Infrared Moon Images

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I don't understand the whole "artificial" moon theory. To me, it's completely absurd and ridiculous to think that any creature would fly on down next to Earth with something that huge. Not to mention, if they had the technology to do so, why the heck can't they keep a stable orbit around us? The moon is slowly moving away from us which leads to the belief the moon was created through the impact of a minor "earth like" planet and our own. The elements would combine and then would spew out, it would then crash back on itself and push out again. There have been simulations, calculations, and all that which has immense data points leading to this same conclusion. It simply works.

Now, I really do enjoy the whole "structures" on the moon theory. I really do. In fact, I believe there ARE artificial structures up there very much like a monolith and or a self reproducing factory which creates probes much like itself and sends them sprawling across the galaxy landing on other moons in hopes of finding a race which can make contact with it. But the whole artificial moon thing is just too much and has an extremely low amount of data (if any) to support it.

John, do you think these "structures" up there could very much be exactly just that: reproducing factories in hopes of landing on a moon which is situated next to a planet with sentient life, just waiting for us to make contact? Would you agree with these "close minded" physicists who actually came up with this concept which they find acceptable and extremely possible (likely)? Would you accept this theory over "soul catchers" and oddities like that?




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   


Hi Havalon,

Do you have any connection with the Torbay Astronomical Society or was this image just pulled of the web somewhere ?

You see I find this a bit disturbing that a small observatory (19" Telelescope) with what would appear to be an amateur membership in a quaint seaside town would be doctoring images of the Moon.

Although I suppose it could be that there photography or photographic equipment is creating an inverse effect regarding depth perception.

Hi, John,

Actually I had read the artificial Moon theory, and frankly I love it, but I was trying to creep up on it so to speak.


What I wanted to do was to address each component of it individually and see if anyone wanted to comment or had answers to the evidence presented.

For anybody who is not familiar with it you can read a copy here:

www.piscesallmedia.com...

Hi Sherpa,
I have a mate in the UK who directed me to the TAS site, I posted the url underneath the phot of Tycho.
I tend to agree with you, re the little observatory telescope in Torquay!
I don't think they are 'messin' with the photo's, however the site is linked directly to the NASA Apollo site. I will have to do a little more research into that Observatory. I don't want to wander off topic too much.

Thanks for the input John, most appreciated.




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donoso
Now, I really do enjoy the whole "structures" on the moon theory. I really do. In fact, I believe there ARE artificial structures up there very much like a monolith and or a self reproducing factory which creates probes much like itself and sends them sprawling across the galaxy landing on other moons in hopes of finding a race which can make contact with it. But the whole artificial moon thing is just too much and has an extremely low amount of data (if any) to support it.


Oh, and what data do you have to support your opinion that there are artificial structures on the moon?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Postal76
Oh, and what data do you have to support your opinion that there are artificial structures on the moon?


I have absolutely none. I'm using descriptions and predictions physicists made on the MOST possible way that any other race would try and make contact with another. I then take images I see which I am willing to state have absolutely no proof towards any scientific theory BUT can be used to formulate a common term theory. We are here to discuss these things which is why I asked Lear what his opinions on the matter are. The same way I find a common term theory ridiculous, you are free to find another one ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
To be completely blunt, all of John's assertions seem to be little more than 'what I want to believe'.

He speaks matter-of-factly, but without any scientific basis, and generally with all gathered evidence going against his line of thought. His only answers to me have been further story telling, and, 'It's obvious!'

This thread, in short, is a waste.
Though, for the sake of argument, here's several more questions:

'Why is one a nuclear reactor, and not the other?'
'Then why does the moondust brought back appear to be nothing more than the elements we could find here at home.' [If in extremely different proportions.]
'If there are giant cities underground, why would they need 'roadways' on the surface?'
'Why would they need roadways at all, considering it's not as though they're going to slam into a tree, or some such thing? If they even have something so primitive as tires?'

This reeks of a sci-fi novel.
And a bad one, at that.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Hi Donoso, in reference to:

"I don't understand the whole "artificial" moon theory. To me, it's completely absurd and ridiculous to think that any creature would fly on down next to Earth with something that huge. "

This might be something to think about.

