrial "gods" responsible for their position and authority.

So on a worldwide scheme, this could easily become a massive cover- up of unbelievable proportions, so much so, that it would almost seem unreal.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
What I want to know if anyone here has a powerful enough telescope to see the moon in detail. I have a telescope, but it was for looking at mars and it's pretty powerful because I could see craters and what not on it. But I'm considering taking a better look at the moon for any 'anomalies'. Are these anomalies on the moon on the side facing away from earth or does anyone know of any that are borderline? Because I seriously think if you have the right telescope to see such things you can find them yourself.


If you were an actual reptilian as you claim to be on serveral other threads here, then you would already know that. I don't understand why you haven't been banned for deception yet.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
According to many of the ancient texts of various ancient peoples,


Speakin bout that...

Project Osiris!!! Thats NASA's name for the next Moon Mission and the craft will be called Orion...

I know Undo will get a kick out of that


Now about that telescope... Silly Lizard! Even the 36 inch Lick Observatory one isn't strong enough to spot building size structures on the moon...

But here is an artificial structure on the moon close and personal...





Lets see people explain THAT away as a trick of shadow or a rock

[edit on 17-11-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Now about that telescope... Silly Lizard! Even the 36 inch Lick Observatory one isn't strong enough to spot building size structures on the moon...


an irrelevant read herring , the lick observetory 36" tube is tiny a dwarf amongst telescopes , and quite old - it has been eclipse, buy such a magnitude that citing the resolution of the lick 36" is a pointless distraction - there are far better moon images out there than the lick can ever poroduce .

it is one of the best 36" scope in the world - but a larger scope was built in the last years of the 19th century - thats over 100 years ago


but in astronomy size matters and 3.5m scopes and larger routinely observe the moon - why not look at them instead of the lick 36" ?

and while i am ranting on the topic - if you really want to see what is on the moon in high quality - stop staring at JPEG compressed crap

google " FITS" , it is an astronomy standard for image files .

fits viers are widley availiable - and once you lear to use them - the diference is out of this world < pun >



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Now i_a has given me the onerous task of providing the FITS (Flexible Image Transport System) site here in glorious red color. So instead of wasting time Googling, here it is!

And Zorgon, in your pic, do I see a pyramid shaped structure with a spherical extension on top? Heck! I wish the res was better. Can FITS help in any way?

[edit on 17-11-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Now about that telescope... Silly Lizard! Even the 36 inch Lick Observatory one isn't strong enough to spot building size structures on the moon...


Yes I was gonna say, you would need a pretty monsterous telescope to see that type of detail, especially on Mars. I have a 4.5 newtonian, and some 80mm binos, and I can't come close to seeing craters on Mars. I set it to a high power eyepiece, and can only make out some bands of different color. Pretty much a dot in the eyepiece.

Groinggrinder, what type of telescope do u have, which can see craters on mars?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
why not look at them instead of the lick 36" ?


Because they wouldn't produce the kind of crappy blurry photographs necessary to make wild claims about moon structures.

If the rules didn't forbid it, I'd post blurry photographs of a dirt track just to see if I can pass them off as photographs of structures on the moon.

These photographs are nothing but ink blots.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
an irrelevant read herring ,

snip...

it is one of the best 36" scope in the world - but a larger scope was built in the last years of the 19th century - thats over 100 years ago



How so?

As you say there are larger ones than the Lick... that may be true, but the Silly Lizard is talking a back yard scope, not something BIGGER than the 36" Lick




but in astronomy size matters and 3.5m scopes and larger routinely observe the moon - why not look at them instead of the lick 36" ?


Really? Then where are the images?




and while i am ranting on the topic - if you really want to see what is on the moon in high quality - stop staring at JPEG compressed crap


Well gif and jpg are all your going to get with stuff posted on the web. I use .tiff and k2 when working with them at home. One of the reasons many can't see the anomalies is because their browsers and servers [like AOL and Net Zero] further reduce the image that comes over the web



google " FITS" , it is an astronomy standard for image files .


I shall do that but so far all the "New" astronomy photos of the moon leave a lot to be desired and its hard to find hi res shots of key areas. I have commercial access to the Ikonos satelite... but there policy nows is NOT to image the moon anymore... so until I can grab my Polaroid and catch the next saucer for a look see... Guess I am stuck...

Its funny how many people on ATS claim to have connections with those elusive aliens, yet I can't get a simple lift to snap a few shots of the Moon?

Whats up with that?




posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MouseOnMars
Because they wouldn't produce the kind of crappy blurry photographs necessary to make wild claims about moon structures.


Okay Mouse show me a high res picture of Copernicus Crater that isn't "kind of crappy blurry photographs"

I for one get just as tired of sceptics who claim that these images exist and yet can't produce them!! Just what rules are forbiding you from posting pictures? If the are NASA AF or other government photos they do not have copyrights... they are our pictures paid by our taxes...

