NASA Moon Anomalies III - Other Peoples Work

page: 11
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


here you go......



shard......







posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Look at this strange thing on the print... No it isn't Worm-Sign.


I wonder what it is made from? Any guesses?




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Shrike,

I made a large cropping of your as15-m-2332 crater using a different source for the metrics.

Here ya go:


Thanks for that, I used the Windows Photo and Fax Viewer to blow it up also. But for viewing. The "sickle" looks more realistic in smaller photos. But you can still see it in your nice 'n' clear blowup.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


check these.....


Originally posted by mcrom901
some interesting videos......

Karl Wolf - Disclosure Project



Donna Hare - Disclosure Project




LUNARCHITECTURE VOL 1

SHORT CLIP SHOWING RARELY SEEN IMAGE ALLEGEDLY TAKEN BY APOLLO 16 IN LUNAR ORBIT, SHOWING AN ANOMALY CLAIMED BY SOME TO BE A 'CLOUD' OF LIGHT TRAVELLING OVER THE LUNAR SURFACE TOWARDS LOBACHAVSKY CRATER, WHERE, AFTER REACHING THE CENTRE OF LOBACHAVSKY CRATER,THE PHENOMENON INEXPLICABLY DISAPPEARS OR DISSIPATES. ALSO SHOWS A COMPARISON BETWEEN THIS VERSION OF THE MORE FAMOUS ANOMALY CALLED 'TOWER' IN LOBACHAVSKY,AND A COUPLE OF THE MORE COMMON 'STANDARD' IMAGES SPAT OUT BY SEARCH ENGINES WHEN SEARCHING FOR 'ANOMALY IN LOBACHAVSKY' OR 'TOWER' IN LOBACHAVSKY. THIS IMAGE, AS16-73-H-1113,IS MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 'LIGHTS IN LOBACHAVSKY',WHEN YOU CAN LOCATE IT THAT IS! HAPPY HUNTING ANOMALY SEEKERS!!!, , , , , , , , , , , EMF29768


Google Video Link



LUNARCHITECTURE VOL 2 (EMF29768's CUT)

VIDEO COMPILATION OF IMAGES OF THE LUNAR SURFACE SHOWING UNUSUAL OR ANOMALOUS OBJECTS WHICH SUGGEST THAT INTELLIGENCE AND DESIGN MUST HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIER CREATION, AND RULING OUT COMPLETELY THE 'NATURAL ORIGIN' HYPOTHESES OF THESE 'CONSTRUCTS' AND LENDING CREDENCE TO THE 'ARTIFICIALITY HYPOTHESES' ,WHICH TENDS TO SUGGEST THAT THE 'MOON' AS WE CURRENTLY ARE LED TO BELIEVE BY THE POWERS THAT BE IS IN FACT 'DULL AND LIFELESS AND UNINHABITABLE' IS ACTUALLY THE TOTAL OPPOSITE, AND IS PRESENTLY OCCUPIED AND HAS BEEN FOR THE RELATIVELY RECENT HISTORY, BY THE BEINGS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SIGHTINGS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS THAT ARE REPORTED EVERY SINGLE DAY SOMEWHERE ON EARTH,IN EVERY COUNTRY BY EVERY RACE AND COLOUR AND CREED OF BEINGS THAT INHABIT THIS WORLD.ENJOY!ENJOY!ENJOY!


Google Video Link


edited to correct the 2nd disclosure link.... tnx eeasynow


[edit on 12-10-2009 by mcrom901]


the photo id details of 'the shard' can be noted here..... + many more....

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
some more here....


Originally posted by mcrom901
Lunar Sightings - Volume 1 "Dreamland" Preview - Moon Structures

An example of my image analysis research of Apollo era photography showing what appears to be structures or bases on the moon. This is a controversial topic and I hereby make no claims of conspiracy, cover-ups, or the like by governments, organizations (i.e. NASA, JPL, etc.), or individuals. Instead of pointing fingers, let's instead offer amnesty to anyone that may be aware of this or other supporting evidence. No harm, no foul to those that come forward. I hereby claim that all images presented are faithfully reproduced and not altered in any way other than by cropping, adjusting contrast levels, de-saturation, or enlargement. No sharpening or coloring has been applied. It is up to you to research the images presented and arrive at your own conclusions. If you take the time to establish the contacts as I have done and dig up these same high-resolution archive images, I guarantee that you will see that the images presented here are not a hoax - at least on my part.


Google Video Link




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

Originally posted by The Shrike
Shorthand for where's the beef (i.e. evidence)?


well......




Originally posted by mcrom901
in regards to the above video..... here are some more details.....





these quotes are from....

Apollo 11 Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription, July 1969, 626 pages

furthermore....





and these are from....

Apollo 11 Onboard Voice Transcription-Command Module, August 1969, 248 pages

and finally.....



www.llnl.gov...




some more confirmations.....

BellComm "Apollo 10 Photo Debrief - Case #340"



www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

you can check for additional links here.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but dont tell me i should believe the following BS as the truth....



i.e. "the moon is essentially grey.... no colour".......



