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.

 

Huge Tower-Like Structure Near Copernicus!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee
Copernicus Crater as photographed by Hubble Space Telescope.

There are a couple of anomalies that I have tried to highlight previously. I am going to try again. Both anomalies are just within the rim of Copernicus crater at the 10/11 oclock position and the other at 2 oclock.

Here is the link :

imgsrc.hubblesite.org...


Interesting pic pippadee. But could you circle the anomalous areas/structures? I did notice some spoke like formations at the 10/11 O'clock positions though.

Cheers!




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Originally posted by pippadee



Copernicus Crater as photographed by Hubble Space Telescope.

There are a couple of anomalies that I have tried to highlight previously. I am going to try again. Both anomalies are just within the rim of Copernicus crater at the 10/11 oclock position and the other at 2 oclock.

Here is the link :

imgsrc.hubblesite.org...




Before I look at this alleged Hubble photo I would like help in orienting the photo below of Copernicus to the Hubble one. I am having trouble finding anything that matches in the 2 photos. Any help would be appreciated.




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
To Mike Singh :

Sorry I had to get help to paste the link - please dont ask me to do complicated highlighting. I ought to get some lessons but when you are in your 50's it is hard to go back to school.

I can only repeat that (1) at the 2 or 2-30 position there is what appears to me to be a huge geometric shape ( 4 or 5 sided pyramid just inwards from the crater rim that is '' eaten away ''. This pyramid I estimate to be well over 2 kilometres in diameter bearing in mind that the crater is 93k in diameter.

The pyramid can also be clearly seen on Clementine images of Copernicus.

(2) The anomaly at 10/11 oclock is what appears to be a smokestack or vent that appears to be venting smoke or gas or something which is casting a shadow on the crater wall. The stack/vent appears to be mounted on a circular base with strengthening struts running from the base of the stack to the outside edge of the circular base plate

To John Lear :

I am no expert - that is obvious. Your photo looks a lot different to the Hubble image ( that was taken in 1999 according to the info given with the photo on Hubblesite.org - Hubble Shoots the Moon.)

Am I the only one that can see these anomalies??

[edit on 4-7-2007 by pippadee]
The pyramid resembles a giant cut and polished diamond

[edit on 4-7-2007 by pippadee]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Before I look at this alleged Hubble photo I would like help in orienting the photo below of Copernicus to the Hubble one. I am having trouble finding anything that matches in the 2 photos. Any help would be appreciated.


(Just because I want to see where this is going to go)

The Hubble image of Copernicus is rotated roughly 135 degrees counterclockwise from the image you've posted, John. You're having trouble finding landmarks because most of the landmarks in each photo are exclusively their own. For instance, the crater rim in the Hubble photo is almost entirely the portion that is cropped out of the one you've posted.

Here's a composite image to better visualize what I mean.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Thousand]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Originally posted by Thousand





The Hubble image of Copernicus is rotated roughly 135 degrees counterclockwise from the image you've posted, John. You're having trouble finding landmarks because most of the landmarks in each photo are exclusively their own. For instance, the crater rim in the Hubble photo is almost entirely the portion that is cropped out of the one you've posted.



WOW! Now that is some first class work! Thanks a million Thousand.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
WOW Indeed.

I just point to two absolute cast iron, bolt on anomalies and what is the response?

I am beginning to wonder what agendas are being played out here.I thought this forum was about finding out THE TRUTH. Now I wonder.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee
WOW Indeed.

I just point to two absolute cast iron, bolt on anomalies and what is the response?

I am beginning to wonder what agendas are being played out here.I thought this forum was about finding out THE TRUTH. Now I wonder.



Be patient, the likes of Zorgon, John Lear and co. are busy people and involved in numerous threads here, they spend a lot of time researching what they post and your work will not have gone unnoticed.
As I am far from an expert I won't pass comment other than to say
good work!



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by pippadee




To John Lear :

I am no expert - that is obvious. Your photo looks a lot different to the Hubble image ( that was taken in 1999 according to the info given with the photo on Hubblesite.org - Hubble Shoots the Moon.)

Am I the only one that can see these anomalies?? The pyramid resembles a giant cut and polished diamond



If you are asking about anomalies on the "Hubble" photo you posted I don't bother to look at or comment on any Hubble or Clementine photo.

My expertise is with Lunar Orbiter, Zond and Apollo (printed prior to 1970) photos.

All others, NASA and NRL (to include any other government agency, administration, office or assembly of persons) I consider fabrications.

Sorry.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Hubble Copernicus image

Sorry about the mini rant John. No offence intended. Just got back from the pub when I typed that ( wont make the same mistake again ). I just got a little ( well a lot actually ) frustrated as to why there had been very little comment other than Mike Singh's.

The fact is the image appears on Hubblesite.org. Now we all know NASA airbrush OUT artifacts so why were these not sprayed away?

There are many anomalies in this image in addition to the mega pyramid and giant smokestack, such as the tunnels that appear to burrow in to the crater on the northern rim from outside.

Also near the pyramid there is a rectangular shape. There are a number of other anomalies but I will wait for others to comment.

As Undo can find a needle in a haystack on some pictures and Rik Riley can spot a face or statue here and there I will try to be patient. Not forgetting the indefatigable Zorgon!

So please ladies and gents take a close look at that photo.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Originally posted by pippadee




The fact is the image appears on Hubblesite.org. Now we all know NASA airbrush OUT artifacts so why were these not sprayed away?

