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.

 

Moon photo anomalys' gaining momentum in Russia.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
I found this on Richard C. Hoagland's website:

external image

It kind of looks like the foundation to a building to me. What do you guys think?

He also had this photo in the same section:

external image

I believe both of these photos were taken on the Apollo missions.

In his book Dark Mission, Richard C. Hoagland claims the second photo as evidence of a vast, broken, heavily eroded, shattered lunar dome. He has many similar photos in the book itself.

Is it just me, or does the evidence of advanced civilizations, NASA coverups, and extraterrestrial contact just keep getting better and better?

Here is a link to the source of these photos.

EnterpriseMission

[edit on 28-11-2007 by CreeWolf]




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Hi CreeWolf

Great find!

The first picture is from Mars

I've posted it here on November 19
Honestly, i've found it by myself: maybe Hoagland did it before me (but it doesn't matter to me, i'm not interested to get credits for that
)
besides, i googled the number of the image and i've found out that someone else has noticed the same anomaly.
So, i post here my original message:


Mars Global Surveyor MOC Image e1000462(a)



Image Description:
Material within crater at 28.4 N 332.4 W

General
MOC Image e1000462
Orbit 11885
Columns 512
Rows 10496
Orientation True

Geometry
Latitude 28.38°
Longitude 332.54°
Resolution * 6.08 meters/pixel
Phase Angle 75.16°
Incidence Angle 59.47°
Emission Angle 18.07°
North Azimuth 93.38°
Slant Range (km) 425.78
Spacecraft Altitude (km) 407.08

Engineering
Gain 8A
Offset 40
Summing Mode
(Downtrack) 4




Cropped area



Viking Context Image


Sources:
ida.wr.usgs.gov...
ida.wr.usgs.gov...
ida.wr.usgs.gov...
ida.wr.usgs.gov...


About the second image, that should be an enhanced version of AS14-66-9301:
here you can find the original hi-res from NASA
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The rectangle is one of the most interesting things i've ever seen on Mars photos.
Excellent work. A star and a flag for you!



[edit on 28/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Fantastic stuff Creewolf!

I read about the shard being 7 miles high,and somewhere near the south pole region of the moon(?).It was ages ago in an old UFO magazine.It would be great to be able to verify the authenticity of the photo somehow.
The Martian rectangle formation is fascinating.Can anyone estimate the size of it?
It looks built to me.

Top stuff.

I still like this one on the moon:

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Silcone Synapse]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
[...]The Martian rectangle formation is fascinating.Can anyone estimate the size of it?
It looks built to me.

Top stuff.

Hi, Silcone Synapse: hope this helps


In according to the Ancillary data for MOC narrow-angle image E10-00462,
the width of the image is 3,27 Km (= 2.031 miles)



[edit on 28/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


The image E10-11462 is an excellent argument for the "Ruins Of Mars" book you and Mike need to put out. (And since I will be glad to help, a third of the royalties seem only fair.
) Great find. And I have no doubt that you did find it on your own, considering your record with images.

It is hard to imagine a structure, much less a natural placement, so large and yet almost perfectly "squared up". Considering that it is roughly 1.5 miles by 1.3 miles on a side, I doubt seriously that it would be easy to square such a "foundation" today without using laser technology. Also, the straightness of the walls would not be easy using only the "line of sight" method.

Boo on Hoagy, this is internos Martian Foundation Picture.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 

Arrgh sorry,total mess up post.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by Silcone Synapse]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Good Lord internos,
Thats about the right size for an old walled city in medieval times.
The Romans also had a habit of making substantial,huge city walls around thier cities.One of them is still very apparent in a city near where I live (chester).

The Martians could have got to or beyond this stage of building before the planet changed.
I find these images astounding-and I just sent one to my Dads email,not telling him what it was...He sent back saying he thought it looked like some of the ruins he has been exploring in the Mediterranean!
When I told him it was on Mars,he got properly weirded out!!Hehehe.
Fantastic-I will dream about this stuff tonight,exploring ancient Martian ruins!
Can't wait.




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Thanks for the information Internos. I didn't know you had posted that pic before (so much content on ATS you could spend a week!). It seemed like I've seen that pic before somewhere, but I think you're right; it is from Mars. All the same, NASA is full of fecal matter on a lot of discoveries; they just barely keep us mushrooms fed!



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CreeWolf
 

Thank you for opening this thread, CreeWolf. In this way that "rectangle" has its visibility: you couldn't know that i had already posted it because it was in an unrelated thread. Besides, when i've posted it the first time, almost nobody noticed it: probably it has been my bad, because there were too many images all together there, and one more, or one less it didn't matter

Here i just added some infos about coordinates, official sources and so on, because of course someone, soon or later, would have asked for them
In this way, it will be clear that the source is reliable. Thank you again.



reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 

I live in Mediterrean (when i'm not elsewhere) so i can imagine what could be your Dads feeling: the first time i saw that photo, i couldn't believe to my eyes: and still now i feel the same every time i look at it. IMHO, this is a puzzling mystery.



