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.

 

Photo of an ET on the moon???

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
So is the thought that NASA photshopped the photo?

Is this an official NASA print? Does it have a number?




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The main defference between those two astronauts is that one looks like a grey suit because he is standing in a shadow, same flip up visor same chest camera, same suit, maybe even the same man.
As for boot prints, is it at all possible that they have different size boots for different sized feet???

This is absolute rubbish, even if it were an alien, would thay have the exact same scree covering their face on the helmet???



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
It's an astronaut. He flipped up the visor on the top front to protect from sunlight glare---that's the black part---then the thing higher up is the backpack.

He's holding his camera.

This is definitely making something out of nothing.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
There is absolutely no reason why Nasa and the government would keep the breathable atmosphere on the moon a secret. It doesn't even make any sense.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
There is absolutely no reason why Nasa and the government would keep the breathable atmosphere on the moon a secret. It doesn't even make any sense.



If NASA wanted to keep everything thats on the moon a secret, and by everything I mean the huge cities, huge towers, artifacts, mining operations, then they would want you to think that the moon is airless, a total vacuum, gravity 1/6th of earth (don't want enough gravity to hold an atmosphere) and a black sky.

The same strategy holds for Venus. If they didn't want us to know about a civilization there, particularly one thats far more advanced than we are then they would promulgate something like, hot flowing lava and exploding volcanoes all over the places, temperatures of 800 degrees at the surface, surface pressures of 90 bars and an atmosphere of poisonous sulfuric fumes. Sounds pretty bad huh? Not to worry, none of it is true. Venus is very similar to earth both in atmosphere and temperature.

Now, back to your original question statement that there is absolutely no reason why NASA and the government would keep a breatable atmosphere on the moon a secret. There is a reason, a very good reason. And the reason is to keep all that stuff up there a secret.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by W_Heisenberg
It would be easy to substantiate your assertion by observing lunar occultations. Much thanks.


Of course. Lets see some of those observations. Both Palomar and Wilson took well publicized photos between 1954 and 1958 of the moon. Surely they have photographic evidence of those occultations. Lunar Orbiter, Clementine and Hubble all of which must have visual proof.


Every hobbyist with a telescope (including me) could easily get proof of a lunar atmosphere if there was indeed one. Planets look very different when they have atmospheres.


I'm sure that you could present evidence through video proof that the moon has no atmosphere. Where do we look? Thanks.

Grab a telescope and peer at the planets. You'll have to learn to control for the effects of OUR atmosphere (which Pickering did not do, by the way.) Planets with atmosphere show a definite haze around them.

The other thing that would show immediately is the effects of heat and cooling on the "atmosphere." If you remember from basic physics, air moves to warmer regions from colder regions. Craters, of course, would produce pockets of colder air... but basically if there was any atmosphere you'd see it in the patterns of dust blowing across the face of the moon.

Look at Mars and the dust storms there (some of which obscure the planet's face)... that's what a light atmosphere does to dust on the face of a dry planet (if it's not dry, you get clouds.)



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
If NASA wanted to keep everything thats on the moon a secret, and by everything I mean the huge cities, huge towers, artifacts, mining operations, then they would want you to think that the moon is airless, a total vacuum, gravity 1/6th of earth (don't want enough gravity to hold an atmosphere) and a black sky.


So I'm to believe that a guy on a conspiracy website knows things about the moon (and venus) that go against everything astronomers, physicists, and rocket scientists and spent decades and (in the case of physics) centuries studying? Our understanding of the mass of the moon, which must be what it is otherwise the moon wouldn't have the ORBIT it has, is wrong? Are you telling me that all the world's scientists are so dumb they've been duped for all this time? No? Oh, I get it. THEY'RE IN ON IT. And I presume you have some radical new gravity complete with equations that you'd like to share.

Although, I understand if you're a bit coy on sharing your huge body of evidence with the world. The nobel prize, and nothing less, is on the line here. Tens of thousands of scientists would be out of jobs and would have to go back to school (and redo all their telescope observations, physics textbooks, and probe missions). I suppose I shouldn't trust my GPS unit, either, since those were launched and adjusted for the obviously completely wrong gravity equations which take relativity into account.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightman9202
So is the thought that NASA photshopped the photo?

Is this an official NASA print? Does it have a number?


