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.

 

What lies in Copernicus crater.....

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I hear there's a village nearby on Tycho;






posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





Yes. They've never been to the moon, so no matter what they say, they do NOT have first hand experience because they've never been there themselves.


But Donna Hare was an expert in the lunar landscapes. She drew the maps and literally went over thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pictures showing the moons surface. If anything she's more experienced with dealing with the moons landscape as she's studied virtually all of it in fine detail while the astronauts only wandered a few miles from the LEM.
When someone who spends years minutely studying the lunar surface suddenly comes forward and says that she was shown a lunar base I, for one, think we have to take her seriously and can't just discount her testimony as being the ramblings of some delusional woman.
I'm not saying these are evidence of aliens or a secret space programme, I'm just making the observation that she should be taken seriously. Maybe NASA implanted the lunar base on the picture to see how she would react? Maybe it was a practical joke gone awry? Maybe it was a simple mistake? But Donna Hare is not delusional and her testimony should be taken seriously.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
 





Yes. They've never been to the moon, so no matter what they say, they do NOT have first hand experience because they've never been there themselves.


But Donna Hare was an expert in the lunar landscapes. She drew the maps and literally went over thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pictures showing the moons surface.

You don't seem to understand what "first hand" experience is. That means you went somewhere yourself and saw something for yourself. It doesn't mean you drew a map, it doesn't mean you saw a picture. It means you saw it personally. Did she see anything personally? No, and if she says so she's delusional or mistaken. This is an important distinction - just because someone is familiar with the topography of a given area does not make them experts on all the things that can change a second hand observation, be it from film, digital, or word of mouth information. She may be the world's best map maker, but that doesn't make her an expert on camera malfuctions of just plain old noise.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





You don't seem to understand what "first hand" experience is. That means you went somewhere yourself and saw something for yourself. It doesn't mean you drew a map, it doesn't mean you saw a picture. It means you saw it personally. Did she see anything personally? No, and if she says so she's delusional or mistaken. This is an important distinction - just because someone is familiar with the topography of a given area does not make them experts on all the things that can change a second hand observation, be it from film, digital, or word of mouth information. She may be the world's best map maker, but that doesn't make her an expert on camera malfuctions of just plain old noise.


So, using your definition, all those experts in WWII who studied photographs to locate V1 and V2 missiles were just wasting their time as they had never personally been there so their findings would have been null and void. Or those who studied satellite pictures during the cold war searching for hostile troop build ups! They needn't have bothered either since they had never visited the area under scrutiny.
All minutely investigated photographs, and when they found something of interest, all were taken at their word. They didn't have someone say that because they hadn't personally been there- because it wasn't first hand knowledge, then what they found was of no interest. And they certainly weren't ever described as being delusional!
Your argument doesn't make sense.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
 


So, using your definition, all those experts in WWII who studied photographs to locate V1 and V2 missiles

You just said they were experts at studying photographs and locating missles, not drawing maps and plotting topography. These experts are not using first hand knowledge, they're experts at deciphering second hand photographs.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


"WHAT?"
Donna Hare minutely inspected thousands, at least, of moon photographs so she could draw her detailed maps. She was ideally placed to know if something on those pictures was strange and out of place. Those who studied reconaissance photographs in the war, etc, were looking at the topography,looking for something strange and out of place such as missiles and heavily disguised factories.
According to you, those in the WWII and the cold war should be respected and listened to while Donna Hare, who is doing virtually the same thing, is nothing more than a delusional woman. . .



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
 


"WHAT?"
Donna Hare minutely inspected thousands, at least, of moon photographs so she could draw her detailed maps. She was ideally placed to know if something on those pictures was strange and out of place.

