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.

 

Unexplained Mysteries On The Moon And Mars! An Alien Connection?

page: 11
150
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
It's just silly to take every blurry image that's reproduced here and expect someone else to either debunk it or accept it for what it's claimed to be.

But don't expect other people to do your work for you.

So who's expecting someone else to either debunk it or accept it? How come you have been given the authority to speak for others? That's pretty amusing! You have not been arrogated this responsibility on behalf of the other members here. So speak for yourself please.

If you have nothing to contribute and find this thread silly and replete with blurry pics etc, why don't you just go take a walk or read something else instead of wasting other's time here? Go get some fresh air. It will do you a world of good!

And where did I say I expect others to work for me? Am I running a damn corporation around here with members as my employees? Jeeez!
I'm not making any green backs out of this for Chrissake!!

Darn! The people we have to put up with here!




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh


Hundreds of thousand of years of exposure could have covered it up in Moon dust. Dig a few meters and Eureka! You may find something in there!


Find what? There's no shadow on the high resolution image (to the left side of the "dome"), a rather obvious sign that its an optical illusion. The bottom is darker because sand ripples become closer/tighter, so when the shadow is at the top of the crater it look like a dome with the "shadow" beneath.

If the shadow had been coming from the bottom it would have been even more obvious, since the "shadow" of this "dome" would be in the reverse position of where it should be.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by merka]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
There's no shadow on the high resolution image (to the left side of the "dome"), a rather obvious sign that its an optical illusion.


Did you notice the direction of the sun? It's from the NE. The shadows are clearly seen towards the SW of the 'dome' as they're supposed to be.

Cheers!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by mikesingh

Hundreds of thousand of years of exposure could have covered it up in Moon dust. Dig a few meters and Eureka! You may find something in there!


Find what? There's no shadow on the high resolution image (to the left side of the "dome"), a rather obvious sign that its an optical illusion. The bottom is darker because sand ripples become closer/tighter, so when the shadow is at the top of the crater it look like a dome with the "shadow" beneath.

If the shadow had been coming from the bottom it would have been even more obvious, since the "shadow" of this "dome" would be in the reverse position of where it should be.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by merka]


It is a dome. The reason it doesn't have a distinkt shadow is because it is just the top of a sphere with the center deep down in the ground. The optical illusion is that is seems to have a much smaller diameter than what's actually buried underground.

To me it actually looks like the effect of one of those electrical charges presented earlier in this thread. If this is the explanation, the gigantic size of it suggests an enormous energy burst. The "dome" or "underground sphere" could be rocks melted into glass and be the result of the advanced high energy weapons that destroyed all life on Mars and blew much of the martian atmosphere out in space.

If Mars had an advanced civilisation, they may well have been on the same path that we are going now with high-tech weaponry enough to destroy this planet thousands of times. Old sumerian scriptures are talking about a planetary war where a planet in this solar system were destroyed. Where do the material in the kuipers belt come from originally???

We do not need too look far to find technology cheniere.org... that could be scaled up to make the gigantic effect that could explain the "glass-sphere" and the crater.

Rush Limbaugh (2004): "The Gore report" TEXT - MP3 - WMA



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by merka
There's no shadow on the high resolution image (to the left side of the "dome"), a rather obvious sign that its an optical illusion.


Did you notice the direction of the sun? It's from the NE. The shadows are clearly seen towards the SW of the 'dome' as they're supposed to be.

Cheers!

To me the shadow can clearly be seen coming from the right side... Straight from the right side. Judging from the small and uniform crater to the bottom right, I'd even say the sun is just a notch below center.


Ram

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
images explain the crater thingy.. Perhaps. I dunno...




But the symetrical things in the sand - ARE weird.