There are many anomalies in this image in addition to the mega pyramid and giant smokestack, such as the tunnels that appear to burrow in to the crater on the northern rim from outside.

Also near the pyramid there is a rectangular shape. There are a number of other anomalies but I will wait for others to comment.

As Undo can find a needle in a haystack on some pictures and Rik Riley can spot a face or statue here and there I will try to be patient. Not forgetting the indefatigable Zorgon!

So please ladies and gents take a close look at that photo.

Thanks.



You need to know that anything put out by NASA after 1970 and this includes Clementine and Hubble can be used as a 'set-up'. In other words they could have inserted those anomalies and then at a later date debunk it somehow.

You are welcome to look for anomalies in that Hubble image but just be ready to be thoroughly discredited at some point in the future.

I just keep remembering several years ago we were told that Hubble couldn't take pictures of the moon because it wasn't designed to do that.

Then the Clementine photos were released and proven to be mostly fabrications in which the U.S. Navy, in their infinite wisdom, inserted, snails, worms, spiders and other assortment of bugs into the craters of the moon. I think the U.S. Navy thought they had a real funny 'inside joke' going.

Now, all of a sudden we have Hubble photos of the moon.

Do I smell 'set-up' You bet I do!



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Thanks for the insight John.

Why doesn't someone prosecute NASA/US Navy for wilfull vandalism of public property ? After all those images belong to YOU the people who loyally cough up all those tax dollars. They do not belong to NASA or anyone else. They are public property.

If '' they'' can find multimillions to try and nail Clinton just for telling a porky about a blow job then surely ''they''can try to tackle NASA?

This stuff is of immense importance for the future of mankind. Are there any billionaires out there who would be willing to try? I know it would be too much to ask Bill Gates. How about a certain member of the Hilton clan who could for once do something useful!!




posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The NUMBER ONE thing that should be done with any of these blurry, grainy photos purporting to show some kind of construction or alien base or the like should be to find another image from another Moon mission that shows the same thing, hopefully from different angles.

It's way too easy for one photo from one source to have an odd glitch or a fingerprint or some mark where somebody spilled coffee on the negative. For instance, look at this Apollo 16 photo on Keith Laney's site:

keithlaney.net...

"Astounding!" It not only shows a big old UFO on the horizon, slightly to the lower left center, there's a huge, green pole sticking up on the side of a crater. But if you look at other versions, those things aren't there.

Multiple photos from different sources are the only way to go. The Moon has been photographed in pretty good detail by a lot of different ships over the last half century. There should be other photos available.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by SuicideVirus



The NUMBER ONE thing that should be done with any of these blurry, grainy photos purporting to show some kind of construction or alien base or the like should be to find another image from another Moon mission that shows the same thing, hopefully from different angles.



Earth calling SuicideVirus! Earth calling SuicideVirus! Come in please Suicide Virus!

Are you there SuicideVirus?

What do you think we have been showing you with LO-II-162 and LO-V-155 taken a year later? HEEEELLLLLOOOOOO! SuicideVirus come in please!


Multiple photos from different sources are the only way to go. The Moon has been photographed in pretty good detail by a lot of different ships over the last half century. There should be other photos available.



I agree SuicideVirus but the catch is you actually have to be able to read.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
SuicideVirus, would you mind linking me up with any other versions of that you have, the ones where the green pole "is not there"?

Thanks



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   




This is quite clearly a giant moon kangaroo hiding behind some rocks. Fancy that, some of you thought it was a galactic moon tower when all along it was a galactic version of Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corum


This is quite clearly a giant moon kangaroo hiding behind some rocks. Fancy that, some of you thought it was a galactic moon tower when all along it was a galactic version of Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.


So what do you propose to be shown in the Moon pics? Structures resembling the casinos of Las Vegas, the Petronas Towers or the Statue of Liberty? Or perhaps an alien resembling that cute li'l chick in that florist outlet on 52nd Street?

C'mon man, get real!



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Mike, I think what people want are logical, rational suggestions about geological formation. What they are getting are rather wild speculative explanations.
That in itself is going to solicit even wilder speculation isnt it?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Mike, I think what people want are logical, rational suggestions about geological formation. What they are getting are rather wild speculative explanations.
That in itself is going to solicit even wilder speculation isnt it?


Chorlton, that's agreed! But that's MY speculation. If anyone thinks otherwise, he can say so, but with a little civility thrown in! For some, sarcasm knows no bounds!


Cheers!



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
CHECK THIS OUT!
If you zoom in to the edge of the horizon, I think you will notice the differences between your original posted pic and this one. Unfortunately, the tower was not included in this view.

Please let me know what you think and if you care to post that pic here, please do.

I've seen some discussion about the anomalies on the moon and I haven't seen this pic yet.
Here is the link:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I just want to know the truth about the truth!

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Truly]

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Truly]

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Truly]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truly
CHECK THIS OUT!
If you zoom in to the edge of the horizon, I think you will notice the differences between your original posted pic and this one. Unfortunately, the tower was not included in this view.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Truly, that was truly amazing!! Well, you do seem to have an eagle's eye! Yeah, that's right. The darn tower has been neatly airbrushed out of that pic! Why? Elementary dear Watson!!


I wonder what John has to say to this?

Here's to mud in NASA's eye!

Cheers!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join