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: 16
150
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


What you see in the last photo you posted is the "Gamma-ray spectrometer boom", it can also be seen in this image:


Thanks ziggy!

I found an image that has the boom in it twice - the image is comprised of two stitched images and ideal for future reference:

Gamma-Ray Spectrometer Boom (twice)

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Now either it is an image artifact or you have a non-photoshopped (airbrushed by NASA) version. The first seems more plausible, but who knows. There is no conclusive proof either way. Below you can see another picture of the exact same area, but note the object is missing.


Object is visible here in this photo:

Copernicus photo at theLivingmoon.com


And other photos can be found here at ATS:

John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

*Thanks John!

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   



Yep! But how big are they? Considering it is in the lab, they could not be more than a couple of inches at the most. What we're seeing on Mars is hundreds of feet in diameter!


An average bolt of positive lightning carries a current of up to 300 kA (kiloamperes) and has a potential difference up to 1 gigavolt (one billion volts). For an electric discharge to have produced those huge features on Mars, it would have to be in the range of trillions of volts!! Possible? I don't think so!

Cheers!


Not to mention some sort of known atmosphere to allow said discharge if such great magnitude, but in relation.. I understand they are craters but in order to be remotely close to what Lab head was saying... There should theoretically be MOUNTAIN RANGES around these domes to be even close to the presented lab scale.. .so lab explanation is debunked now.. its all unexplained so there



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by stanlee
 


In your assessment you are excluding including the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology models, which have a propensity of supporting evidence and accounts for these effects.

Here is a link to a site devoted to this model. It is most informative:

thunderbolts.info

A video introduction to the Plasma cosmology model titled 'Planetary Scars' - the model may account for many of the unique anomalies that we have discussed here on ATS:



[edit on 12-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hande
I think Hale-crater picture is 3d-modelling-software-problem or something like that.

www.yowusa.com...



No honest.. I swear.. this image wasnt airbrushed



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by coolterm
 
Have a quick look at this image from NASA. It's from the Moon. PIA01680. There are clearly boulder tracks that have been formed as they fell and split on their way down the steep incline...

If the tracks can be created by boulders there, they can be created by boulders anywhere...

I think the reason the image is such a big deal isnt that there is a set of paralel tracks leading away from the original paralel tracks.. its that they ARE PARALLEL!!! you dont find that in nature. Series, and arrays, okay, might find those in nature but not parallel lines. Not that large and not on a 'lifeless' planet.,



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I think the Copernicus photo at theLivingmoon.com which you posted above maybe an emulsion/print problem.
Post

Look at the top of the object on the large image zoomed in. There is a line like a scratch on an emulsion layer.
Or it could be a cable car pylon...



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


you should check out the second link in the post you are replying to.

I have no doubts that it along with almost every other anomaly in the image have already been discussed in that thread.

I bet the debunkers in that thread also said it was a 'flaw in the emulsion' or something that effect - it always anything but what it looks like



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Yep, definitely where the film negs have been matched, as this example from image 2 on the Lear thread.



Looks exactly the same.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 12/5/2009 by UKWO1Phot]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I asked "why" because I don't see anything in those photos that can be considered as a "national security" problem or under any other special category, so I don't see how can this be seen as an evidence that "the governments of the world are way overstepping the boundary of conspiracy and withholding vital information from the civilian population".

I did not knew about the McDaniel Report, and not knowing how things were at that time, the only thing I see is that NASA appears to have changed their attitude back to what it was before, publishing the photos as they get them (depending on the missions, some are faster than others).

The McDaniel Report has become obsolete, not only because of the apparent change in attitude but also because of the new data gathered since then.

(unless I have read the wrong McDaniel Report
)



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP


The McDaniel Report has become obsolete, not only because of the apparent change in attitude but also because of the new data gathered since then.

(unless I have read the wrong McDaniel Report
)


The McDaniel report is from the Early 1990's.

Do you believe that the McDaniel report had an influence on the noted "change of attitude" that occurred after it was published?


Also, new data is always being gathered. It is the extent to which that data is released that is of far more import to myself and others - not the fact that NASA is always gathering new data. NASA often gathers data but does not release it, or refuses to release in its entirety.

Gravity Probe B was a Prime example of this.

NASA did not release the entirety of the data from that mission, which was already paid for by the American taxpayer. They said they had their reasons reasons, but they still should have released the already bought-and paid-for data.

*Then there is Clementine; A Navy project.

The images that were initially made available to the public were of such low quality as to be laughable. The Navy eventually came around and released better quality images - though they were still only comprised of 10 percent of the actual image data...also paid for by the American Taxpayer.

Zorgon covers the matter in detail here:

Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite

Good Work Zorgon!


[edit on 12-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wdavidb
reply to post by DaMod
 


Any information put forward by a scientist making reference to billions of years should not be taken too seriously.

The very issue of light years and the aging of the universe etc. is based on pure fantasy, as no such years exist or can be shown to exist.

At best it is a smoke and mirrors trick.