[edit on 9-5-2009 by Ram]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Skallagrimsson
 


No its not a Dome its an optical illusion.This might help prove the point this is a picture of Victoria crater its further north so doesn't have the ice which is helping to add to the illusion but you can see the similarities between the 2 craters.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Skallagrimsson
 


No its not a Dome its an optical illusion.This might help prove the point this is a picture of Victoria crater its further north so doesn't have the ice which is helping to add to the illusion but you can see the similarities between the 2 craters.


Large crater and the top of a large underground glass sphere? Can we really know if it is flat or curved. Do we really know its curvature is an optical illusion. Yes it looks more flat in this crater, but that could also be a slight illusion due to the position of the sunlight. It might as well be a large glass sphere buried underground...

If you ask me, I'm not sure, but I'm not convinced that it's not a dome/sphere either.... The glass sphere is plausible.

If it was completely flat, in the bottom of a crater, wouldn't it become covered in dust over the long time it's been there??? It wasn't made yesterday...



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skallagrimsson

The glass sphere is plausible.


Perhaps many of these larger spheroids are not composed of glass, but of hematite or iron...

It could very well be that many of these 'domes' are gigantic version of the spheroids commonly miscategorized as being hematite concretions.

It is far more likely that such massive spheres would be formed out of ferrous materials, as opposed to glass, which rarely forms spheres when melted.
(I'm not saying glass cannot form spheres, just that the composition of the surface and known hematite levels would mean the likelihood is greater that such electrically produced spheroids would be composed of a form of iron)...).

Giving the high iron content of the martian surface, the ferrous composition hypothesis would be far more apt to describe many of the ferrous/hematite spheroids found on Mars, and I can cite precedent:

"Plasma physicist Dr. CJ Ransom of Vemasat Laboratories, however, conducted his own experiment to test the electrical explanation of concretions and Martian blueberries. He blasted a quantity of hematite with an electric arc, and the result was embedded spherules with features similar to the blueberries on Mars. (for more info: www.thunderbolts.info...)"

"One of the most important features of electric discharge is its SCALABILITY — what is observed on a small scale is also observed on larger scales. And the Martian “blueberries” may have a much larger analog in the form of “domed craters” on the planet. Orbiting cameras have found many craters with domes or spheres resting within them. These domed craters range in size from a hundred meters or less (the limit of the camera’s resolution) up to a kilometer or more. The similarities between the domed craters and the laboratory “blueberries”, many of which form inside craters, are striking. This alone should be more than sufficient to encourage further investigation. (for more info:www.thunderbolts.info...)"

*Skella, you should check out some of the small spheroids that are on our moon.

Richard Hoagland once tried to launch a private space venture with a diamond company to go to the moon and scoop some of the spheres up and rocket them back to earth for sale at a high price. Those were glass, spheres, and they were very different from those metallic spheroids founds on Mars; especially in their formation. They were formed in low gravity and attained their spheroidal shape whilst cooling and falling in the low gravity on the moon, after being ejected from the surface by an impact (which caused the surface to heat up, allowing for the creation of these small glass spheroids) - very different from the electrically produced spheroids on Mars.

-Note how many debunkers repeatedly utilize in their arguments the images of craters other than those we have identified as possibly having domes - The latest one who tried to use Victoria Crater is a prime example of this tactic in use. Do not take the bait.


Cheers!!


[edit on 9-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
This might help prove the point this is a picture of Victoria crater its further north so doesn't have the ice which is helping to add to the illusion but you can see the similarities between the 2 craters.

Ice?

There is no ice in the "golf ball" crater.

Or are you talking about a different crater?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Now the tracks on Mars.

First, this image.



This time I decided to look for the original images, instead of limiting my opinion to that 3D image, and what I found shows that my previous interpretation (that the lines were the result of the joining of the images) was wrong, those lines are part of the original Viking 1 photos, as we can see bellow.



(click for full size)

As we can see in other photos, the lines are from the camera, not the ground.


(click for full size)

 

Now, the Mojave crater tracks.

Those tracks are common tracks, and they do not go up hill, I wonder why some people see that as up-hill.