The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
Hi Donoso, in reference to:

"I don't understand the whole "artificial" moon theory. To me, it's completely absurd and ridiculous to think that any creature would fly on down next to Earth with something that huge. "

This might be something to think about.

The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."


Wow! Thanks for that Sherpa, it sure has got me thinking. Good work





posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zoopnfunk

Originally posted by johnlear
I would like to respectfully propose that one (but not the only) reason you can't see anything in these photos is because you are not ready to accept reality. Either not ready or not able (for whatever reason).

Builidings on the moon reprresent a direct threat to ones sense of reality and if one is having trouble with reality even without aliens on the moon, or is perfectly content with ones perception of reality one is certainly not going to accept anything that represents a threat to his or hers perception of 'reality'. Just a guess. And thanks again for your input.


John, confirming the existence of intelligence outside our home here on earth is an exciting proposition to many of us. Some may feel threatened by the existence of more intelligence beings, but I don't count myself amongst them. Actually I, and I think others, would find it somewhat comforting.

However, I can't allow my personal desires to influence my judgement.
I don't see any man made structures, roads, buildings or reactors in those pictures -- as cool as they are.

Might I respecfully propose that you are seeing structures in those pictures because you want so badly to believe that you may be unconsciously willing to allow your imagination to fill in the blanks?


Hi zoopnfunk,

At the risk of getting to much of topic could you tell me what this is :





And it is probably better to zoom in a bit with a an image viewer.
Apologies for it being a low res image but ESA will not give me a hi res one, I can't imagine why .


Credit to ESA Smart-1



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Judging by the angle of light -- I'd say an outcrop of rock, like a pillar.
Craters aren't perfectly round and even ya' know.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Judging by the angle of light -- I'd say an outcrop of rock, like a pillar.
Craters aren't perfectly round and even ya' know.


Iblis can you see through rock ?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by Donoso



John, do you think these "structures" up there could very much be exactly just that: reproducing factories in hopes of landing on a moon which is situated next to a planet with sentient life, just waiting for us to make contact? Would you agree with these "close minded" physicists who actually came up with this concept which they find acceptable and extremely possible (likely)?


To me, it's completely absurd and ridiculous to think that any creature would fly on down next to Earth with something that huge and deposit reproducing factorie in hopes of landing on the moon which is situated next to a planet with sentient life, just waiting for us to make contact.

But thats just a guess.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
They might do just that with Mars instead. Mr. Lear, I was abducted when I was 3 years old, and I remember being very awake, laying in my bed when my window opened in my bedroom. I then sort of blanked out and woke up in the middle of the night thinking everything I experienced was a nightmare. But these visions I had as a child always took place in a Rocky terrain, seeing people in robes, completely emotionless, and some were un-human. Anything with green skin traumatized me as a child, and I was petrified of Kermit the frog, and dinosaurs. Why, I do not know. But im 30 now, this happened in 1980, and I still have nightmares of that night. The night I was abducted, and who knows if I was taken again when my mother kept finding me asleep on my front stoop everymorning. She monitored me one night and I guess I had a common case of sleepwalking. I was not responding depsite looking "very" alert, with my eyes wide open. Physical abduction? I think mental. Now this could have very much been nightmares, but the reality of these adventures traumatized me untill this day and I sometimes think the abduction is done like a WI FI device and we are programmed through our delta state of mind, when asleep.

Also, Mr. Lear, if movies are your forte, why is Invasion of the body snatchers being remade again? The 4th version of this film comes out in a few days. What are they trying to tell us?

[edit on 8/9/2007 by StreetCorner Philosopher]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher






Also, Mr. Lear, if movies are your forte, why is Invasion of the body snatchers being remade again? The 4th version of this film comes out in a few days. What are they trying to tell us?



The same thing Dr. Miles Bennell was:

"Look! You fools! You’re in danger! Can’t you see? They’re after you! They’re after all of us! Our wives…our children…they’re here already! You’re next!"