So put up or....


Show me one picture that is as High Res and close up as John Lear's moon pictures of Copernicus Crater and we can talk...

Otherwise... does the phrase blowing smoke mean anything to you?

:shk:



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Structures on the Moon in the Copernicus B Crater. These cannot be natural geological oddities as they are much too regular in shape. These are obviously some sort of infrastructure related to whatever is going on in Copernicus.


NASA photograph Copernicus B
Courtesy:Gil Rodriguez



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Structures on the Moon in the Copernicus B Crater. These cannot be natural geological oddities as they are much too regular in shape. These are obviously some sort of infrastructure related to whatever is going on in Copernicus.


Perhaps the sub burbs? I mean they wouldn't want to live in the mine... even here miners live in little communities away from the mine...

BTW Mikey those hundreds of documents I found? they mention Mars as much as the Moon and all of them are mining related...

This is going to take a while... I think I need a sexatary...


I have studies on drilling for water on Mars, underground habitats on Moon and Mars, atmosphere on the Moon....

Found a base here on Earth that does launches... DoD runs it...

Found this first on the Air Force Space command site...


Space capabilities

Spacelift operations at the East and West Coast launch bases provide services, facilities and range safety control for the conduct of United States Department of Defense (DOD)


WHAT west coast launch base???


well I found this one!!...


The Space Test Program (STP) is a part the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, Space and Missile Test and Evaluation Directorate located at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The DoD Space Test Program was created in May 1965 as a multi-user space program whose role is to be the primary provider of spaceflight for the entire Department of Defense space research community (this role was revalidated in a Nov 1995 memo from the Secretary of Defense). The Air Force is the executive agent for this DoD program. The primary objective of STP is to fly the maximum number of DoD space research experiments possible consistent with priority, opportunity and available funding. From the first launch in Jun 1967 to Jun 1997 over 400 experiments have been flown on over 120 missions using dedicated free-flyers, the space shuttle or piggyback payload opportunities.


Notice the DATE they created it?

[edit on 23-11-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
And Zorgon, in your pic, do I see a pyramid shaped structure with a spherical extension on top? Heck! I wish the res was better. Can FITS help in any way?


LOL thanks for saving me google time... now can you find a FITS of Copernicus so we can compare?


Yes you do see a pyramid shaped structure with a sphere on an extention above. On my copy I also see four "legs" supporting the pyramid shaped object... I have not yet gone back and converted to png on the others yet I will get to it though.

But poor resolution or not it is NOT a rock, trick of light or shadow.. A monopoly game piece? That was an interesting comment... at least he recognized it as something not suppose to be there..

As it is that object would be about 30 to 40 feet tall

And as for resolution its pretty good seeing as the objects are 138 km from the lens. If it wasn't for the thin atmosphere and the angle we wouldn't see anything



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Good God Zorgon! Now why don't you write a book on all this? You've got loads of info and some darn good pics too! A best seller in the making!!


P.S. You need a secretary? Take mine!! I can't afford her anymore at $1000 a month!!

[edit on 23-11-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Structures on the Moon in the Copernicus B Crater. These cannot be natural geological oddities as they are much too regular in shape. These are obviously some sort of infrastructure related to whatever is going on in Copernicus.


NASA photograph Copernicus B
Courtesy:Gil Rodriguez
LOL i fail to see any "Artificial structures" here mate.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
OK. I've marked the areas so you can iden the structures. Check out the res on your monitor, type of graphics card and server too.




posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Now why don't you write a book on all this?


Ummm book? Ummm never crossed my mind...


Does she make coffee?


You have the original for that picture?

[edit on 23-11-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You have the original for that picture?

www.nationalufocenter.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real

Originally posted by zorgon
You have the original for that picture?

www.nationalufocenter.com...


Thanks but that is the source, though not the original Lunar Orbiter image to compare with...


Oops LOL almost missed that one.... that is the same picture as the upper right section of John's Copernicus #1

duh!

[edit on 24-11-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Oops LOL almost missed that one.... that is the same picture as the upper right section of John's Copernicus #1

Thanks to your identification of that picture we can see the difference between the original and the one with the "rectangular structures".

My crop of the original to match that copy with the "rectangular structures".


In the original those things are not rectangular, they became rectangular because of, at least, three things:

1. The image was resized, making it smaller.
2. The image had its brightness and contrast changed, loosing some of the smooth transitions between light and dark areas.
3. Because of that, or because it was made on purpose, the join between the two images, clearly seen on the original, disappeared on the copy, making the area where the join was a straight line, which helps making the features on the picture look rectangular.

So, once again, we should never base our opinions on copies when we can have access to the originals.


[edit on 25/11/2006 by ArMaP]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join