Only if you use the bible as a reference book and not as the STORY book it is!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

Gravity Probe B.
Data collection was not carried out by NASA but by Stanford University. It was actually Stanford which provided data to NASA. Yes, "we" paid for most of the mission but it was a bargain.

From 1963 - 2007, Gravity Probe B has been funded and sponsored by NASA. The total funding amount over this 44-year period has been approximately $750 million.

From January - September 2008, GP-B was funded in equal $500,000 shares ($1.5 milliion total) by a private donor, Stanford University and NASA.

Beginning in October 2008, a different funding agency committed $2.7 million to support completion of the data analysis and conclusion of the program, now anticipated at the end of 2009.

You can find out about the mission and its results here.
einstein.stanford.edu...

Can you be more specific about what data was withheld?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Instead of asking me to prove a negative...

Why don't you just directly link to the entirety of the data that was collected and which you claim is available?

If you feel that all the data from the mission is available and has been released in it's entirety, then be a bit more specific with your links and direct us to the page on the server where you claim the data can be found.

It really isn't too much to ask for you to post some proof to back up your assertion that NASA has released all the data from the Gravity Probe B mission.

Thanks in advance Phage!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

You made a flat statement that data was withheld. I asked you what data had been withheld. Without knowing what you're looking for it's pretty hard to find it. Can I at least ask what kind of data was not released? Are you asking for photographs? The only visual data from the satellite was from the tracking of IM Pegasi, its guide star. The rest is digital readouts from the gyroscopes. Once again, it doesn't seem that you have done much research about what you're talking about.

Here's a rundown on what the data is like and how it is processed:
einstein.stanford.edu...

The science report from Stanford to NASA is here:
einstein.stanford.edu...

But if you're really interested in obtaining the raw data from the mission (you're going to need a lot of hard drive space) you can, here:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
You're looking for the following datasets:
NSSDC ID: ASGR-00003
NSSDC ID: ASGR-00002
NSSDC ID: 2004-014A-01
No, you can't download it. There's just too much of it there. But for those who have a real interest in the data rather than just making claims that it's not available there are ways of getting it. I wonder how you could tell what was missing, if it were.

[edit on 5/12/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Do you believe that the McDaniel report had an influence on the noted "change of attitude" that occurred after it was published?

I don't know, I was not aware of the situation at that time, although a subject that I always liked, space explaration has only become a bigger part of the way I spend my free time in the last six years or so, but it's possible, from what I have read on that report, that it showed to NASA that some people were looking at their work and were not happy with their change of ways.


Also, new data is always being gathered. It is the extent to which that data is released that is of far more import to myself and others - not the fact that NASA is always gathering new data. NASA often gathers data but does not release it, or refuses to release in its entirety.

My error, I should I said released instead of gathered.



Gravity Probe B was a Prime example of this.

NASA did not release the entirety of the data from that mission, which was already paid for by the American taxpayer. They said they had their reasons reasons, but they still should have released the already bought-and paid-for data.

That is something I have noticed, the more popular missions have a more open "interface" with the public, while other missions are almost hidden.

ESA missions are also a good example of hard to find data. Mars Express has been working for five years, but if you go to the official site you only get "564 results found", with the added problem that the real number of photos is much smaller, because they usually have four or five versions of each photo.


*Then there is Clementine; A Navy project.

The images that were initially made available to the public were of such low quality as to be laughable. The Navy eventually came around and released better quality images - though they were still only comprised of 10 percent of the actual image data...also paid for by the American Taxpayer.

Zorgon covers the matter in detail here:

Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite

I think that 10 percent number is not correct, but that is not for this thread, and as I only had found that mission some months before that thread from Zorgon I do not know how things were before and what data was available, although I know that the original image browser was very bad and the source of most of the "alien buildings" on the Moon.

Part of the problem with Clementine may be that it was a Navy mission, so they could "juggle" people between NASA and the Navy and keep on ignoring people that were not really aware of to what organisation they should ask for the data.

Another problem may be related to the fact that, in Internet time, Clementine is an old mission, while we now expect to get photos at least the next day, the missions from the intermediate period (while the Internet already existed but before the "boom") suffer from a lack of Internet availability.

But the fact that this does not happen with some missions contradicts what I have just said, so I guess there must be something more behind it.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   



See More Stuff at Lunar Lizardz....click

Lunar Lizardz



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you for that. I wonder,though, how it is that the dust in the air is red when your photos show so much blue and white on the surface?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

No, you can't download it. There's just too much of it there. But for those who have a real interest in the data rather than just making claims that it's not available there are ways of getting it.




I see you were unable to find a direct link any of the data I requested.

That was expected.


NASA sure does make things easy for us. You yourself don't know how to obtain the data - All you could muster was "there are ways of getting it"...

*The data you cannot access has already been paid for.

There is no excuse for this data not to be available for immediate download to the taxpayer. With the hundreds of millions of dollars we poured into that project; there is no excuse for the data to be so far removed.

-In any case grav probe b is an off-topic issue.... If you actually find the proper links or somehow manage to figure out how to obtain the data - send a u2u. Happy hunting!



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join