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.

 

Moon Ruins near “Fra Mauro Highlands”: Dr. Edgar Mitchell was right!

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Although there is stuff on the moon, everything on Google Moon has been doctored.

This has been said by John Lear on numerous ocassions and despite ATS's unwarranted dislike towards John Lear he is still one of the most knowledgable people on this matter....

Maybe Zorgon has something to say about this matter...?




posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stanton Dowd
Although there is stuff on the moon, everything on Google Moon has been doctored.

This has been said by John Lear on numerous ocassions and despite ATS's unwarranted dislike towards John Lear he is still one of the most knowledgable people on this matter....

Maybe Zorgon has something to say about this matter...?


Right Stanton. Absolutely Right.


But where is the "knight" Zorgon?



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Crater chains, bunkers or domes?




posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stanton Dowd
This has been said by John Lear on numerous ocassions and despite ATS's unwarranted dislike towards John Lear he is still one of the most knowledgable people on this matter....



Even though I don't believe nearly all of what John Lear says I still dearly miss his A.T.S conspiracy section, I used to love the banter there, there was some hilarious debates.

My opinion on this thread is that I think you need a hell of an imagination for you to be able to see structures in these moon pictures.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
in the OP just pointing out the last picture, that is not a Plasma Burst, it is an Anti-matter ejection zone created by element 165 anti-gravity resonance wave.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Awesome stuff - that face woah! You don't think google are having a laugh do you? If not where are these original photos from so we can goto source?

Thanks again fantastic work S&F!



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by reasonable
in the OP just pointing out the last picture, that is not a Plasma Burst, it is an Anti-matter ejection zone created by element 165 anti-gravity resonance wave.


Of course I don't know if it is a "Plasma burst" an "Anti-matter ejection", "the outlet pipe of the thermal system" or "the huge fart of a lunar cow".....

For me it is an ANOMALY... like the other Anomalies posted here.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Imagir]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Show me a photo of the Moon that doesn't have any anomaly and I'll find some.

About the link with Edgar Mitchell, I believe these are the same ruins that he does NOT claim to have seen on the Moon.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Wait, no, no no no. That "plasma burst" is just light reflected in a crater. It doesn't take an idiot to notice that. And the moon base is just some... land... that happens to be high in the air.

I mean really, come on now. =/



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

I thought the face you found was amazing. You can clearly see the iris inside the eye sockets and the distinct chape of the face etc. Very very low probability of this happening from "natural causes". Just like all the faces on mars and the animals etc.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
You know, there is really nothing here except fuzzy/blurry images. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it's always gonna be. Everything pointed out while interesting is really pareidolia: you are seeing things that may not necessarily be there. In order to be certain, for the "wow!" factor, you need high or higher resolution images than presently available. Until then, no cigar.

People either spend their time over at YouTube looking for (UFO) videos which they can then post here and they get criticized for video hunting/fishing. Same thing with lunar photos. People spend time scanning google moon hoping that they will find something but they won't because we've been looking at the moon's surface in higher detail since the '60s and no one except Hoagland has found anything worth talking about. Of course, Hoagland's finds have been exposed as wishful thinking also.

And, what's this about linking Mitchell? He hasn't said anything worth listening to and all he's done is repeat others' claims such as Hoagland's. He didn't say he or any othe astronaut saw anything out of the ordinary. If he had, it would have made big news! Can you quote Mitchell?


[edit on 22-11-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Interesting photos and I've seen alot of moon ruin photos.
Edgar mitchell is a hero for what he did but I can't help but wonder.. If the US government would want to disclose anything about life out there why would it have to be the president? Is Edgar Mitchell any less credible? If the US government really had to say anything it would be simple enough for them to say, "Well, Dr.Mitchell already toldyou."
I think there is no more credible a person out there than Dr. Mitchell currently speaking out.
That may be the disclosure everybody was waiting for and it explains his quck rise in temper when he apeared on FOX News the day after his radio interview. His tone was as one who was told to say something and this idiot news caster was trying to make a fool of him. Well, that news caster shut up pretty quick when Mitchell ripped into him.
Just an observation- the news caster looked quite embarrassed and almost scared.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by R0BCROW75]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
What does Dr. Mitchell have to do with any of this?

I was wondering the same thing.

Edgar Mitchell has said many times that his belief in extraterrestrial visitation is only a personal belief, and he saw nothing specific nor learned any specific "secrets" as an Apollo Astronaut that could be considered evidence of alien visitation.

He never said anything about seeing ruins on the Moon, nor has he ever said that he believes there ARE alien ruins on the Moon. His belief in alien visitation is his own personal "gut feeling".

Dr. Mitchell is just a citizen like you and me who happens to believe in alien visitation. He's no different than an accountant or a teacher or a housewife who believes in ET-controlled UFOs.

As for the OP's photos...the straight lines could be rilles (lava tubes). I don't see the pyramids, columns, and devices that the OP sees in the other photos. I'm not saying that it is impossible for these things to exist on the Moon, I'm just saying that the OP's photos don't seem to show these things.


[edit on 11/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
nor learned any specific "secrets" as an Apollo Astronaut that could be considered evidence of alien visitation.


He actually does claim to have learned, for lack of a better word, "secrets" from people on the inside, from both civilian and government sources. He just has no first hand experience with any aliens.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
Not to be a downer, but:

COULD the lines be from a batch of meteorites hitting at such an angle that they dragged across the surface?

