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: 9
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 



You DO realize that even the hubble telescope cannot resolve something smaller than say, and I can't remember exactly, but like 2 football fields in width? How do you expect us to take close up detailed photos of the moon without the freaking technology to do it?

By the way, your post is another one of those "lies" as I call them. A completely DEBATABLE topic.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by rocksarerocks]




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Anubis3.14
 


I do not see any difference between the three sources (the old image browser, NASA World Wind and the Clementine data sets), the only difference is in the shape of the features.

That difference is because the photos are rectangular (288×384 pixels for the UV/Vis camera, something that those that say that we only see 10% of the images probably ignore), they are only reproduced correctly if we have that area centred in our view.

In programs like World Wind or Google Moon that is possible, but on the image browsers (regardless of their version) that is not possible because the cylindrical projection distorts the areas closer to the poles (and 70º south is close to the south pole).



As you can see, a conical projection looks closer to the true shape of the features (on Earth, in this example), but it cannot show the whole planet.



Images taken from this Wikipedia page.

 


Edited to add:

As I said before, the image I posted yesterday had height exaggeration applied by NASA World Wind. This version has not.



[edit on 6/3/2009 by ArMaP]


jra

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faded.
also,what i dont get is, (if 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.


Have you read anything about Apollo 13 or seen the movie? Apollo 13 had an accident that prevented it from landing on the Moon. Also, John Glenn never went to the Moon. He was only apart of the Mercury Project and then later went on the Space Shuttle mission STS-95.


The moon is a dead star in our gravitational field.


No, it's not. Although no one knows for sure about the Moon's origins, the Giant Impact is the leading hypothesis.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 


Yes, I see that difference, and I also see that large rectangle, but those are the things are errors in the processing (apparently), they do not exist on the original photos.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
[It's not an optical telescope. I don't think you can "see" the kind of stuff we're looking for with a radio telescope.. ]

I agree, also, I remember someone saying that the real mysteries were at the dark side of the moon, the side that never faces the Earth. I find it strange that our moon does not change its axis position, unlike Earth. It just stays in the same Axis face, ever since it was there. One side is relatively crater-free, the other side is completely pitted, there, it is said, where the real artifacts are.

Can anyone refer me to the best online moon image catalog that is out there? I mean archived RAW multi-mbs files or something?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Funny how the conspiracies of today line up with the prophets of the past. This is simply the Truth everyone has been searching for...

Maybe all of you are right, but NONE of you realize the REAL truth. It has been here for at least 3,500 years.

REMEMBER, I am simply stating my opinion and trying to show you that UFO enthusiasts and believers of Christ are not too far off the same block. We are ridiculed sometimes worse than believers of the UFO phenomenon. I am a firm believer in God, but I also know that aliens exist. The Bible is my ultimate proof of this. I leave you with this possible future *cough*.

Perhaps Barack Obama will be put out of office by "the ELite" and then Hilary Clinton (ensures ELITE to have Antichrist welcome in USA)would become President in case something also happens to Joe Biden in the next year. *cough* *cough*

Maybe sometime soon a new "World Teacher" might appear ETA now till August 2010 perhaps in a Unidentified Flying Object, except here in this case it might be identified.

Perhaps also, not saying this will happen in the next year, *cough* he will come with his "Masters of Wisdom" to teach humanity their true purpose and religion. These Masters will be in the form of what we commonly know as the Grey alien. Consider even the possibility that before all this, many many people just vanish off the face of the Earth to escape what must take place. Maybe even while under control of FEMA camps. Think about why the government is implementing one digital signal.

Soon after this event, what the media might call "The Great Disappearance," he will come here to announce on EVERY TELEVISION SET ON EARTH to explain it away as "alien abduction" from the evil one that wrote the Bible. Unfortunately the masses of the world will be so compelled by this "new world figure" that Christianity will be horribly persecuted. What better way to delude the masses to the existence of God than to arrive in a UFO? Remember the Bible also tells us, in a time when everyone thought the Earth was flat, that, "He hangs the Earth on nothing."
The same Bible that forewarns of an Apocalyptic era in which we all would be forced to choose between useless pleasures and Satan, or righteousness and truth through our Lord Jesus Christ. I could even give you his name, but that is why God gave us the wisdom to calculate his name from 666. So calculate the name of the BEAST and don't be fooled by him



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 

Google maps. You're using Google maps to support a conspiracy theory about the moon?


#1) There's not much to look at, apart from the landing sites.
#2) They didn't exactly have state of the art high-res photography then. Else, Apollo 11 wouldn't have had a last minute course change to find a safe landing spot.
#3) Google maps can give a good close-up of larger population areas, but there are still plenty of areas you can't zoom to car-in-the-driveway levels because they simply don't have the photos. I can name plenty of areas within 30-minutes drive from my house that are in that same situation. And I'm not out in the middle of nowhere - I live in New York.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faded.
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 getalso,what i dont get is,if there was) why they skipped 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.


i take that back, Apollo 13 chrashed.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
king9072: You're whining unnecessarily! If you want to see high resolution close-ups of the lunar surface go to www.lpi.usra.edu...

Those photos were taken from orbit. There are many websites featuring higher resolution photos taken by the astronauts.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
That video: a product of an inmature mind. Fissures, earthquake separations, etc. Roads? You gotta be s______g me!

reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK
 



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


More important than the differences in the anomolous areas, check out the differences in the shadowed areas. These are definately two different photos, taken at different times, with the sun in different position.