She was trained to draw maps, not find and diagnose problems with exposures and camera equipment. WWII intelligence officers that you describe were trained to find V2's, she was trained to draw maps. If an intelligence officer from WWII came forward saying he saw evidence of underground alien bases I'd want to see the evidence too since he's not trained to find such things. If she has some evidence, let's see it. These are extraordinary claims, they require proof.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
When someone who spends years minutely studying the lunar surface suddenly comes forward and says that she was shown a lunar base I, for one, think we have to take her seriously and can't just discount her testimony as being the ramblings of some delusional woman.

Hare insisted that NASA was retouching photographs of the lunar surface, airbrushing out "anomalies" such as flying saucers. Nowhere did she talk about a lunar base. You're confusing the two interview in the video, Karl Wolf was the one claiming to have seen the base.

I think Donna may be truthful about airbrushing, but her interpretation of photographic "anomalies" is tendentious.

Wolf's credibility is low because he doesn't seem to be aware of protocols for monitoring and controlling the visitation of uncleared workers in compartmentalized security environments.

The entire Disclosure Projects amounts to zero evidence, as all serious ufologists have concluded long ago.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 





Hare insisted that NASA was retouching photographs of the lunar surface, airbrushing out "anomalies" such as flying saucers. Nowhere did she talk about a lunar base. You're confusing the two interview in the video, Karl Wolf was the one claiming to have seen the base.


Yes, I know but whether it's a round shaped flying disc sitting on the moon or a rectangular building sitting there, what's the difference? Both shouldn't be there! I hope you grasp what I'm saying as I don't think ngchunter (?) gets my drift. Donna Hare is perfectly placed to say what should or shouldn't be on the moon. The very fact that she has come forward saying she's seen objects on the moon that should not be there is vitally important. She is a credible witness and should not be dismissed as being delusional.
I do however take your point about Karl Wolfe who was a second class airman at the time he supposedly was shown the picture of the base on the far side of the moon. He doesn't make a good witness but I honestly believe Hare does.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

Yes, I know but whether it's a round shaped flying disc sitting on the moon or a rectangular building sitting there, what's the difference?

Accuracy of your statements is important. It's why I found your "first hand" remark seriously disturbing.


Donna Hare is perfectly placed to say what should or shouldn't be on the moon. The very fact that she has come forward saying she's seen objects on the moon

It sounds now like she was saying she was seeing photos that showed objects "near" the moon, not "on" the moon. If a part of the probe that took the picture were in the photo would she say that's something that shouldn't be "near" the moon? She's trained to map the moon, not rule out mundane causes of so-called "anomalies" with the photographic equipment. For instance, would she mistake this for a real ufo?
www.miqel.com...
(the fool who edited together the audio took lines from when gemini was following its own booster in orbit, not apollo 16 which is where the image comes from)
This is why we need to see the evidence for ourselves, to find out if she was mistaken or not. Misidentifications happen all the time.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





It sounds now like she was saying she was seeing photos that showed objects "near" the moon, not "on" the moon. If a part of the probe that took the picture were in the photo would she say that's something that shouldn't be "near" the moon? She's trained to map the moon, not rule out mundane causes of so-called "anomalies" with the photographic equipment.


With respect, since you and I are not going to agree on this, let's look at it from your point of view. Lets say what Hare saw on the picture was a fault or a glitch in the film would you at least agree with me that she is qualified to be scrutinising the moon pictures in the first place? And if so, if the object she says she saw was a real unknown wouldn't she still be qualified to make that judgement? All I'm saying is that after viewing thousands of moon pictures surely she would be knowledgable enough to say what should or shouldn't be there, even if the anomaly she was talking about turned out to be mundane. Labelling her a delusionist really doesn't help matters either.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
 

And if so, if the object she says she saw was a real unknown wouldn't she still be qualified to make that judgement?

No. She's not a spaceflight systems expert. I want to see the evidence of whatever she claims to have seen. She was given pictures that were prime for making maps, and shouldn't be expected to be intimately familiar with all the unusual things that can crop up in one. I labeled her delusional because you said she claims to have seen it "first hand" on the moon; that means she thinks she was orbiting the moon herself at worst, or seeing something unusual in a telescope at best. Keeping your statements accurate is important.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
No. She's not a spaceflight systems expert. I want to see the evidence of whatever she claims to have seen.

