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.

 

Uncensored NASA Moon Images!!

page: 9
233
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 


I think these are just water damage spots on the film. There are several instances of this occurring.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ahamarlin
 


Sorry for the multiple posts to reply, but I just cannot let this ridiculous post go unanswered.

Sir, you definitely have an issue if you think this has broken anything wide open. These are no better than anything we already have, "uncensored" or not.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I'm on a corp network in L.A..... i'll try from a server in VA to see if it is local to CA.

-Euclid



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Un-natural structures? Un-natural where? On the moon? How do we know? The moon clearly was formed of different processes than Earth and is an utterly alien environment.

There are cognitive scientists that drool over the prospect of studying people who see exactly what they want to in pictures and drawings.

Welcome to ATS and "image analysis".....the biggest Rorschach Test in existence.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Amitsumikaboshi
 


How is it a theory? I am sure they could and have reproduced similar results in a lab with a scaled down experiment.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by skeppo
 


did they do that experiment on the show or say they they had done said experiment ?

if not its a theory also there is no real way they can know how plutos surface will react to a metor strike even by doing test in a lab on earth so again its only a theory

so that this discussion dose not cause either of use to be warned i would happily continue this in U2U that is if this newbie account can skeppo



[edit on 19-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
Are those pools of something on the moon or what?

ser.sese.asu.edu...



watermarks. nothing special.

www.thelivingmoon.com...
´Note on Anomalies´

cheers



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
This is pretty amazing stuff people. Theres obviously artificial structures present in those pictures, nothing natural can explain it. But the structures are still relatively intact which is kind of weird.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sum stoner
This is pretty amazing stuff people. Theres obviously artificial structures present in those pictures, nothing natural can explain it. But the structures are still relatively intact which is kind of weird.


You're absolutely right, sum stoner. Do you mind now posting your geological and astrophysical credentials, please? I'm sure the rest of us believers would appreciate having such scientific knowledge to back up our claims.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Hey all you debunkers, what about the tracks? They don't seem like they could be natural at all. Seems like they would have to be a vehicle that made them...



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by anti72

'Those are just watermarks'

That's awful, its almost as if the moon missions never happened, all the tapes are lost, nobody bothered to use hairnets when scanning these images, people couldn't keep drinks away from the photo processing room... rips, tears, etc... just terrible. Who knows the difference from a crack in the ground or a careless pube left on the scanner...Who were those guys, anyway?

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
How about this.

No one in this forum ever walked on the moon. No one in this forum ever orbitted the moon as to observe the moon in close range.

There are twenty-four Apollo program astronauts that left the Earth's orbit and flew around the Moon.

Twelve of those astronauts landed on the Moon and walked on its surface, and six of those drove a Lunar rover on the Moon.

They are also the only people to have seen the far side of the Moon directly.

NOT ONE OF THEM DESCRIBED SEEING ANY ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES ON THE MOON.

NOT ONE. Now I know you conspiracy theorists are going to scream: "MKUltra!
" "Mind control!
" "NASA gag order
" and other ridiculous baseless illogical and sometimes idiotic claims with nothing to back them up other than make belief and wishful thinking.

For the sake of argument I'm suspending my disbelief temporaryly just to make a point.

So then WHY is Edgar Mitchell, the most maverick of the Apollo Astronauts, who believe in aliens visiting earth and the Rowsell incident EXPLICITLY DENIED ever seeing artificial strucutres and objects on the moon on the Kevin Smith Show a week ago?

WHY?

Why didn't Gordon Cooper who also claimed to saw a UFO spaceraft landing on Earth : as fantastical claim as he was making NEVER EVER SAID of seeing
artificial structures on the moon?

WHY?

Think about this, guys. Think critically and you will see the claims that the OP brought are all just utter twaddle. Like Buzz Aldrin said "now we're getting a lot more illusions tonight. "


[edit on 19-8-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AntisepticSkeptic
 


There is a blatant cover-up of something that NASA stumbled on while exploring the moon. The reason that some of the pictures still retain the structures etc, is because they may have been released before 1972 when NASA began to actively censor the pictures.
Being sceptical is fine. I'm sceptical. But you my friend are a debunker with nothing interesting to add to the conversation.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Thank you Mike, Too long between visits now, but you bring me back.

