Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Infrared Moon Images

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by Iblis



Ah. Except for the simple fact that we're doing this on the moon, and it costs tens of thousands of dollars per pound of object brought up to the moon, using rockets.




I think you missed my point which I thought was obvious in the extreme but apparently not. My fault, sorry.

We didn't build it! Someone else did!




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Still waiting on the one shred of evidence proving I can't accept reality because I think your pictures show nothing unatural.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
John, could you explain just a little on how you come to think in your opinion that the moon was towed here? I've seen some video's on youtube of seemingly a large front section of an alien craft sticking out of the surface. For some of the new guys and girls here I also remember the conversation between John and Richard Hoagland. If I'm memory serves me well, Richard thought that the moon has internal propulsion engines or something like that. Correct me if I'm wrong though please!

Cheers



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Well,

Earth's Moon was in the wrong Orbit and the Grey's towed/moved our Moon into the correct Orbit hence, HELLO.

Okay, I'm not saying nottin" else honey.

Hi, John



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Uhhh..did they collapse the big rounded/curving, wrap around the crater buildings too? This seems like a perfectly clear picture of the crater with no signs of any reactor. Maybe this was before is was built?



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by Iblis




Without attacking anyone, or being cynical this time -- John, can you provide a basis for anything you've said?


A basis yes, proof no.


Folks from other planets?


Introductory Space Science. Volume II Department of Physics USAF Edited by Major Donald G. Carpenter & Lt. Col Edward R. Therkelson Chapter XIII Unidentified Flying Objects: discusses 4 types of aliens normally seen.


A 15,000 year-old moon-base?


Just a guess.


The moon being 'towed' into orbit?


Hypothesis: Norman R. Bergrun "The Ringmakers of Saturn" The Pentland Press LOCCCn 86-81530 ISBN 0 946270 33 3 Copyright 1986 Part IV Glimpse of a Bigger Picture Chapter 10 The Lunar Connection


A use-able fusion reactor?


Obvious deduction.



One, I can guarantee you the 'we have a fusion reactor' bit is bunk.
The logistics, and economics of that are amazing.


Kind of like the 'breathable atmosphere on the moon?"


Two, unless the government is right and every single civilian astrophysicist from every other country is wrong, the moon is entirely natural.


Whoops! You'll have to exclude Dr. Mikhail Vasin and Dr. Alexander Shcherbakov, 2 Russian Scientists whose hypothesis, proposed in the 1971 Soviet Journal issue of "Sputnik" is: "The moon is an artificial Earth satellite put into orbit around the Earth by some intelligent beings unknown to ourselves. We refuse to engage in speculation about who exactly staged this unique experiment, which only a highly developed civilization was capable of." I know that they will appreciate your humble apology.



Three, please, pray tell what other planets they are from? And how you know?


In our solar system: Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Mercury, ex-Pluto. Knowledge that there are people on all the planets in the solar system is a fact you eventually realize.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I'm not going to weigh in on anything here but I wanted to throw this out to you guys and gals. I haven't seen it mentioned nor do I know how much or if they take individual submissions but this website here

www.cs.dartmouth.edu...

is run out of Dartmouth and they specialize in analyzing photos. So if anyone out there is really that curious to see if the image was indeed altered you may want to drop the professor a line to find out if they'll do it or not.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1234567
Hi All,

I was thinking today, i have not heard of many moon images made in Infrared. I thought this would have shown up some interesting images.

Now, if what John Lear says is true, wouldnt Infrared images show up some of these bases / subterranian bases / power systems etc ?

The only image i have found is here

Any ideas ?

Peace.

edit - spelling as usual :-)

[edit on 7-8-2007 by 1234567]


Nice image 1234567, or can I call you 1.

I think it is very thought provoking, for instance why would just the craters, Tycho in particular, be the hottest spots ?

Now if we are talking conventional explanations what would they be ?

Clearly there may be a connection with depth into the Lunar surface so could it be said that there maybe some kind of volcanic activity being exposed, ie heat.