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I am waiting for a response on my past three replies.

Furthermore, let us keep 'Alien Abductions' out of this; it is off-topic, and perhaps, being of a more personal nature, more suitable to PMs.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Originally posted by Iblis



This thread, in short, is a waste.


Some, even many would agree with you Iblis.


Though, for the sake of argument, here's several more questions:


If its only for the sake of the argument I respectfully decline.


This reeks of a sci-fi novel.
And a bad one, at that.


I appreciate your participation but I would respectfully suggest a modicum of courtesy. Should you be able to find it within yourself to pose your questions without framing them as a venomous attack I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

Short of that I would respectfully request that you move onto another thread. Thanks again for your participation.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Getting back onto the Infrared Moon images.....it seems obvious that we have not had any Government agency take IR images of the moon, when IMO it would be greatly advantageous.

So....i have a plan.....

What we need is

1) 12" Schmitt-Cassergrain Telescope, should be big enough as i use to have one and had great shots of the moon.

2) Infrared Digital Camera.....does anyone know where or how much these babies might cost... ? I am thinking a lot... but will search now.

So my plan is for us at ATS to see of we can arrange for some IR images to be made of the moon. Maybe im just wasting my time, but i will probably do it myself when i have the funds and time, which will hopefully not be too long....assuming the IR camera does not cost a fortune.


Anyone have any ideas ?


Peace.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Mr. Lear, thanks for your feedback on my movie question. I would also like to ask you, I am a tagged human. I dont want to believe that, but I think I am, it makes sense. Why was i tagged? Was my nightmare of me being experimented on with electroshock therapy a real occurance that took place on the moon? Why is our moon name-less??? Thanks for reading.

Oh and btw, are you a time traveller?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Hi all. Of interest:

"China plans to survey 'every inch' of moon"
physorg

I imagine they'll get some false color and ir shots as well.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

I appreciate your participation but I would respectfully suggest a modicum of courtesy. Should you be able to find it within yourself to pose your questions without framing them as a venomous attack I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.


But Mr Lear, your responses to anyone who questions your delusions are nothing but thinly disguised contempt. You word them nicely but its easy to see the contempt expressed by yourself.
You post the most outlandish, outrageous and totally unblelievable statements as if every one was factual then get peeved when people respond??.


[edit on 10/8/07 by Chorlton]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
How can any thinking person believe that the Moon is just a big hunk of rock that just happens to have massive and irrefutable evidence of past and present occupation? It staggers the sound mind when the naysayers resort to denying odds that are beyond dispute: What are the chances that ALL of the hundreds, if not thousands of ' anomalies ' associated with it in every area of the Moon?

Taken one by one, it is plain that the Moon was at some point either adapted or created for use by aliens; it is hollow, which Carl Sagan pronounced as proof of being other than an ordinary planetoid, it has so many oddities about it and with all of the evidence presented so far, the people who do NOT see the obvious are the ones that are being walked by the dog.

Mr. Lear is right: the moon is some sort of armored base of operations from vast eons ago; we may not agree on all factors, such as purpose or whatever, but we can all agree that there are TOO MANY anomalies to just assume that they are coincidental. No way.

If you examine the staggering number of inexplicable facts about the Moon, it is readily apparent that we are looking at a massive mining operation and base for either aliens or humans / aliens..maybe the aliens are gone and we have taken over.But I doubt this as the fact that we were ' warned off ' and the many UFO sightings around the moon tend to make me believe that the Moon was placed into orbit eons ago for specific reasons and we are just now starting to see the truth to some degree.

It is a fact that NASA, et al, have docotred and suppressed and altered and obfuscated many photos of the moon, and why do that, even once, if there were nothing to hide? No, the lie about the Moon stinks to high heaven and only the most rabid state of denial can persuade anone to believe the official lies.

Infrared pictures are great and we should get more info and comparisons so we can discern more proofs of an occupied moon. But as it stands now, we have enough evidence to state with certainty that the moon is far from being the barren asteroid that we have been led to believe exists soley as a part of natural processes. Keep up the good work Mr. Lear!!





top topics
 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join