All very interesting and serves to get our biocomputers warmed up.

For those so called skeptics, you need to actually understand the context people like Mike are giving us this material from. He's not trying to prove anything, he knows there can be no proof here. ATS discusses. Some attitudes we see here think it means “disgusted”. But take this like it is presented. Very, very interesting images to discuss.

I did plenty if illustration for NASA in the early 90's, and poured over photos to reference for scenes. I did not see many glaring anomalous stuff, but if I did, I would have looked closer and asked questions.

Assuming there are no weird alien things does not make it so, and if just one, JUST ONE turns out to be evidence of intelligent origins, then our whole world changes.

I’ve seen enough over the years to believe it is worth looking closer and doing some serious work. I cannot support the lazy notion that because you doubt something it is not worth some careful thought.

I used to do lots of rock hounding and exploration in the deep desert, especially Death Valley, and you see things there that can fool the eye. If you saw Mushroom Rock from 200 miles up, you might mistake it for, well.. A mushroom the size of a VW. There are other things that can fool the fool too. I’ve seen natural things that looked fake. I’ve seen fake things that look real. But to dismiss anything before you know, or categorize anything before you do some science and due diligence, is the height of arrogance and "ignorance / illusion" (some people think that’s two eyes, but it’s just two “I’s)

Applause to Mike and anyone who finds and brings this type of material forward for discussion, otherwise lost in piles of forgotten records of brave and intelligent people actually doing the work of exploration for us web surfing couch-o-nauts.

Some of us, in fact many of us, have direct knowledge that life is everywhere, and anywhere. And, while I think these images can be normal geologic, seismic or impact events, I can believe they could be something much more wondrous. Foot prints of intelligent life that have inhabited the galaxy for billions of years. You could not prove otherwise.
Thanks again Mike!


Oh, and about the crater anomaly. Shadows are very sharp as there is no atmospheric diffusion of light. I illustrate for science books and have studied formation and geologic change on lunar geology and cratering. There is not much erosion, seismic or displacement on the lunar surface. Undisturbed, a footprint in Regolyth will last millions if not billions of years unchanged unless jarred by or covered by ejecta from other impacts. What you see on the Moon has been there since well before the so-called dawn of Man.

At least this particular Earthborn instance of civilization anyway.


ZG

[edit on 8/19/2008 by ZeroGhost]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Actually, he provided a lot to this thread.

Think about his points: the people who have actually been to the moon, and who actually support the belief in alien life, have not reported structures on the moon.

Think about it again: your biggest proponents who actually have credentials that far outweigh any single person here--and who share your own belief--aren't backing up the conjectures regarding the moon.

It's a very valid point indeed. Perhaps those of you who keep stating such inane things like "This can't possibly be disproven! No one can deny this!" should calm down a bit and exercise some critical thinking.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AntisepticSkeptic
 


The reason Gordon Cooper has never claimed to have seen artificial structures on the moon is because he never went to the moon! As for none of the astronauts who did make the journey never claiming to have seen anything odd on the moon... That Isn't strictly true. Apparently the transmissions from the moon during Apollo 11 were broadcast live in Australia. There are many who remember Michael Collins describing seeing a large, he estimated, seven storey building while he orbited the moon.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Sources, please.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Well isn't that thought provoking.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 


I believe that the processing of the film took place in the actual spacecraft, so I'm afraid we can't blame it on sloppy NASA technicians. (Although it wouldn't be a surprise considering the careless manner in which they seem to treat their footage.)

I think the tracks are probably some of the strongest evidence, so how about focusing on them for a bit?

Now the resolution in these images varies from 0.6 to 3.6 meters pr. pixel, which should make the tracks at least several meters apart.
We could determine this much more precisely if we knew the image numbers. (You've done an awesome job Internos, but I have to agree with Armap that posting the numbers would be a big help.)

Regardless, even a few meters apart would make the tracks far to large to have come from any rover that I know of, unless the rover doubled back and drove exactly parallel to the original track, which I consider an impossibility.

So if those are not tracks from one of our rovers what is it



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AntisepticSkeptic
 


What about the image of the tracks? What made those? Do you think they are natural? There were no known rovers operating at this time in these regions..



new topics

top topics



 
233
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join