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.

 

Apollo 11 UFO in Moon Picture

page: 10
43
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
i posted that image so people can see there is more to the picture than meets the eye and just because you have seen many photos "in real life" that might look like it has the same effects does not mean the NASA photo with the obfuscation (imo) is the same thing.
Almost all photos (the original chemical photos, not digital photos) have "more than meets the eye", specially if we scan them and look at the digital version.


if i go buy two different brands of strawberry ice cream and they both have the same color and texture and appear to look the same , are they the same ? no they are not and you are using circular logic to dismiss my accusations and opinions.
They may be the same, even from different brands.


And I am not dismissing (at least for my understanding of the meaning of that word) or accusations and much less your opinions. I asked for a clarification because I just can't understand what do you see on that photo that may show signs of obfuscation. I don't understand either why you say I am using circular logic.


of course it's your prerogative to due so but lets not have yours or my opinions masquerading as facts ok ?
Never, where did I present my opinions masquerading as facts? When I said "it doesn't have anything out of place"?




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

PS: there's no such thing as a good kind of obfuscation.



That's your opinion.

But some acts of obfuscation do serve the greater good - or could be referred to as 'a good kind of obfuscation'.



51° 39′ 26″ N, 5° 41′ 27″ E




Extant US nuclear repositories in Europe



More on the area from Zorgon:





Ah Better map



Volkel Air Base


Volkel Air Base (Dutch: Vliegbasis Volkel) is a military airfield used by the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) and is located near the town of Uden in the Netherlands. It is home to three Fokker F-16 Fighting Falcon squadrons, 311, 312 and 313. It also serves as a maintenance and logistical base for the RNLAF and houses the 703rd Munition Support Squadron, part of the 52d Fighter Wing from the United States Air Force.


en.wikipedia.org...


Possible nuclear weapons

It is believed that since 1965 USAF nuclear weapons are stored at Volkel Air Base. Formerly storage took place in a special ammunition storage on the north side of the base and in a heavily defended quick reaction alert area but since 1991 the WS3 weapon storage and security system is operational in the floors of the aircraft shelters. The Dutch ministry of defense never officially acknowledges or denies such claims.[2] The USAF 703rd Munition Support Squadron seems to be in charge of maintaining and securing the weapons. At present (2008) 22 B61 nuclear bombs are in storage at Volkel to be used by the Dutch 311 and 312 F-16 squadron at the base


en.wikipedia.org...






At some point somebody decided obfuscating this particular location was a good idea and a reasonable one. I tend to agree that it still is - but that is just my opinion.







[edit on 20-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

Being from a country that had censorship for around 50 years and seeing that my father was once taken to the police station for being accused by an anonymous informer of reading "forbidden books" (which he did), I don't like any type of obfuscation, censorship or any other way of hiding, disguising or avoid the truth.

By that's just me.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


My father was tortured for posting flyers.

He was subject to mock-execution too.

But still he supported censorship (or 'obfuscation') of certain things, utilizing need-to-know systems, maintaining secrecy around national security interests, etc, etc,

*Still though, you are a foreigner and so it would make sense for you to want to see our nuclear storage bases - or have them de-obfuscated. If I was a foreigner, I would advocate that the US not obfuscate their arsenals or bases in any way. It would be the right thing to do from such a perspective; a moral imperative even.



Edit: My father supported freedom of speech and association - and he advocated for it; that's what got him tortured. It was with other things that he supported obfuscation.

















[edit on 20-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Almost all photos (the original chemical photos, not digital photos) have "more than meets the eye"

i will agree with that

another good example is ...

AS17-136-20758

WikiMedia



history.nasa.gov...








They may be the same, even from different brands.

the term "different brands" usually implies different recipes therefore the most likely scenario is they will not be the same even though they appear the same.




I asked for a clarification because I just can't understand what do you see on that photo that may show signs of obfuscation.

obfuscation can be natural or purposely introduced.

i did not specifically indicate which one i believed was the cause in the "Blue Marble" image, nor will i , because i don't want to be put into the skeptical trick box. no thank you





I don't understand either why you say I am using circular logic.

you tried to say that because you have seen many images that looked like that one, it was ok to just assume that the natural explanation was correct and that is in my opinion using circular logic.




Never, where did I present my opinions masquerading as facts? When I said "it doesn't have anything out of place"?

there is a difference in saying "it doesn't" and "in my opinion it doesn't" and you used the end all discussion term of "it doesn't" when you don't truly know for sure. that is an opinion masquerading as a fact.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Check it out - someone still cares about us at LPI:





*such a method as this would be ideal for censorship (cover with tape & lose other copies) or for purchasing time to make the image less confusing.





posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

Too bad your father had to go through that, my father was lucky and a colleague removed the forbidden book from the pocket of my fathers coat before the police took my father to the police station.

And I am against obfuscation not because those examples are US bases (or at least I suppose they are) but because if they can be seen in some circumstances then they should not be censored in different circumstances to just some people.

That's why I also think that if NASA (or any other agency, from the US or not) does not want people to see things they should not make them public, and why I am against fake public data.

