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: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I respect all the opinions and thank all which want to carry their contribution, also with expertizes, on this argument.

And hope tha the "Knight" Zorgon return as soon on ATS!


However, there are other anomalies, in that "small strip".





posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha

Yep, very low act, beyond pale - since he knew full well what he was doing - imo. But things as they are, people won't take the time to read up on it, and he does have a following..



Spot on! The eternal problem for ATS: members who blindly discard credible, and well-researched essays and information and only digest spurious - if not down-right ludicrous - claims that reinforce their belief system!

I believe their (as in a certain group on ATS) motto is: never let the truth get in the way of what you "want" to believe.

Getting back on topic: the OP claims in his title that "Dr. Edgar Mitchell was right" ! The implication being that Dr. Mitchell supports the contention that Fra Muro Highlands contain anomalous structures!

As far as I know, Dr. Mitchell, whilst supporting the ET hypothesis, has never made mention of Fra Mauro Highlands being home to alien structures.

If I'm wrong, please show me a reference. Otherwise, your title is misleading to say the least.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Imagir, after all my whining, I forgot to say thank you for providing an interesting thread


Whilst I concur with my brothers on the perspicuity of the photos, I do nevertheless find them interesting, and am grateful you took the time to post them


[edit on 23-11-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
And hope tha the "Knight" Zorgon return as soon on ATS!



Be careful what you wish for.
It might come true



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


Thanks for your words and for your opinion about this thread and these images, McKyle.


I think that Zorgon "the knight" and Mike Singh miss to many people, here on ATS...



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by mckyle
 


Thanks for your words and for your opinion about this thread and these images, McKyle.


I think that Zorgon "the knight" and Mike Singh miss to many people, here on ATS...


Welcome anytime


I think Mike Singh was a little hard done by. Although I understand what upset the other person involved, I think Mike was simply not as circumspect as he should have been. He put a post together with good intentions, but insufficient forethought.

Whilst I didn't agree with Mike's research methods and his conclusions, I nevertheless enjoyed reading them. I hope he comes back.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


I hope too. Really.
Mike is a great researcher.
We have found again ourselves on an other site to show our discoveries on lunar anomalies.

www.disclose.tv...



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


Well said.

Very nice.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Broken columns? Notice the position on the ground and its simmetry.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
ArMaP, the obvious dark grey triangle and the other obvious seams where the photo's are joined, is NOT what the OP is drawing attention to.

You know that right?
I don't think (I cannot really know what Imagir thinks) that those triangles and seams are the supposed ruins, what I do think is that Imagir was considering those differences as some kind of evidence that something was changed on the photos or that different photos were used to cover "interesting" areas.

But maybe Imagir himself will explain it better.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha
These have been addressed on ATS before, and I'd hope people would reiterate the conclusions rather than have to go through the entire argument/debate again.
Maybe this thread?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Could be...also looks like impressions left by some huge tracked vehicle.

Considering the gigantic scale of most of the objects that appear anomalous, i doubt it's rows of building remains simply because the seem too small somehow...in comparison to other anomalies. And yeah, i know it sounds weird describing things as buildings, statues etc that haven't even really been positively identified, but if you see them, you see them..right?

In the photos you posted earlier, there are definitely interesting areas to study...exactly what is there, and what turns out to be nothing is yet to be seen. I, personally see many things in them that i think ought not to be there, if all we have been taught about the moon is accurate.

I see what looks to be a sculpted or inlaid text, it's that lighter grey coloured straight 'row'. A huge row of text, in a straight line, with characters that all seem in proportion and equidistant to one another..could also be a very well spaced and ordered natural mountain range of course, or any number of other things, for that matter, but it's one for closer inspection.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by spikey
ArMaP, the obvious dark grey triangle and the other obvious seams where the photo's are joined, is NOT what the OP is drawing attention to.

You know that right?
I don't think (I cannot really know what Imagir thinks) that those triangles and seams are the supposed ruins, what I do think is that Imagir was considering those differences as some kind of evidence that something was changed on the photos or that different photos were used to cover "interesting" areas.

But maybe Imagir himself will explain it better.


Thanks ArMap.