Maybe this Google Mars image can show that it is not up-hill (but it may show to some people that Google is part of the conspiracy
).




 

About the Moon mysteries, I can only say that the "tracks" look more to a photo problem to me, but I haven't found any confirmation (or the opposite of a confirmation, that I don't remember what is called
) and the other mysteries look like geological features, strange but natural.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I thought the same as you about the tracks on Mars. Sorry if I missed it but what is your opinion on the "Moon Towers"?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh


Darn! The people we have to put up with here!



Ain't that the truth!



While I may not agree with the bulk of what you produce/propose etc I still find it interesting going through threads like this....there do seem to be some areas of interest and, well, at the end of the day you don't have to do anything, so thanks for your efforts.
While I wouldn't like to see the threads full of 'fanboys' I think that there are certain ways we should go about accepting/refuting claims and thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks etc should have no place.

Sometimes the 'kooks' may be correct!


[edit for speeling]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by aorAki]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I made several posts about these Moon images last year, when the original thread was posted, so I will not comment the Moon images unless someone asks for it, like you did.


I don't think it's a tower, I think it's just part of some normal feature that is partly obscured by the shadow of another feature, so what we see is not a vertical tower but a horizontal (or near horizontal) feature.

The same thing that makes me think that those white spots are not floating rocks but parts of the ground that are out of the shadow.



Also, and although I can not find information about it, I suppose Lunar Orbiter was taking photos perpendicularly to the ground, so a tower would be seen just as the top, not as a long structure.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Yea sorry for bringing it back up, there is just so many threads and I forget a lot of the opinions (if I even get a chance to read them!). Plus I was away from ATS for about 9 months, so I obviously missed some threads!

On your opinion:
I will say you have a point, but I will have to remain neutral until I can go over them further, I have always believed at least some to be legit, but I am not willing to enter into a debate without the proper information.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Hi guys,

I'm new to the forum so first of all would like to say hello to everyone.

Have been reading this forum every once in a while and today, while I was watching just one another ordinary documentary from National Geographics which was about the moon, my eyes caught up something which I wanted to post for you guys. Might be it's nothing, might be this has been shown 1000 times by someone else and discussed often or like saidmight be it's nothing at all and it's just my imagination what is doing the trick
.

But on this youtube video, starting about 1.07 there's a few seconds of close up video. While watching I noticed quite a few buildings or towerlike formations even with shadows. 5 in total.



(Straight link is www.youtube.com... since it seems that youtube videolinking adds %5C to the end of the id)

Like I said sorry if it's already old or just my own imagination. couldn't open new thread so I hope this is suitable for it and not off topic
.

Sadly, I have no clue where National Geo has gotten the material, I'm also wondering that if moon has no atmosphere, why there's "wobbling" that can be seen on the video, which as I understand, could be a sign of some sort of atmosphere. ( I know that's far fetched but hey, just looks weird
)



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The J. P. Skipper image you posted is from the same area as the other geologic features. In the image bellow you can see that image (M08/04688) with a wider yellow border, crossing four red-bordered images; those red-bordered images are the HiRISE images that show the geologic features that some people think do not explain the old photos.



Doesn't this looks the same thing as in the "trees" photo? It's not as strong, but even the "shadow" is present. (I changed the contrast a little to make it look closer to the "trees" photo)


And with a bigger zoom (12.5% instead of the above 3.1%)


And the shadow is not a shadow, whatever it may be, because it's not coming from just one direction, but from several, and some objects even look like they have a wider shadow, like there were two light sources.


I tried to put the yellow lines along the same direction as the "shadows" of the "trees" close to them, and the one closer to the middle of the image is one of those that have a wide "shadow".