Look, it gets down to this; you might be able to argue that one, two, or maybe even a few of these hundreds of whistle blowers and witnesses are lying/exaggerating.. but to say that ALL of them are such is just plain ridiculous.. think about it this way, if even one of these witnesses is telling the truth.. then it's over.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMax
As for finding that particular frame, NASA thoughtfully employed a centuries-old technique for organizing things.......they numbered them.


Yes I know they numbered them... that wasn't my point



Point taken Zorgon. (If that is your real name....)


LOL well it is in some official circles, but my identity is not hard to find on my website




More room for lolcats and porn?
Just guessing..


Hmmm and we all know we need more of that eh?




Does your copy include the calibration data? The little greyscales, lines and numbers at one end of the the strips. (each strip is referred to as a "framelet")


You mean like these?

www.thelivingmoon.com...



Told you we had a good set of original 16x20 prints from that time period... They are brittle as heck but we have been scanning them at Mercury Graphics, the only one in town that can run that size on a flatbed. Even then they did put a tear in LO-1-102 dang it




So, if you wanted to see a crater on framelet 52, around the 45th registration mark (counting up from the callibration set,) then I would know exactly where you were looking. Narrow it down for me a bit and I'll see what I can do.


Okay I will pick the main spot I would like to see... the 'Sphinx' is simply a 'looks like' as far as we are concerned... interesting like the 'face on Mars' but not what we are looking for...



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorionthink about it this way, if even one of these witnesses is telling the truth.. then it's over.

They could be telling the truth but still be wrong and mistaken. That's my point. There's no reason to believe otherwise until such time that evidence is brougth forth.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
They could be telling the truth but still be wrong and mistaken. That's my point. There's no reason to believe otherwise until such time that evidence is brougth forth.

Over 500 whistleblowers and witnesses could ALL be wrong and mistaken?.. LOL.. that's quite the statement. You're kidding, right?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorionOver 500 whistleblowers and witnesses could ALL be wrong and mistaken?.. LOL.. that's quite the statement. You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding, and you're engaging in the logical fallacy of argument ad populum. Yes, they could all be mistaken. Like I said, if you gave the photo I linked to above I bet it would fool all these people if they didn't already know it was a set-up.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
No, I'm not kidding, and you're engaging in the logical fallacy of argument ad populum.

Let me see, which one of us illogical..hmm?.. the one who says that over 500 witnesses and whistleblowers are mostly telling the truth and at least a few of them of accurate?.. or the one who says that they are ALL mistaken? hmm.. must be a hard choice eh?


Argument ad populum?
.. that's a good one! .. better than the 'ad hominem' I hear about so much lately!




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Let me see, which one of us illogical..hmm?.. the one who says that over 500 witnesses and whistleblowers are mostly telling the truth

You can be telling the truth and still be dead wrong. If Donna Hare saw the above photo and reported it as evidence of a ufo NASA knew about but didn't admit to, she'd be telling the truth from her point of view but still be dead wrong.


and at least a few of them of accurate?.. or the one who says that they are ALL mistaken? hmm.. must be a hard choice eh?


Textbook argument ad populum. You're positively selecting for a group of people that all say they think they have evidence of a coverup and concluding that because there are so many at least some must be right. That's a logical fallacy. Present the evidence they're right. How do we know that each "experience" isn't something explainable that each of them individually lacked the knowledge to explain when they enountered it? The evidence must stand on its own, not their claims.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Majorion and ngchunter, could you please stop that discussion, this was supposed to be "What lies in Copernicus crater" and related to the publishing of this new "version" of an old photo, and it looks your discussion is not going in the right direction, to say the least.


On topic, I could not open that image on ISIS, probably a limitation of the virtual machine in which I have it installed.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join