PS: did you noticed that ESA publishes only a few photos from their missions to the general public and only publishes the full data sets to the scientific community?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Almost all photos (the original chemical photos, not digital photos) have "more than meets the eye"

i will agree with that

another good example is ...
I am not talking only about space photos but about photos in general, just to make it clear.


i did not specifically indicate which one i believed was the cause in the "Blue Marble" image, nor will i , because i don't want to be put into the skeptical trick box. no thank you
OK, although I don't understand what do you mean by "skeptical trick box".


you tried to say that because you have seen many images that looked like that one, it was ok to just assume that the natural explanation was correct and that is in my opinion using circular logic.
So, what logic do you use to find anomalies? Isn't that more or less the opposite of what I said?


there is a difference in saying "it doesn't" and "in my opinion it doesn't" and you used the end all discussion term of "it doesn't" when you don't truly know for sure. that is an opinion masquerading as a fact.
Do you know that I have been criticised by at least one ATS member for using too much "in my opinion" in my posts? I guess it's one of those cases of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But you can be sure that whenever I say (or write) something, unless clearly stated, it's just my opinion, and I am not 100% sure about those.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

another good example is ...

AS17-136-20758

WikiMedia





And so it began...

Without any forethought as to the possible unintented consequences of his presentation or the exertion of any malicious intent whatsoever, the "Giant Inflatable Quonset Hut Theory" was spake into existence by a man called Easynow....



Easynow, what have you done!?










[edit on 21-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Hey Easy,

Here's that potential Apollo 11 UFO image which I sent you earlier. I figured I might as well post it here, given the threat title and all:




Since I don't believe in Aliens, given the choice between this being something alien and anything else - I'll pick anything else. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, as such an answer is acceptable and does not conflict with my "no aliens" belief systems as much as a potential alien UFO would do...

It must be a balloon, dust, error in the emulsion.

Anything is more acceptable than a flying object casting a shadow on the lunar surface.



Edit:

I updated the image with a close-up (from Mikesingh and his expensive program.)


[edit on 20-4-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

That's an interesting photo, and a good find.


I don't know what it may be, but it doesn't look like a real object to me because of the direction of the light; a real object should show an area in the shadow, judging by the direction in which the shadows are cast.

Unless it was self-luminous.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Unless it was self-luminous.



Gee Whiz Armap!

You're almost acting like there might possibly sorta be a small chance it could maybe be real under certain circumstances!

You know your speculations are only gong to encourage the gullible and weak-minded.

It is up to people like you and I to protect them and insulate them, not provide them with those circumstances and wild-eyed speculation that could give them crazy ideas with a basis in reality...


=



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Here's that potential Apollo 11 UFO image


nice find and what a strange anomaly it is, must be the S4-B panel ?





Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Almost all photos (the original chemical photos, not digital photos) have "more than meets the eye"

i will agree with that


slight correction, digital images can have "more than meets the eye" too






posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Thanks Easynow,

Check that post again, I just updated it with a zoom from MikeSingh and his kewl program.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


OK...now I am completely flummoxed, and not sure exactly where you are coming from, in the the myriad of posts you've made over the last several months...(or year...)...


Since I don't believe in Aliens, given the choice between this being something alien and anything else - I'll pick anything else...


I am completely at a loss, now, as to the point of many of your previoujs posts.

Seemed most of those posts were tending to allege some sort of NASA "cover-up", which would, by inferrence, include the alleged "covering" of alleged "extra-terrestrial" evidence. Hence, the very reason for any sort of 'conspiracy'.


The only other aspect I can possibly entertain is the allegation that, for whatever reason, NASA photos and videos are somehow "scrubbed" to remove any indications of covert Human activity on the Moon (or on other celestial bodies)?

Is THAT the contention, here?

IF SO....it is pretty shallow, forgive me.

Because, it would be FAR easier for NASA, if they were to try to 'hide' such activity, to simply stop publishing any photos that came anywhere near the alleged 'activity'.

Rather than using some convoluted "scrubbing", with the inherent potentional of being "discovered" by some anonymojus ATS member...


[edit on 20 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


some interesting perspectives on aristotelian logic
do u also speak japanese ?



[edit on 20/4/10 by mcrom901]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Thanks Easynow,

Check that post again, I just updated it with a zoom from MikeSingh and his kewl program.


science.ksc.nasa.gov...




here is what Collins really said to Houston on that orbit: "I did see a suspiciously small white object whose coordinates are Easy 0.3, 7.6, right on the southwest end of a crater, but I think they would know it if they were in such a location.
www.debunker.com...


audio file that matches the quote...

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 20-4-2010 by easynow]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I updated the image with a close-up (from Mikesingh and his expensive program.)
He should ask for a refund, that program is "inventing" a shape for what really is just four pixels.

I guess he will never learn...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
To me, the correct orientation (to human understanding) and direction of sunlight is this:



because in this light direction, the craters looks naturally like what they are: craters. (If we asume the oposite direction of light, we have no craters, but only strange elongated cliffs casting shadows...which goes to absurd "conclusion": no craters on the moon?)

Which simply put the "object" in the artifact category, because the shadow of the object can't be ahead to the object itself.

Your opinion, Armap?




[edit on 20/4/10 by depthoffield]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
white flash in the crater ?



[edit on 20-4-2010 by easynow]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join