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.

 

Proving John Walson wrong about lunar "intelligent activity" - Part 2

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The features claimed to show "intelligent activity" are 2 natural features known as "Grand Piton" (the brighter object) and Piton the T-shaped object. In the high resolution photos you can see that these are natural features. They are seen in even higher resolution in my ATLAS since making digital copies for the web removed a little resolution.

Then, referring to a closeup of Crater Aristillus, the caption reads: "Now, take a look at this single frame of a crater. What is that strange cluster of objects, or forms, in the bottom?" Again, I refer you to: www.lpi.usra.edu... and you can see in Lunar Orbiter IV photo IV-110-H1 that the center peaks are natural formations and not what a telescope gives you the impression that you're seeing artificial features made by aliens.

Finally, the caption reads: "OK...let's take a look at the video. Pay special attention to the scene starting at 1:50. What do you see?" I'll tell you what I see, a very nice video of the lunar surface and not showing "breathtakingly clear details of the lunar surface..." For if, indeed, the video was "breathtakingly clear" the details shown would closely equal the digital photos which show nothing but natural features. Nothing else.

John Walson Leland has not provided extraordinary evidence, just human fallibility.




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Hi Ed. Welcome to ATS.

You identified the crater all right. No doubt, that's it. Well done.

You are commenting this article by John Lenard Walson. Why did you create two threads about it? One is enough.

The central peak in Aristillus is visible in LO IV-110-H1.

I found only two images of the area in the Apollo Image Atlas.

Nothing there. If aliens really had buildings on the Moon, we wouldn't be able to see them with an amateur scope.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
Hi Ed. Welcome to ATS.

You identified the crater all right. No doubt, that's it. Well done.

You are commenting this article by John Lenard Walson. Why did you create two threads about it? One is enough.

The central peak in Aristillus is visible in LO IV-110-H1.
I found only two images of the area in the Apollo Image Atlas.

Nothing there. If aliens really had buildings on the Moon, we wouldn't be able to see them with an amateur scope.

Hi: It's amazing that my topic about proper debunking, which is SORELY needed on ATS, has drawn only your response which I really appreciate.

It was necessary to break my post into 2 threads because when I pasted my comments on the space it didn't paste completely. I even tried to include some opening remarks for ATS but, again, in order to do so I found it necessary to shorten the first thread and continue on Part 2. Unexplained Mysteries allowed me to post the whole thing on one thread.

I didn't want to shorten the post because it didn't contain extraneous material (in my opinion), I edited it sticking to the research facts. Regarding your comment: "If aliens really had buildings on the Moon, we wouldn't be able to see them with an amateur scope." This is true even though there are or used to be some that claimed to be able to do so. While some critics claim that NASA deletes or covers certain things on NASA photos that they don't want us to see, I don't accept their claims. The LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS think contains extremely high resolution photos that do not look like they've been messed with. At least I can't tell if they have or haven't. Excellent lunar research material source. It weighs 9 pounds!

Thanks also for the welcome, nablator. Glad to be here.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Hi: It's amazing that my topic about proper debunking, which is SORELY needed on ATS, has drawn only your response which I really appreciate.

Well, the word "debunk" does not attract many readers. "Gigantic alien structures" works better.


You could have posted some links and pictures, and maybe built a more balanced argument. What proof is there anyway? None. The YouTube video is interesting and more analysis is needed to tell if there is anything new in it.

You have only provided evidence that there is no cover-up by NASA, as the same features are seen on LO images. The usual argument is "they don't look the same", followed by discussions about paraeidolia, topography and perception of shadows. Just take a look at the recent thread about the crater Herschel. It's going nowhere.

As much as I would love to see a feature clearly missing on some images, proving that there is something weird going on up there after all, I doubt I'm every going to see one. So please someone prove me wrong!


It was necessary to break my post into 2 threads because when I pasted my comments on the space it didn't paste completely. I even tried to include some opening remarks for ATS but, again, in order to do so I found it necessary to shorten the first thread and continue on Part 2. Unexplained Mysteries allowed me to post the whole thing on one thread.

There is a simple way, just break the text into several chunks and make several posts to the same thread.


While some critics claim that NASA deletes or covers certain things on NASA photos that they don't want us to see, I don't accept their claims.

I've never seen any credible evidence of a cover-up. If some artifact had been airbrushed on one image it would have been a tremendous amount of work to make sure all the evidence was removed from every picture of the same area, especially in the 60s. The more recent claims about NASA airbrushing the Clementine photos are too obvious to be an attempt to hide anything.


The LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS think contains extremely high resolution photos that do not look like they've been messed with.

Yes. Have you read the huge thread "John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS"? It's mostly a discussion about pictures of Copernicus crater taken by Lunar Orbiter satellites. You will also find there discussions about new scans of the LO negatives made available recently online, and also new scans of Apollo 15 images (AS15-M-XXXX) at apollo.sese.asu.edu. The two Aristillus crater images are conspicuously missing there, BTW. It must be a cover-up.


Edit: I invited the posters on the Hershel thread to post their comments here. Hopefully, someone will read it.


[edit on 2008-4-24 by nablator]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
@Sceptical Ed

The annals of YouTube abound with the magical images of John Lenard Walson, as promoted by his alter ego, Gridkeeper. I doubt you'll attract much interest here, going over Walson's stuff that's already been dismissed as bogus through several ATS discussions. You will never get straight answers from these guys. They aren't capable of giving a scientific explanation to any of it because it is all hoaxed. Please save your energies for more productive investigations.
There are several threads covering the Walson saga, but this is the one I found particularly interesting:
Walson Videos of Space Vehicles

WG3



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well, to be fair, if you can't prove with photos that aliens are poking around on the Moon or in space or wherever, you can't disprove it with photos, either. Just because a crater on the Moon doesn't appear to have any structures we can see are obviously "artificial," doesn't mean they're not there. I mean, if I was tying to keep my activity on the down-low, I'd use camouflage. Hopefully, aliens would be smart enough to build their facilities to look like ordinary rocks and stuff. Unless they're really dumb aliens.

Photos are just representations of something, and not good for proof unless they can be positively associated with other things. So it is with the dopes who claim every rock on the Moon and Mars are old rusty spaceship and robot parts, and so it is with those claiming proof of a negative.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 

Nohup: as always you show excellent judgment. Can't agree more with you. Alien hunting on the Moon is fun, but there is not much hope of finding anything, unfortunately.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Hi: It's amazing that my topic about proper debunking, which is SORELY needed on ATS, has drawn only your response which I really appreciate.


Not at all amazing... about once a week we get one of these "I Am super debunker and you NEED to listen to reason" threads.. gets old after awhile. I Sent you a list of a few of the other ones in the latest debunker vs believer thread you started

Seems you are on a 'mission'





It was necessary to break my post into 2 threads because when I pasted my comments on the space it didn't paste completely.



No it wasn't... You could simply have put continued at the bottom of your post and put the rest in a second post... Just look at any of Jkrog08's excellent UFO threads



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup


Starred that one... well said


But skeptics like ArMaP, Phage and a few others work just as hard presenting their case...

'Debunkers' with no facts are merely stating personal opinion



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Hi: It's amazing that my topic about proper debunking, which is SORELY needed on ATS, has drawn only your response which I really appreciate.


Not at all amazing... about once a week we get one of these "I Am super debunker and you NEED to listen to reason" threads.. gets old after awhile. I Sent you a list of a few of the other ones in the latest debunker vs believer thread you started

Seems you are on a 'mission'





It was necessary to break my post into 2 threads because when I pasted my comments on the space it didn't paste completely.



No it wasn't... You could simply have put continued at the bottom of your post and put the rest in a second post... Just look at any of Jkrog08's excellent UFO threads




Well, Foregone, since you revived my thread from last year to spew your continued attempt at thread control, I thank you anyway as I had forgotten about that topic.

You can criticize all you want, it doesn't affect me as all I have to do is look at the source of the criticsim and feel pity for the critic since the critic seems to enjoy trying to make others as miserable as the critic must feel.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
You can criticize all you want, it doesn't affect me as all I have to do is look at the source of the criticsim and feel pity for the critic since the critic seems to enjoy trying to make others as miserable as the critic must feel.


Well you skeptoids always call out "Show me good stuff" Then when it IS presented ...funny... no skeptic to be found... Why is that do you think?

Hmmm...

Try this on for size

UFO and ETs encounter with 62 children in South Africa, 1994
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I just wanted to thank Zorgon for bumping this thread and pointing some things out.

Here lately, Ed here has been trying very hard to debunk people left and right. Tries to come off as an expert in the field because he watches the sky a lot and likes to point out his age of 71. As if age has something to do with credibility. Age to me, means nothing. I'm sure others also feel that way.

Comes off as a non-believer in one thread, then later on comes off as a believer in another. Says he's had some sightings, but also attacks others who say they've had sightings.

Posts a lot of stuff as fact with nothing to back it up, then attacks others for doing the same thing.