I want to thank you for your usual correctness and professionality.


In my opinion all the entire N.4 STRIP is an enormous anomaly.
It is clearly visible that on the ground there are “highly anomalous rocks” and “craters” aligned with a unusual symmetry and a lot suspect.

Also the shapes of that "rocks" is very souspicious.

What it is seen in this “STRIP” has a very greater clearness regarding all the other images (taken by differents probes in differents missions). This “STRIP” continues beyond also.

For me this is a sign very clear that is wanted to be manipulated or to be hidden the below image (that of the N.4 STRIP).

To notice the slobbers to the margins of the image N. 4 with the N.1 and between N.4 and N.3.
Noticed how it changes the territory that suddenly becomes perfectly smoothed without neither a rocks outside place.

Too much anomalies in that STRIP that is slipped out to the doctorization...

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Imagir]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Thanks Spikey.

I don't know what kind of structure they are but in my opinion: NOT NATURAL FORMATIONS, then ANOMALIES.

1) Huge triangular geometric forms;
2) Cylindrical rocks and their dispositions, with shadows, perfectly aligned on the ground;
3) Strange perfectly rectilinear paths;
4) "Craters" strangely equidistant from one to the other, of the same dimension and that they are extended for approximately 500 meters.
5) Simmetrical and squared Crater (the Base).
6) An unusual "swamp gas" splitted by a "crater".

All this I call it an Enormous Anomaly.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Yep, i agree.

There appears to be a lot going on in that single strip.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


As far as I understand it (from the looks of the different images), Google Moon uses Clementine photos, Lunar Orbiter photos, Apollo photos, Kaguya and LROC photos, and they add the photos over the previous to add more detail.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Sorry for your loss. (of authority)

I said I am not an expert, but reading skills might be needed to gleen that. I simply tried to say I am better than average at discerning visual problems. I also take into consideration lens extremity distortions, processing and handling artifacts when we can identify such. Seems speculations can run both ways. We need to see film handling errors and hardware for that.

You seem to forget that people have been in the laboratory and have seen these in the actual film, have risked their reputations and life to sign affidavits swearing direct evidence was experienced by themselves and with others in their presence that informed them these structures where actually there.

You don't have much information on this yet it seems.

ZG


You'd be surprised at what I know. Every claim, as you state above, "that people have been in the laboratory..." has been shot down and not one single one has passed scrutiny. Ask someone who really knows about this, Jim Oberg.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by Imagir
And hope tha the "Knight" Zorgon return as soon on ATS!



Be careful what you wish for.
It might come true


If enough issue counter wishes we can neutralize it! Zorgon was a detriment to this forum. He never contributed, just busted chops. Please, don't wake the dead!



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by spikey
 


Thanks Spikey.

I don't know what kind of structure they are but in my opinion: NOT NATURAL FORMATIONS, then ANOMALIES.

1) Huge triangular geometric forms;
2) Cylindrical rocks and their dispositions, with shadows, perfectly aligned on the ground;
3) Strange perfectly rectilinear paths;
4) "Craters" strangely equidistant from one to the other, of the same dimension and that they are extended for approximately 500 meters.
5) Simmetrical and squared Crater (the Base).
6) An unusual "swamp gas" splitted by a "crater".

All this I call it an Enormous Anomaly.



You must be gifted with "special vision" because the resolution of the images do not allow any claims of certainty.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

In the photos you posted earlier, there are definitely interesting areas to study...exactly what is there, and what turns out to be nothing is yet to be seen. I, personally see many things in them that i think ought not to be there, if all we have been taught about the moon is accurate.


Thanks for the freindly comment before Spikey


What you've said above, I totally agree with: There are certainly some interesting shapes, and they do certainly seem to conflict with what we expect to be (or not be) on the moon.


But unfortunately, until we can get much higher res imaging (and that may not be for a very long time), all we can say is, that they do look interesting.

Beyond that is just fanciful speculation.

To paraphrase the late great, and very arrogant Carl Sagan: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

Nevertheless, I relate to what you're saying, and I hope those interesting shapes can be proven to turn out to be something far from the mundane


[edit on 24-11-2009 by mckyle]



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join