Could it be absorbed heat from the sun and the material exposed in the craters is much better at retaining it for longer ?

In contrast a lot of the craters I have seen are distinctly lighter almost white compared to there surroundings so wouldn't this reflect light and therefore heat better so absorbtion would be slower ?

Would density of the material have a significant effect on how heat is absorbed and dissapated ?

Alternatively it could be theorised that the heat is not of a natural source and there is artificial heat emminating from the Moon itself and the craters are where the skin is thinest so less well insulated, ergo hotspots.

The thing is this whole concept of artificiality and structures is such a rabbit hole and the more you look the deeper it gets.

As Alice said curiouser and curiouser.

Please excuse my wandering mind.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Introductory Space Science. Volume II Department of Physics USAF

"The Ringmakers of Saturn" The Pentland Press

Dr. Mikhail Vasin and Dr. Alexander Shcherbakov
"The moon is an artificial Earth satellite put into orbit around the Earth by some intelligent beings unknown to ourselves. We refuse to engage in speculation about who exactly staged this unique experiment, which only a highly developed civilization was capable of."


John:

Would you mind making a thread, or maybe even post a list here of required reading for people who want to find out more on Lunar theory?

I find your these ideas fascinating and would love to know more.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Them there beings (as I had written here at ATS many times before) have been terraforming our Solar System.

I have also tried to tell you that all those stars you look up to at night..... aren't all stars.

John knows what's what.

Oops! my knowledge comes from ^ there.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
How many people said it was a nuclear reactor?
Raise hands?

Now, how many people know about the logistics of building such a thing.
Raise hands?

Thank you.

Please crawl into your respective holes and d- ... Don't ever speak again.

FYI: The best way to culminate energy whilst on the moon is solar-panels.
Not nuclear reactors.
Despite the moon's abundance of nuclear fuel.
It's all-ready been discussed.

So, how many trips did the moon did it take for you to reach this oh so brilliant conclusion? Wait...have you ever even been to the moon?


I'm wondering how effective solar panels will be on a moon where half of it is in darkness for 14 days straight. Seriously, how well will solar panels work on the 14 days they're shrouded in darkness?

Good grief, Charlie Brown. A bunch of experts we have here



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
I don't see anything on the moon because I'm sane ,and there is simply nothing there to see.Cmon where are these photos lets see them.Wheres the undisputable evidence to prove im not excepting reality.......

Ooo! Ooo! I've seen this one before! Because I've been spoonfed information since the day I was born, I'd have a nervous breakdown if I ever found out I was wrong. Heaven forbid I live a lie. It can't be true, it just can't be!

Just because you can't believe it's true doesn't make it so.

Where's the indisputable (not undesputable
) evidence that the Earth is a sphere (well, really an ellipsoid, it ain't perfect
)? Have you ever been to space to see it? Where's the indisputable evidence that all the world around us isn't just someone's temporary dream that could disappear the second that person wakes up?

If there were indisputable proof, you wouldn't be reading about it on ATS. You'd be reading about it in science and history textbooks. "Indisputable proof" rarely exists in life. Every time you read a textbook full of data, you're assuming you're reading a fact. You can't prove any of that. It's all about who you choose to believe.


Originally posted by observe50
I have also tried to tell you that all those stars you look up to at night..... aren't all stars.

I'd like to hear more about this. What do you think they are?

[edit on 8-8-2007 by ChocoTaco369]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I know what they are, the question is, what do you think they are?

We are parallel- the same but different.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
ChocoTaco36,

Oh so you think we have bases on the moon and the earth is flat....

Yea I've been spoon fed and just don't want to believe it..Get real and read what i wrote before you even respond.I said in about all my posts that I DO THINK WE HAVE BASES OR STRUCTERS ON THE MOON.However i do not believe any of them can be seen in any pictures on this website or any other website i have looked at..So do not even write to me if you have not taken the time to read more than the first sentence in my posts..