I am not saying that the anomolies are anything other than anomolies. I rule out that these are alien vehicles of some sort mainly because of the scale, the anomoly is over 10 miles tall. Can't be a vehicle.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Faded.
 


No.
Apollo 13 did not crash. An emergency enroute to the Moon forced a mission abort. The three astronauts returned safely to Earth...barely.

[edit on 3/6/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Now I'm not saying your idea is a bad one or something but really; don't claim to have actual proof when all you're presenting is opinion.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarminer
 


The shadows are not different, look carefully and you can see that the shadows are in the same positions but the photo is distorted on the image browsers because of the cylindric projection.

If you use the middle part of the image, vertically, you can see that the shadows are the same. That part of the image is the least affected by the distortion.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
For those that only follow the first link that other people show, do this.

Go to the same image browser page used to show the "anomalies", Clementine Lunar Image Browser 1.5.

Once there, click on the link that says "information" just above the Moon photo.

On that page, under the "Version 1.5" heading, the last paragraph says: "Version 1.5 uses the final PDS data set as opposed to the "raw" data set that had been used by version 1.1."

That PDS data set is the same to which I posted a link some pages back, this one.

Now, to see that this "anomalous" image is the result of the Image Browser software (that creates the images "on the fly"), you can go back to the first page and click on the first link on that page, the one that says "Clementine", and you will go to another page where they have a description of the Clementine mission.

At the middle of the page you can see two images, one from the South pole, the other from the North pole; click on the South pole image and you can see that the are of the "anomaly" is visible in that image but without any anomalies (it's at the bottom left of the image, near the legend).

Being suspicious is not that bad, but remember to make your own investigation and of being suspicious of what other people say, even (or specially) when it goes along with what you think.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I know this is a few pages in, but using the logic of conspiracy, wouldn't they just make the Moon available on Google using fake pictures or images. That way no-one would be inspired to site a conspiracy by having these images limited, as we have now inspiring the OP.
Traditionally that has been the claim, that moon landings and images etc were faked.

Is it just me, or is this a no brainer.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Ok for a start the moon is mapped differently to the way the earth is mapped. Google Earth uses a wide variety of tools to source its images of the earth. You have your satellites for the wide shots of continents and countries and so forth, but when you get down to street level, quite a large portion of those images are refined using data from town planning flights , which as Im sure the more socialy aware of you, are not unusual. Also they use images from other aircraft which have been sent up for either promo shots of buildings, or shots of an area so that developers can observe an area in context with its surroundings.
That COUPLED with the satellite images , is what creates what you see of the earth, and remember, there ARE areas of earth where google earth does not always see clearly. Otherwise there would be some godamned polar bears in shots of the poles! Where the moon is concerned, there are actualy less sources for photographic data involved in its mapping.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBritWhere the moon is concerned, there are actualy less sources for photographic data involved in its mapping.
Yes, and unlike Google Earth, we have access to the same images, they are publicly available for those that really want to know.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Boy, are you way off the map! While "DARK MISSION" may be compared to the space equivalent of "THE DA VINCI CODE", nowhere does Hoagland prove that what he claims has any connection to reality. His "castle," is a natural feature seen in photos, flyovers, etc. Actually, if no satellites had gone to the moon and photographed its entire surface showing nothing out of the ordinary, followed by humans with cameras, Hoagland et al would have never come up with their unproven claims. Now he has a website where one can see and read his weird "discoveries" that do not stand scrutiny.

However, having said that, it is also factual that NASA has filmed UFOs fleeting over the lunar surface with one bit of good footage showing what looks like acknowledging signal lights from a crater and nearby as the UFO flies over it.

I've researched lunar anomalies since the early 1980s and I've never seen one claim pan out, they're always found only on badly reproduced NASA photos.



Originally posted by Swing Dangler
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.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Learhoag]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
I agree, also, I remember someone saying that the real mysteries were at the dark side of the moon, the side that never faces the Earth.

The Clementine Spacecraft photographed the entire far side of the moon and those photographs are available to the public. The LRO spacecraft, scheduled to launch later this year, will take very hi-res pictures (up to 0.5 meter per pixel resolution) of the entire moon, including the far side, and those images will also be available to the public.


One side is relatively crater-free, the other side is completely pitted, there, it is said, where the real artifacts are.

Yes. The side that faces away from the Earth has many more craters than the side facing Earth -- and thus shielded by the Earth. As I said above, images of this far side are available for public examination.


I find it strange that our moon does not change its axis position, unlike Earth. It just stays in the same Axis face, ever since it was there.

The Moon does rotate. It rotates once once its axis per every revolution around the Earth. This "one rotation per one revolution" is due to "tidal locking" and is not that peculiar. The large moons of Jupiter and Saturn are also tidally locked.


Can anyone refer me to the best online moon image catalog that is out there? I mean archived RAW multi-mbs files or something?

I don't think there is a website that offers all 1.8 million images (that's a lot of images), but you can view 170,000 images here (pieced together in a zoomable mosaic map):
www.nrl.navy.mil...

or you can buy CDs with about 1.7 million images on them:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


[edit on 3/7/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join