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.

 

Undebatable PROOF that we are not being told everything about the moon

page: 8
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
i think that you can safely scratch mining of that list.they havent got any room for anything worth the trip ,and they arent going to spend millions for a pocket full of rocks!




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Anubis3.14
 


i was considering both possibilities: et al, that the gentleman who said they wouldn't use the smudge tool, they'd clone it instead, was correct, and that you are also correct. perhaps it's blurred because it is flying across the scene--moving. the camera is trying to represent 3d space in a 2d medium..



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Anubis3.14
 


Stop using the old browser and start using the new, where those problems do not exist.

Even better, start using the images that are freely available on the site I posted some posts back, it has all (supposedly) Clementine images, you just have to look at them. And they even have the original IMG files that can be used with ISIS and that allow for some image processing, like seeing the several wavelengths for that image.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Did you saw the images I posted? They are from that area and from the same source, the Clementine data sets.

PS: it's nice to "see" you again in this forum.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienChaser
 


That is probably because of the way the images are shown.

The image from the Image Browser is map projected to expand the poles to fill the rectangle (I think that is called a cylindrical projection, but I may wrong), the image from the World Wind is map projected on a 3D model of the Moon, with adjustments for the shape (and I think with height information), the image from the Clementine data sets is just the image as it was taken by Clementine.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


yes, i did. was just thinking outloud. if the first explanation seems unlikely or unsatisfactory, it never hurts to look at it differently. for example, for all we know, it could've been a part of the satellite taking the images. close to the camera lens and moving, would blur it like that, and it might be removed in subsequent images because the next satellite series doesn't have that part in it. or it could be what others have suggested: a building, an error in the data processing and so on.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
Try this.

First, go to the following site:

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

Now here are the settings:
Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = -70 (as in minus 70)
- Longitude = 137
Leave everything else alone and click the “Use lat/long” button.

Tell me what you see?

Now, if anyone makes any BS excuses , then that will ensure me that they are hired in some way, or are working for the people covering this.


WHOOA WTF


I did that too, but all I got was an image of the surface with something smudged out. What do you figure it is?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Satellites are less than a hundred ks away, the moon 380,000 km -
der.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


UNDEBATABLE PROOF?

Anytime I see someone say this I know INSTANTLY that whaever the poster is posting is entirerly DEBATEABLE.

In case some of you rocket scientists didn't read this as posted by a previous debater... The close-ups on google earth are taken by low-flying aircraft, not satellites.
The lack of 1 meter resolution Google Moon images is NOT cause for alarm people.

I see nothing UNDEBATABLE or PROOF at all in this thread.
Just more BS.


Sometimes I wonder how some of you can even find the power buton.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
Try this.

First, go to the following site:

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

Now here are the settings:
Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = -70 (as in minus 70)
- Longitude = 137
Leave everything else alone and click the “Use lat/long” button.

Tell me what you see?

Now, if anyone makes any BS excuses , then that will ensure me that they are hired in some way, or are working for the people covering this.

WHOOA WTF

I did that too, but all I got was an image of the surface with something smudged out. What do you figure it is?

If you use the newer Clementine Mission Image Browser that ArMap and Xtraeme mentioned, that "smudge" error does not occur.

Here's that same crater with no smudge...it looks like a typical crater:



Here's that link again to the other browser:
Clementine Image Browser


[edit on 3/6/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
The SELENE images are the best res yet so far, and even they are still pretty far away....so I think most are forgetting sheer scale when they're looking at these images.

The upcoming LRO mission should provide some excellent pics though, at a res we'd expect from today's tech....



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
we have a google sattelite around the Earth, but not the moon. Thats why the more detailed pics. And I'm not sure, if a sattelite could orbit the moon because of no gravity? anyone know?

I think we are left in the dark, when it comes to the moon. Theres so many storys out there, but no way of knowing the truth yet.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I would recommend reading Richard Hoagland's Dark Mission for expert analysis of the lunar photographs that have been released. It is ranked 21st on the New York Times Nonfiction list. The tome begins rather slowly and has much technical jargon about hyperdimensional physics but the analysis of the pictures is what grabs you and keeps you reading and wanting more information. It is a must read for anyone researching the subject.

There appears to be overwhelming evidence presented in the book that there are structures that are alien in nature on the moon and this was a major reason for any cover ups regarding lunar mission photographs. The theory suggests they are glass-like in nature and are responsible for many anomolies that can be seen in the photos.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by calibanvov
 


Google does not have any satellite, they buy the photos from commercial satellites and I think that there is now a satellite that was "sponsored" by Google, but Google does not own it.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
There appears to be overwhelming evidence presented in the book that there are structures that are alien in nature on the moon and this was a major reason for any cover ups regarding lunar mission photographs. The theory suggests they are glass-like in nature and are responsible for many anomolies that can be seen in the photos.
That is old news, and (based on what I have seen on the Internet, I never saw his books) what he considers evidence is far from it.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Um...We are only shown the side we can see from earth, we only see one side at all times on earth, anywhere on earth.

also,what i dont get is,9if there was) why they skiped the apollo 13 members and details, and we were all told the John Glenn and Neil Armstrong went up to the moon together, but there is no proof on 'google moon' that they did.

Also what raises my suspicion, is that they sent a few people to the moon a few years ago, but 1963-1972 were the only times mankind stepped foot on 'another world'. The moon is a dead star in our gravitational field.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
There appears to be overwhelming evidence presented in the book that there are structures that are alien in nature on the moon and this was a major reason for any cover ups regarding lunar mission photographs. The theory suggests they are glass-like in nature and are responsible for many anomolies that can be seen in the photos.
That is old news, and (based on what I have seen on the Internet, I never saw his books) what he considers evidence is far from it.


If you never saw his book, how can you judge his evidence you never read?
To get the full idea of what hes saying, you need to read the book.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by calibanvov
 


The moon has gravity and we have put things in orbit around the moon the most famous of which is the apollo orbiter!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Anubis3.14
Try this.

First, go to the following site:

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

Now here are the settings:
Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = -70 (as in minus 70)
- Longitude = 137
Leave everything else alone and click the “Use lat/long” button.

Tell me what you see?

Now, if anyone makes any BS excuses , then that will ensure me that they are hired in some way, or are working for the people covering this.

WHOOA WTF

I did that too, but all I got was an image of the surface with something smudged out. What do you figure it is?

If you use the newer Clementine Mission Image Browser that ArMap and Xtraeme mentioned, that "smudge" error does not occur.

Here's that same crater with no smudge...it looks like a typical crater:



Here's that link again to the other browser:
Clementine Image Browser


[edit on 3/6/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


After looking at each, i can clearly see the 2 photos were taken at different times and angles. So, what that tells me is they are not the same photo at all. Same location? Maybe, but not the same photo. If it is the same location, whos to say that what was there, now isnt. As in an alien vehicle of some sort, ground based or flying.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Anubis3.14]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join