And yea i have tons of video footage and pictures of earth.And it is very clear and obvious that im looking at a huge ball of mass.There is no dispute whatsoever the earth is round.Other than a highlighted spec of mountain.

You said indiputable proof rarely exists,get real.SCIENCE,i rest my case.


[edit on 8-8-2007 by Project_Silo]

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Project_Silo]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
John, I'll assume your constant depiction of me as ignorant is a character flaw rather than some crude conversational norm you have.

First -- Listing off information about books, no matter how accurate, isn't giving me anything. I don't have the book. I have little interest in wasting my time and money to order such things. That gives those of us here who questions your theories nothing to debate save that 'the concept exists'.

'15,000' year-old moonbase is pretty accurate for a guess. Let's just say 'Old'.

Fusion reactor is the obvious deduction? One'd think that alien beings from planets, or solar systems, or even galaxies away would have a much more advanced form of energy-generation, let alone let it be unshielded to the degree that a single photograph can point out its existance.

Unless you feel like producing some evidence, then no, there is no breathable atmosphere on the moon. Don't interject responses that have no scientific evidence or proof into discussion as means of a reply. It's rude, and suggests ignorance. And not on my part.

Ah! Of course! Two Russian scientists from 1971! My God, how could I have been so blind. Two people completely changes my argument -- let alone from 1971, and let alone Russian. [I am well-aware of their very sturdy, advanced, and respectable space program.] Plenty of scientists, and astronauts, and physicists have been into bunk ideas before. To assume a scientist, let alone a mere two versus the rest of the community, have all the answers figured out is absurd.

I'm quite interested in learning how people 'live' on gas giants, given that there is nothing solid to live on, or develop from. Unless you're about to tell me their bodies consist entirely of gas. Including brains advanced enough to create vehicles to travel between planets.

Seeing as how it goes against all known biology.

Shame on you, not even mentioning Titan! That, I think, says something about your information.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Project_Silo,

I would argue that Science ... is rarely Proven ... especially in the space science field.

If it was, they wouldn't be developing anti-grav ... even in a small scale as in a recent topic.

If we have all the facts, if we have all the proofs ... then there is no more discoveries.

I am not trying to get under your skin, so please don't take it as a personal attack, it is just that statement of science being fact/proven/etc. is quite a load we have been beaten with from early childhood ... I for one, saw through it at an young age. I think the first time they said 'big bang' and then i asked questions and there were non-sense answers ... it made me realize how much they assume, extrapolate, and make decisions on what you 'learn'. Why, do we teach this in school if it is not a proven fact? How many other leaps of faith in man have we made in our textbooks, our news?

We are good little subjects, we believe what we are told. We don't doubt.

What is funny, when someone throws a wrench into known theories, they are a kook ... but ... when we find out decades later, they may have had it right, we don't apologize, we just make excuses as to why we didn't see it their way, and point out some miniscule difference to make it seem like the original scientist was still a bit off the rocker.

I say to not question the bull they shovel us is intended naivety, which is very similar to planned ignorance. Some people cannot open their minds up, and I don't fault them ... but those with IQs over 140 shouldn't limit themselves to such laughable conclusion to everything ... especially information based on what people tell you, which even in the field of science, money and opinions have managed to reach a hand in to manipulate results in their favor.

If you look at everything with a clean slate, a child's curiousity ... then, and only then, can you get past what you have been guided to believe and see it for yourself. You may have the same conclusion, but reach it on your own.

I think a point we are missing about 'possible' moon bases is this ... all of the images we have are still too far away, the resolution still far too small to see defined building as you are wanting for proof. Why? I don't know. It seems odd we can get images good enough to see what type of cigarette pack someone is holding on an L.A. sidewalk on GoogleEarth ... but, satellites orbiting the moon can't get a resolution good enough to accurately display the moon rover, the landing sites, or anything else. It is odd that private companies with imaging satellites will not for money, take close up photos of the moon. There is a lot of unanswered questions ... when secrecy begins to surface, and compile ... my only option left is to believe there is something major being hidden in plain sight.