[edit on 28/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I think the thread needs to be retitled "mars anomalies gaining momentum in Russia". Now, this may come as a shocker to some, but while I don't believe there's any evidence of artificial stuff on the moon other than what we've put there, I think it's a totally different story on Mars, with things that, so far, I can't explain as being the result of natural phenomena. Flagged and starred.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The name of the thread isn't as important as the content. This is just another example of the fact that you never know what will be brought out here, so you need to look at every thread.

I learn something new and worthwhile every day here.


[edit on 29-11-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CreeWolf
 

The first image is from Mars, and what is it about it that can't just be an ordinary rock outcrop?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by disownedsky
 


While I know you were talking to Creewolf about this, I had to ask a question.

Could you show me a picture from anywhere on Earth that has that kind of outline, and yet is a natural formation?

Bear in mind that it must show at the very least the same right angles and the same relationship of angles internally.

I'll go to the "natural side" on this in a heartbeat if you can. One example of a natural formation with all the same characteristics as this one, and I'm a convert.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Probably was just a square meteor...

They aren't all round you know.





posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by porschedrifter
 


Now that's even further outside the box than I can think.


It must be a masonic meteor, to be so square.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Oh heck! Not again! What we're seeing is just rocks, dust, natural geological formations, ancient volcanic terrain configurations, dust on the lens and so on.


But in addition we're also seeing anomalies that are NOT explainable!! PERIOD!

Good find, Creewolf!
And hey, where are the skeptics? Probably running for cover!

Cheers!


[edit on 29-11-2007 by mikesingh]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf
(so much content on ATS you could spend a week!)

A week? Try 10 Years!

...celebrating 10 years of tin...


Now as far as the Mars image is concerned, I think its quite obvious what we're looking at:
Swamp Gas.
I bet ya didn't even know there were swamps on Mars, huh? Well, there almost has to be... cuz it's the one explanation NASA hasn't used for anomalies up there on that planet.
Kidding, of course!

[edit on 11/29/2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by damajikninja
 




I like your take on this! And you are absolutely right. I grossly underestimated the amount of time it would take to go entirely through the content of ATS, BTS, and PTS.

I've taken a strong interest in the these type of threads. The last two books I've read are:

Dark Mission--The Secret History of NASA--Richard C. Hoagland

Need to Know--UFOs, the Military and Intelligence--Timothy Good

I'd highly recommend these books for anyone interested in the subjects at hand. They've put many things in perspective for me. While I don't believe EVERYTHING in these books, they both make a strong case of Government secrecy, disinformation, and general lack of cooperation in revealing many truths. I understand National Security and the need, but for crying out loud, we are adults and CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH!

If anyone has any interesting links to contribute, I'd certainly welcome them. I can't get enough of this stuff! I'll be watching the recent probes sent to Mars and the moon by the various nations closely (internos has a very useful thread on some of these):

Internos' Thread-ATS

Thankyou to all others that have replied so far! I really appreciate your input.




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Richard C. Hoagland is a known hoaxer and crazy and his claims hold no validity in the scientific community. He was fired from NASA because he threatened to disclose made up information and when NASA was sick of it, they terminated his ass. More power to them. Now, he holds some sort of personal grudge against NASA and is making up all kinds of BS and disinformation. I have read "Dark Mission" and it is filled with all kinds of mumbo jumbo and filled with enlarged distorted pictures that claim there is someething there when there isn't. I mean, Castles on the Moon? Come on people. Don't let this guy take you for fools. I can't bring myself to believe any of his claims no matter how badly I want to. I'd believe that The Wizard of Oz was a true story before I believed any of his claims.

May I point you to his thorough debunking courtesy of known respected scientist, Phil Plait:

www.badastronomy.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike_b
Richard C. Hoagland is a known hoaxer and crazy and his claims hold no validity in the scientific community. He was fired from NASA because he threatened to disclose made up information and when NASA was sick of it, they terminated his ass. More power to them. Now, he holds some sort of personal grudge against NASA and is making up all kinds of BS and disinformation. I have read "Dark Mission" and it is filled with all kinds of mumbo jumbo and filled with enlarged distorted pictures that claim there is someething there when there isn't. I mean, Castles on the Moon? Come on people. Don't let this guy take you for fools. I can't bring myself to believe any of his claims no matter how badly I want to. I'd believe that The Wizard of Oz was a true story before I believed any of his claims.

May I point you to his thorough debunking courtesy of known respected scientist, Phil Plait:

www.badastronomy.com...


I respect your opinion, especially because your statement seems to be based upon a reading of the book. But this thread is based on TWO images: the Hoagland enhanced one and the Mars one, which is uncropped-unresized-unenhanced and so on:
to say it in two words, an ORIGINAL IMAGE from Malin Space Science Systems which shows a almost perfectly shaped rectangle on Mars.
www.msss.com...
That being said, i think that the rectangle is worthy to be discussed here, and Hoagland's statements would require a long thread by themselves (to which i wouldn't be much interested).
Thank you for your post.



Originally posted by disownedsky
reply to post by CreeWolf
 

The first image is from Mars, and what is it about it that can't just be an ordinary rock outcrop?

But this is GREAT NEWS!!!
Please, since that's an ordinary rock outcrop, could you be so kind to provide links to some other "ordinary rock outcrops" like that one on Mars?
I would be really interested to them.



[edit on 29/11/2007 by internos]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join