On the website that I found this stuff on it also said that you could refer to the official NASA website to confirm the authenticity of the catalog frame.:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Both of these stories have been circulating for about 36 or 37 years.

As I've mentioned before all Apollo astronauts have probably been threatened with death or worse if they were tell what was really on the moon. So they are not talking much.


I also remember watching a documentary about Apollo astronauts and airline pilots that had seen UFO's & remember that Jim Lovell spoke alot about the UFO's that he had seen.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
If NASA's control is so complete...why bother to make up anything? Why bother to act like the various probes have returned anything? Why bother to threaten astronauts? Why bother with the effort to make up any of this crap? Hell's bells, years ago they could have launched a couple rockets, let 'em get a few miles out of the atmosphere and blown them up....then reported "its impossible to leave Earth's atmosphere without catastrophic results"...TA DA...no need to construct elaborate cover-ups and then they would really be operating in secret.

But NO.....We have to have these boneheaded theories insulting the intelligence of millions of people!!!!!!!!!.......AAAGHHHH.........

Hey, that feels better......thanks.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Doesn't anyone ever stop & think that they may have all their "secret" stuff on the far side of the moon, the side that we NEVER see?? The only time that you might see it is in a NASA released photo!



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Byrd, you make a very good point about the way planets look with atmospheres. You can go outside at night and look at a full moon and tell that there is no damn atmosphere, it's obvious. It's a plain normal floating rock.

So if there is an atmosphere on the Moon... I claimed that there is no logical reason to keep this a secret from society. Then John Lear comes in here and gives a "reason" that is even more ridiculous than the idea of the moon having an atmosphere in the first place.
I know it is pointless asking anyone on this board for "proof" or "evidence" because obviously none of you have any... And please don't post your picture of a "soul-catcher" on the moon because the picture shows absolutely nothing definitive. lmao @ huge cities on the moon...!



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_to_believe
The only time that you might see it is in a NASA released photo!


If that kind of secrecy is required.....Why are any photos released?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
www.space.com...

NASA will soon be launching a rocket to the moon. Someone please find the computer simulated model of this. Had seen it once and can no longer find it. But the interesting part of the whole operation is where the rocket lands-on the dark side of the moon, right where it meets the lighted side. Why the dark side of the moon?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightman9202
But the interesting part of the whole operation is where the rocket lands-on the dark side of the moon, right where it meets the lighted side. Why the dark side of the moon?




For the umptiumth time: THERE IS NO DARK SIDE OF THE MOON! Every part of the moon gets the same amount of light as every other part. Just at different times.Thanks.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Since the intent is to impact a crater near one of the poles.....it follows that the location would be near the terminus. That imaginary line runs through the poles. Roughly anyway.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
johnlear-

Yes I know. What I was getting at is that the impact will not be able to be viewed because it will be hitting on the relative darkside of the moon.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'm not saying I definatly believe this but in John Lear's defence, can you see an atmosphere on pics of the Earth?
Is it possible that close up ie. the moon you can't see any atmosphere?

But far away you see clearer...



[edit on 5-2-2007 by chris01621]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Planets with atmosphere show a definite haze around them.


That would depend on the density of the contaminant if any. But go ahead and cite an example. Thanks.


Look at Mars and the dust storms there (some of which obscure the planet's face)... that's what a light atmosphere does to dust on the face of a dry planet (if it's not dry, you get clouds.)


I agree. And there are plenty of examples of clouds and fog on the moon regardless of what Richard C. Hoagland had to say on C2C.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

If NASA wanted to keep everything thats on the moon a secret, and by everything I mean the huge cities, huge towers, artifacts, mining operations, then they would want you to think that the moon is airless, a total vacuum, gravity 1/6th of earth (don't want enough gravity to hold an atmosphere) and a black sky.

The same strategy holds for Venus. If they didn't want us to know about a civilization there, particularly one thats far more advanced than we are then they would promulgate something like, hot flowing lava and exploding volcanoes all over the places, temperatures of 800 degrees at the surface, surface pressures of 90 bars and an atmosphere of poisonous sulfuric fumes. Sounds pretty bad huh? Not to worry, none of it is true. Venus is very similar to earth both in atmosphere and temperature.


Hi John Please can you guide me as to where I can find more information on lies about Venus' atmosphere etc.. and the moon cities
or maybe you could share with us how you obtained this information

thanks
kg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join