OR

the same phenomena that is responsible for the moving stones of death valley?

While the lines and "footsteps" COULD be evidence of something, I NEVER EVER see evidence of buildings or "plasma burst" in these moon/mars threads.



Not likely. String of pearl impacts have a different pathology. You need to know something about astrogeology to speculate on this.

The Death Valley race track moving rocks are due to wet lakebed creating a viscus surface, and high winds actually propelling the rocks. They can trace wind direction and velocity on some of the rocks they are tracking.

I've been on the lakebed many years ago and talked to geologists and rangers in the monument about this. I think they like the mystery element.

BTW, Death Valley is for anyone interested in geology the mother lode. You can see the Earth laid bare and all the processes clear to see. My favorite place and I've spent months there.

ZG



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Many cannot see any anomalous features, and that is no surprise, because you have to have very wide experience in viewing geologic and geo-effects in many different types of material and geophysical conditions. Add that to these low resolution monochromatic references and you see why many see nothing.

I and a few of my professional associates have experienced enough to notice anomalies while at the same time recognizing there is no way to know for sure if they are natural or not.

On the Moon, it becomes easier to spot some problems. I understand enough to be in the ball park, but maybe not in the game. As an illustrator for space exploration and related areas, I have done views from many theoretical as well as out of reach places. From Galactic clusters, to double star systems, and planetary and Moon environments. I have absorbed tens of thousands of images from our probes, telescopes and visual landing record, have done amateur geology and climbing around in places like Death Valley and Sierra Nevada since college and know what is involved in geo-physical science and why this subject is so complex. But, even I would not bet 100% on my own perceptions.

First Regolith is a pretty standard surface feature on the Moon. The underlying geology, for the most part is a mystery as we can only do some short experiments like cores and penetrating radar from orbit.

I've done illustrations on faulting, cratering and similar and in each case I study and absorb all I can, then check with experts for accuracy. So I have educated myself as much as I could without the 6 years of university I would have otherwise needed to pay for. I learned on-the-job.

Why do I qualify myself here? Because even if I cannot be sure of what I see, I can better challenge others conclusions and educate to what I know.

But, I can say the features the OP is pointing out seems to me anomalous in nature.

Yes, meteorites can come in at such a shallow angle that they make eliptical craters, or having broken up while passing a gravity source like Jupiter or the Sun can be several slightly separated impacts in a string of pearls. I've seen that many times. I don't think it is anything that we see here.

Faulting and shifting can take a surface features and multiply its incidence creating more of the same type of feature like cutting it in half and separating them, making for interesting patterns and repetitive features. But the Moons geology is not that active. It also has no erosion or wind, so features you see are either unchanged and millions of years old, or of recent changes.

I have seen the videos and the photographic evidence and are convinced there are definite signs of lunar sites that are of artificial origin. Also, highlighted by the disappointingly amateur attempts by agencies within NASA to cover such photographic evidence.

Lear says there are holographic projections masking sites. Who knows, but I guess they have not hidden them all, because many have been seen. It's just a matter of time till the truth comes out.

ZG



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I have seen these kind of artifacts in many of the images which make up the mosaic used in google moon. They almost always are seen near the edges of the individual film strips. Much of the imagery on google moon come from the LRO and the Apollo orbiters, which were built long before high-resolution CCD chips existed. The LRO exposed actual film, then developed the film on-board, then raster-scanned the film, then encoded the scans for transmission to earth. My interpretation of these artifacts seen near the edges of the film strips is that they are scratches and dimples on the film which result from the mechanism which moved and held the film in its journey from canister to camera to chemistry to scanner.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
So when did Edgar Mitchell claim there were ruins on the Moon?

I don't see anything in the photos either, except for artifacts that you'd expect to see in stitched together images.

If these images weren't stitched together, I'd still have to consider other factors such as meteor impacts and geological formations before even considering the less mundane possibilities.

As far as I'm aware, Mitchell claims he's been told by old timers from 1947 that in Roswell a real alien craft crashed and bodies were recovered. But these old timers have said this for years already.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
So, I'm a frequent lurker, super infrequent poster, but this is an interesting thread. I think that anomalies on the moon are much like UFO sightings - sure, a lot of them aren't real, but even if 1% are, then there is something to it all.

It seems pretty obvious that some of the odd markings are where they spliced the edges of photographs together, but there are certainly quite a few marks there that just don't jive as well. And it seems so incongruous with the area immediately to the east! I suppose it is possible that something crashing and dragging along that specific region could cause some of that, but... it's just odd. A few of the "road" lines are darn near 66 (or so) feet in width, and to have more than one be the same width is also rather wacky.

I found another road-like (river?) anomaly in another part of the moon:





This one is about 112' across. Highway? *smirk*

Interesting stuff and fun to ponder! Thanks for sharing!



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


What a bunch of...

One doesn't need any experience as you quote yourself of having. I've probably looked at as many if not more lunar photos and there has never been any lunar photo taken by NASA that shows anything other than natural features. Everything that has been claimed as being anomalous has no basis in fact. At no time has any claimant produced a high resolution photo showing anything unnatural. Are alleged aliens so stupid that they would build structures that would stand out and be filmed and videotaped? I highly doubt it.

Since the early 1980s I've challenged anyone to produce a high resolution photo that shows claimed anomalies. Nothing yet. And I doubt any ever will.

Holographic camo? Shades of King Lear of Nutdom!




top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join