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.

 

Hoagland ran right past the BODY to get the HEAD!!!

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Once again, why didn't the Apollo crew bring the bones back to earth. Some kind of agreement with ET to leave them behind or get shot down leaving?

So what did I make of this after I took the pic? I captured an ET, god or some soul in a flower. Doubt it.



It just looks like a face. I suppose that everyone here could say it's a face and we would have positively proved that some flowers really have faces, right?



[edit on 3/6/2007 by roadgravel]




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
My God, an android head lying alone in the moon surface.

Yes, thats way too much credible than any other stupid idea, like a rock or pareidolia ...



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I'm not saying this is what this is but, these "rocks" sure do look like a skeleton. Enough so that I would say to simply classify these as rocks may be foolish. Maybe


Have another look




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Once again, why didn't the Apollo crew bring the bones back to earth. Some kind of agreement with ET to leave them behind or get shot down leaving?


For this question to be valid then there could only have been "these options" listed above. THAT is simply NOT realistic. To start with, this presumes that they think "like us". Is that really a safe "assumption"?

Likewise, what if it was just that simple? What if that WAS the ultimatum? You DO realize that BOTH the last Apollo Missions were scrubbed right? That the flights were PAID FOR. The crews WERE TRAINED. Yet, after THIS mission... NOBODY WENT BACK

So, YES, one option is that THEY GOT TOLD TO "BEAT IT" AND NOT COME BACK. We got 86'd from the Moon potentially... although I doubt it.

But WHY did those Apollo Missions get scrubbed? You gonna believe the US FEDERAL DOUBLESPEAK on THAT one?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by CrimsonSaberACTUAL
Imagine that "turkey" being a person laying on their side.

emphasis added by MrPenny


How about if we imagine it as a big gnarly rock?


Hmmm. Because I'm saying "imagine" only to ASSIST in seeing what's right in front of your eyes.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by CrimsonSaberACTUAL
Again, I'm blind in one eye. As strange as that might sound, it really does give me an advantage.

No, it does not give you an advantage.

You see, when looking at a 2d image on a monitor, seeing it with one or two eyes is the same thing, we only use the difference between what we see with the left eye and what we see with the right eye when there is a difference, i.e. when it's a 3d object and the different distance and angle from the right and left eye gives us (those who can use two eyes) a clue about the distance to the object (and because of the distance, a clue about its size).


So what you're telling me is that when YOU look at a TV screen it's the same as if you were there? Are you really hearing yourself? I appreciate your response, and it's well thought out... as usual... nature. But in this case, I just simply have to outright tell you you're wrong.

Also, it's NOT the "viewing" of the photo upon which you need to focus to understand this. What I am saying is that when I look at REALITY... REAL LIFE... DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD... It's TWO DIMENSIONAL FOR ME.

I see 2D ALL DAY LONG. So when I look at a photograph, it will, undoubtedly, be EASIER for me to "pick things out" that might be more difficult for others to see. Do you understand what I mean?

I have LIVED THIS. I KNOW what it's like when you see things in photos that ARE there FOR SURE (not this photo, but things that we would "accept" - ie- a soccer ball). And although the science you explain away sounds great, it doesn't "look" anything like what I see EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE.

The only way you'll get it, if you have vision in BOTH eyes, is to cover one eye for a YEAR and then tell me how you feel. Period. It's like a MAN saying he knows EXACTLY what it's like to be a WOMAN. You simply cannot do it.

Respectfully,

SP

[edit on 7-3-2007 by CrimsonSaberACTUAL]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Here are the original cropping and a labelled version of the same:






The Cranium
Denoted in Red

You'll note that the head itself remains "somewhat" intact. I have outlined a second "piece" that appears attached at the end, or top, of the head. You can note the shadow of the head/neck on the soil beneath it as well.



The Shoulders
Working toward the shoulders from the "head" is simple. Follow the neck to the shoulders. Period.



The Spinal Column
There appears to be "shapes" that might correlate with those of a "spinal column" as well. Either way there are some interesting "consistencies" in the shape, location, and frequency of said anomolies.



The Ribs
I've outlined what appears to be areas around the "girth" of the anomoly, in the location corresponding with the human ribs, where there appear to be "strips" of material "stretched" or "separated" from the object, appearing to have possibly "wrapped around" the anomoly at one time.



The Hip Joints
Denoted within the Yellow circles.

On the "top" side of the anomoly there appear two "metallic" protrusions that appear geometrically consistant in size and shape on BOTH sides of the anomoly. Both Sides in the immediate case, referring to the "top" and "bottom" of the anomoly, which appear to correspond with the "left" and "right" sides of the alleged "entity".

On the "down" or "right" side of the alleged entity, we view a round or spherical object located between the two corresponding protrusions extending outward at what would be the "hip" area. The location and design of this "system" resemble, at this time, a "ball and socket" joint of sorts, with a finer cylindrical protrusion extending down the "leg" on the right side from the "hip" area.