So no, I don't think they are trees, but whatever they are, biological, geological or something else, they are seasonal, appearing and disappearing with the time of year, and that is something that is also visible on the older photos, like this one, photo S11-01610, from 2005, in which the "spider-shaped" features were already visible, although not as clear as on the new HiRISE images.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luppakorva
Sadly, I have no clue where National Geo has gotten the material, I'm also wondering that if moon has no atmosphere, why there's "wobbling" that can be seen on the video, which as I understand, could be a sign of some sort of atmosphere. ( I know that's far fetched but hey, just looks weird
)


Welcome, Luppakorva!


You are right, the "wobbling" is a result of atmosphere, Earth's atmosphere, in this case, I remember seeing those images as taken from Earth through a telescope, but I don't remember where.

If I remember it well, there are at least two threads on ATS with those images, and at least one YouTube video, and I think that the video is know because of those tower-like features you saw.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Where did you get the bigger zoom of the 'trees' at?

Also, (I am sure you said this before, so sorry) what is your opinion on the "Mars Lakes"?
I am anxious to hear your explanation for not only those, but the following images I am about to bring back up for debate. As always ArMap, all in respect.

All unspecified images courtesy of mmmgroup.altervista.org

Lets start with another look at the “forest”, but let us compare satellite imagery from Australia first… This image is a satellite view of a desert area of Australia…



Now here is the interesting part, look at the massive congruencies between the Earth image and the following Mars image…



As you can see there is great a relationship in the two pictures. So I am thinking it must be more than a simple coincidence, as the odds of that would be astronomical, wouldn’t you say?

Next pictures….Lets look at the “lakes: on the red planet…



Wind blown sand? Maybe permafrost or ice? Let us now take a look at these pictures taken from Earth…

Image of Lago Sariquamish courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org


Image of Siberia’s Pot Hole Lakes courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org


Let us keep in mind that if any lakes on Mars exist they will probably be very isolated and shallow, so don’t expect to see some grand great lake looking image. They may also be geothermal or frozen. Also do you notice the same common beach features and geology? So what we have here possibly is either a liquid lake or a dry lake bed. Either way it is a huge find and would prove that Mars does or did have a complex environment in the past.

Some more lake pics…..


Looks familiar doesn’t it? There's more…….



This picture is stunning to say the least, in the left side do you notice the three flat and symmetrical ‘slabs’? They lead to what again appears to be a body of water? Was this a ancient dock? Or a bridge maybe? Hard to tell, but I highly doubt the flat stones are natural, especially due to the extreme weathering that takes place on Mars. They would be weathered and jagged. So that tells me that possibly they are (were) designed and made of some strong material. Further more the image on the right is a zoomed in version, showing better detail for us.

Back to the trees…..



What we see here is some even better evidence of some tree or bush like structures on Mars. Now you could be right and they could be something growing directly on the ground or under it, but I am anxious to see explanations on these being tricks of light and shadow. At the least these are some unexplained objects on the Martian surface.

LOL, Sorry Armap, I know I just made your night a little longer but you know how it goes. I know you want to find the truth as much as anyone on here, including me. But I think I say it best when I quote Mikesingh……. “What?”………..LOL, sorry I don’t know if you got that but I am just trying to lighten up things!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I am not sure how many links are broken, or how many images are broken....but you might be interested in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was OP'd by "Bluebird" (you may have seen her name on the Pegasus site at "thelivingmoon.com"). However, it is an outstanding thread and the images above were discussed in depth (ArMaP chimes in quite a bit there, too).

The debate about the lakes centered around whether it was water, or superfine dust. My opinion? That we see some water, and some superfine dust.

We know that there is water on Mars (whether mainstream admits it or not). There are even animated images that Zorgon has shared that show the rover spinning its tires in the mud.

But regardless, this image:

mars-news.de...

seems to show that there is water under the surface that will thaw and run down the side of the crater, leaving a pool of liquid water at the bottom of the crater. Such a scenario easily explains scenes such as seen in Victoria Crater, where there is obvious rippling in the sand.



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join