I can go on and on, but it's not worth it. Keep playing this little game of yours Eddie, people aren't going to buy it for much longer.

Open-minded skeptic? Whatever

This is when you come back to attack me and say I have a controlling ego

[edit on 29-9-2009 by nightmare_david]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
I just wanted to thank Zorgon for bumping this thread and pointing some things out.

Here lately, Ed here has been trying very hard to debunk people left and right. Tries to come off as an expert in the field because he watches the sky a lot and likes to point out his age of 71. As if age has something to do with credibility. Age to me, means nothing. I'm sure others also feel that way.

Comes off as a non-believer in one thread, then later on comes off as a believer in another. Says he's had some sightings, but also attacks others who say they've had sightings.

Posts a lot of stuff as fact with nothing to back it up, then attacks others for doing the same thing.

I can go on and on, but it's not worth it. Keep playing this little game of yours Eddie, people aren't going to buy it for much longer.

Open-minded skeptic? Whatever

This is when you come back to attack me and say I have a controlling ego

[edit on 29-9-2009 by nightmare_david]


Thanks for your demented comments, they've earned you and Thorgone a place of honor in my ignore list. 2 so far.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Instead of ad hominem attacks, perhaps you all should focus on reinforcing your arguements. Don't fall for the classic fallacies. This juvenile posturing doesn't help.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Debunkers with no facts may merely be stating an opinion but what has that got to do with this thread ?

In fact what has the encounter in Zimbabwe got to do with this thread ?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by zorgon
 


Debunkers with no facts may merely be stating an opinion but what has that got to do with this thread ?


Eddie has a thing for stating a lot of what he says as fact. It's only been in the last couple days I've seen him use the words "in my opinion" more often and even then he'll still state that opinion as a fact and not back it up. Just look through his post history to see that.

He acts as if his words alone are all that he needs to prove someone wrong. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You ever see anyone like Zorgon, Jkrog or Phage present anything as fact without providing evidence for it?

And look at his "debunking" technique. Look at these two threads of his alone. He was trying to debunk this as if he was the first to go after it. Only it had already been debunked way before he created the threads.

About immature attitudes. Again, look at his post history. Watch how he treats others who don't agree with him. Starts giving snide remarks and attacking. Treating others like they're beneath him or in my case said I have a controlling ego. Far from true and I have NEVER treated anyone as if I'm above them. As a matter of FACT, I despise anyone who thinks they're superior to others.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Hi i thought this might be an interesting thread until i read this.


Thanks for your demented comments, they've earned you and Thorgone a place of honor in my ignore list. 2 so far.


Just wondering is it school holidays again an the kids are on ATS or someone needs to grow up and take some criticism and stop acting so childish.

Gave me a good laugh



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
In fact what has the encounter in Zimbabwe got to do with this thread ?



Absolutely nothing... just wondering why devout skeptics won't go there



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ocker
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Hi i thought this might be an interesting thread until i read this.


Thanks for your demented comments, they've earned you and Thorgone a place of honor in my ignore list. 2 so far.


Just wondering is it school holidays again an the kids are on ATS or someone needs to grow up and take some criticism and stop acting so childish.

Gave me a good laugh


Take notice that nothing I said was anywhere near demented (flat-out lied) and that he also resorted to calling Zorgon names (breaking an ATS rule).

Also notice that he really didn't tackle what either of us said. Worked around it and resorted to name-calling and immature, snide remarks.

And I'm one of the immature ones apparently



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Reply to Zorgon and Nightmare David.

Obviously I made the mistake of taking the OP at face value.

I personally spend many hours of armchair research within these blurry grey subjects but hadn't seen any direct explanations contradicting Walson's claims - that's not to say it isn't out there but previously I had only seen conjecture as to the methods he was using for capturing images.

Therefore the OP was valuable and new to me and it may also be to others - unlike the bulk of the tripe which ends up on ATS.

In my view I then saw unneccessary and unwarranted criticism.

To be honest if we are going to use other threads and comments to pre-judge material presented then long ago I would have been ignoring some who, whilst generally spouting tripe, occasionally provide a nugget.

There is a tendency in forums such as this for posters to try and add too much value, i.e. the desire to add 2 cents to every discussion. Also to employ scattergun tactics rather than scalpels.

Skeptics who remain so in the face of evidence are as valuable to moving the field of UFOlogy forward as are believers of the same ilk. The best that can be said is that at least they balance each other out. As I said, I took the OP at face value.

I don't wish to provoke a discussion of no relevance to the OP but did feel the need to explain my earlier comment.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join