Enjoy!

[edit on 7-3-2007 by CrimsonSaberACTUAL]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
quite the pinhead for such a long body but then again, I always thought c3po was in a galaxy far far away, not a hop skip and a fantastical jump to mars.

Except this is not mars. Did you read the thread?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
You think with all the coverups going on, this wasn't either destroyed or brought back and stuck in a vault somewhere to be studied without telling the public, if it is something?

NO WAY they would break this news to the public.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Why are you posting under a different name?

Anyway.. your knowledge of anatomy is appalling. Hip joints are a socket in the pelvis, not a pair of huge prongs sticking out the side.. Every animal on earth is constructed the same way - whether it walks upright or on all fours and even in alien fantasy land you can't form a working joint with a pair of prongs and a ball.



If you want a serious discussion of this photo you need to provide the source of the original so that we can determine the distance and scale among other things. It also seems to have been altered with an embossing filter.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
mythatsabigprobe

I also think this is a load of rubbish but i feel the need to defend one small point. If this was an alien then maybe their anatomy would be very different from ours. You can't really compare it to earths animal kingdom.

My annoyance is that the image looks altered, the colours just don't seem correct, the red metallic stripe mentioned seems to have been enhanced. The site it comes from has a deffinite bias with the evidence and i am still not seeing this "skeleton" even with all the nice lines drawn around it.

Rocks and wanting to see something, that's all this is.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
At the risk of a one line response....

"Imagining" seems to help. At least, according to the OP.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
What I mainly 'see' here is OP's willingness to regard as evidence anything which 'supports' (on that loose interpretation) what they wish to believe to be the case.

The 'How do you know when you've been abducted?" thread is the same : in the rush to think that he has the 'proof' it seems that rocks are aliens (despite the arguments about face recognition in relation to inanimate objects) and seeing owls is indisputable proof that one has been abducted by Greys
.

The unwillingness to asess the status of the evidence discredits the UFO field (imho, natch).



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Why are you posting under a different name?

Anyway.. your knowledge of anatomy is appalling. Hip joints are a socket in the pelvis, not a pair of huge prongs sticking out the side.. Every animal on earth is constructed the same way - whether it walks upright or on all fours and even in alien fantasy land you can't form a working joint with a pair of prongs and a ball.



If you want a serious discussion of this photo you need to provide the source of the original so that we can determine the distance and scale among other things. It also seems to have been altered with an embossing filter.



You may want to use the quote feature. No one knows who you're talking to.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   


You may want to use the quote feature. No one knows who you're talking to.


I thought it was pretty obvious that they were referring to posts made by OP


I hope this isnt classed as a one line response since I am trying to clear up an apparent confusion which only takes one line to clear up


[edit on 7-3-2007 by granny smith]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I thought I had an overactive imagination, until I saw this picture.



It's a rock field, for godsake. Next...

— Doc Velocity



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I thought I had an overactive imagination, until I saw this picture.

It's a rock field, for godsake. Next...

— Doc Velocity


I have to agree with you on this one.

I would have left a small opening for speculation except for the


from CrimsonSaberACTUAL
You should have seen the looks on their faces when I told them they'd just positively ID'd a BODY on the MOON taken from a photo acquired by the FINAL Apollo Mission... the LAST shot taken from the surface, as far as I know...


Where is CSI: Moon when ya need them.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I think everyone interested in this thread should see this post on the "John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS" thread.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrimsonSaberACTUAL
So what you're telling me is that when YOU look at a TV screen it's the same as if you were there?

No, that is not I wanted to say.

What I said, or at least tried to say, was that when looking at a 2D scene we do not need stereoscopic vision.

Looking at it with one or two eyes gives the same result, no one sees it better because he/she has one or two eyes, it's irrelevant.


Are you really hearing yourself?

The only sound I hear is the sound of the keyboard, I am just typing.




I see 2D ALL DAY LONG. So when I look at a photograph, it will, undoubtedly, be EASIER for me to "pick things out" that might be more difficult for others to see. Do you understand what I mean?

I understand what you mean, and let me say that you are wrong.

It is not easier for you to "pick things out" on a 2D scene than for another person just because you see always in 2D. Your vision had the need to adapt itself to see 3D scenes with just one eye, but that means nothing when seeing 2D scenes, your vision of 2D scenes remains the same as it was.


The only way you'll get it, if you have vision in BOTH eyes, is to cover one eye for a YEAR and then tell me how you feel.

I am sorry to say it, but the only way for you to know if you can really "pick things out" better than someone with stereoscopic vision was if you could recover your sight. That is the only way for you to know if you really see 2D scenes better with just one eye or if you just think that you do because you see 3D scenes worse.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join