I think a lot of people lose scale of the largeness of the moon when looking at the photos. I think this is how we overlook how poor or at least far away the images are. See how close you have to get using GoogleEarth to make out a city, a town, a house ... go to large buildings ... go to mining sites. In fact, I think for Mr. Lear's moon photos ... take you computer, set it on the lowest resolution, then set it to black and white ... then, go to google earth and look at things similar to what is being marked/explained. see if you can notice how hard it is to see what things are, when the pixels are measured in tens of meters each, focus is off, and you don't already know what you are looking at.

Do I believe everything that is put forth ... no ... but I don't dismiss it either. It could be, I am no expert at aerial surveying.

What I think would be interesting, is for the astro nuts
of this community could get ahold of one of the people (or purchase themselves) one of the 20-36"+ telescopes and point it towards the moon on a clear night and snap some pictures of what they find. If they can see galaxies clearly that are as far away as those telescope enthusiasts claim, we might have something tangible with a methodical and dedicated search of the lunar surface.

36" telescope review

up to 28" telescopes built-to-order

with that one site (there are other manufacturers), a 28" with all the extra goodies availble (two mirror heaters, etc.) would run $20,000 usd, but you could go cheaper.

I am not saying I believe, or have proof of life on the other planets ... but, I have doubts that our space agencies tell us anything important. Venus ... may have life. the pictures we did get didn't seem like the he!! hole NASA claims it to be. Mars, well look at how much more they tell us about now than 10-20 years ago, they had to admit to water and ice, when will they admit plant life?

If you pay attention to the discrepancies put forth by those who hold all the cards, you see there is at least some amount of deceit being played to the world audience, to what purpose? Why lie? There must be either some benefit to hiding truths, either personal gain, or being controlled from somewhere else ... or it is a really big, sad, sick joke, that runs through generations. I will say, there is someone in control (entity/group, not single person), who has decided what they can release, and the punishment is quite severe, I assume involving family members or something would have come out over the decades ... or the peons really have no clue, and the select few that do make sure the pawns are concentrating on the wrong things and the explanations have them looking right at the very thing they would blab about. Mental conditioning is real.

All of that, I respect the view of people who can't see the things, I can't always. I respect whatever view you have whether I agree with it or not.

Thanks to the o.p. for posting the infrared, it doesn't make sense we only got a few pictures, as if those were the only ones clean enough for 'clearance' to the public
I would find it odd that craters would hold heat longer as well ... unless the moon is still volcanic, there is artificial heat sources ... because from other pictures showing the mineral distribution ... it doesn't seem that the heat is related to the concentration of precious resources we have studied , I think titanium would hold heat longer than dust, but what do I know, I am just a guy on the internet
:cool



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Originally posted by Iblis



John, I'll assume your constant depiction of me as ignorant is a character flaw rather than some crude conversational norm you have.


Yes. Its a character flaw. Apparently I can't do anything about it. Please accept my apologies.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Lol are you really trying to argue me on the fact that the world is round?

Oh boy,Real science is cause and effect.This can be recreated over and over and get the same results.Medicine,lightbulbs,computers,cars, you can turn on a light and it will do it's thing and give you light...etc.On the other hand qauntum physics is a whole different story .Crazy stuff.

this is way off topic.We are talking about bases on the moon,not if the earth is round or how science works.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
So we have some questions to get clear....

1) Are there really bases on the moon ?
2) Do these Infrared images show anything but warm rocks ?
3) Why has there not been any Infrared images made by NASA ?
4) Do Moon craters retain more heat that the surrounding landscape ?

and

5) John, where abouts are these Moon Swimming Pools, heated with solar panels, would be good to get a pic of a grey taking a dip sipping a Luna Cocktail


Peace.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
[/img]

There ya go!

Here is another angle of Aristachus taken by Torbay Astronomical Society


What I am curious about, and if John is around perhaps he could comment,
is what about Tycho - is this the propulsion outlet, once the crater slides open?
It is the hottest on infra red!






top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join