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

If you don't have any expectations, then why did you spend so much time looking at hundreds of moon pictures? Why do you spend any time on this thread? You must have some expectations. I sense you are disappointed by investing so much time and finding nothing. By being here, you are still looking for something... Hopefully something will turn up here that interests you


When I first started I was trying to verify whether the authors of the books featuring NASA photos and making claims had found something in the photos that could pass scrutiny. They didn't.

Then in FATE magazine a few individuals such as Jack Swaney:
www.rpi.edu...
"Where did this lunar observer get these unusual ideas? He had read letters describing similar observations in the Report from the Readers section of Fate magazine. These letters were written by Jack Swaney. According to Mr. Swaney, in the November 1984, issue of Fate, a formation that stretches for 200 miles across the surface of the Moon is ``a mass of twisted metal plates, broken-up constructions, and bizarre bits of machinery.'' To most amateurs this area is known as the Caucasus Mountains. The Carpathian Mountains are composed of similar artifacts. I do not know how Mr. Swaney decided the Moon was so unlike our conventional view, but a 1976 book by George Leonard, ``Somebody Else is On the Moon,'' echoes the theme."

Felix Bach: link
"He finds structures on the moon that move, are covered and uncovered and such through his 60 mm telescope..."

and a couple others would submit letters to the editor of FATE magazine with sketches they made, etc. They were all daydreaming and couldn't see thr difference between reality and their fantasies. So to answer your question(s), I did not have expectations because I never accepted the concept that there were alien structures or anomalies on the moon and checking the authors' published photos against my NASA publications satisfied my confidence. And I participate in these threads because it's fun watching the tyros present their fantasies. Trust me I'm not looking for anything because I do not waste my time that way. It was frustrating, though, to be honest, seeing John Lear suckin' in his blind followers who kept begging him for more and he must have been laughing his butt off at the crazies. I wasn't one of them, of course.



Originally posted by Zarniwoop
I have on many occasions posted something initially that I thought was strange, but then explained it as a natural occurence. That is also part of the fun for me.


Originally posted by The Shrike

Fortunately, I have not had to retract anything I posted and all I had to add was a clearer description if needed.



You just said the same thing I did... in slightly different terms. Do you consider further analysis a "retraction", or feel "fortunate" enough not to have ever changed your original point of view on a photo?


I cannot remember this happening. I posted a thread recently where I corrected an assumption. That was that someone had claimed to have found an opening on the moon. I looked at the photo and saw a pyramid casting an appropriate shadow. Someone here countered saying it was the top of a mountain. Well, it was a pyramid-shaped mountain top! But I didn't retract what I said I found.


Yes, you mentioned previously that you were a lunar anomaly hunter since the 80's, which I have respect for
However, it appears you are a just a bit bitter about finding nothing you consider worth while for your efforts. Kind of reminds me of the movie "National Treasure"... you are playing the part of John Voight, are you not?
Come on... you saw the ending, right?... join the persuit. We could use your experience!!!


I don't know why you think that my words denote bitterness. Far from it. Not finding anything was a verification of my original assumption. I would have loved to have played Jon Voight just to get close to Helen Mirren! My experience is meaningless to those who have made up their mind. I keep an open mind and will look at all claims. So far, no one has found anything of note but they still see something in their selection of overpixelated or blurry photos. Something keeps them goind but I think it's in the wrong direction. I pooled my energies to try veryfing and I was successful.

Pretty soon I'm going to be offering my NASA publications in eBay as they've served me well and I no longer need to refer to them.


[edit on 30-12-2009 by The Shrike]
 

Mod edit: changed URL to a link. Long URLs get broken and do not work.

[edit on 30/12/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by The Shrike
 


oh really?

as you seem to be the lunar expert.... why dont you lend your expertise in sorting out some terrestrial anomalies......

hamptonroads.com...



I've never considered myself a lunar expert. But I do consider myself a highly-greased researcher into claims of lunar anomalies/structures and my experience gives me the edge over anyone on this board or any forum except those who have the added skill of being computer savvy.

If I was a geologist I might be able to contribute my 2¢ but since I'm not all I can say is that Mother Nature has a few tricks up her sleeve. Not everything can be satisfactorily explained to everyone's satisfaction. We still have a mystery to solve over at Death Valley's Racetrack Playa; the Moving Rocks.

There are a ton more mysteries but the more enjoyable ones fall under pareidolia. That is all in the mind.


[edit on 30-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
It was frustrating, though, to be honest, seeing John Lear suckin' in his blind followers who kept begging him for more and he must have been laughing his butt off at the crazies. I wasn't one of them, of course.


Therein lies the rub. You and other 'protecters of the innocent' feel that John Lear has sucked in poor, blind, feeble-minded followers. You really must think you are smarter than the rest of the herd to think that more than a few outliers believe everything John says. John stirs up the pot... He'll be the the first to admit that. If he's right on even less than 1% of what he says (yes, here we go with percentages again) then more power to him. I personally found his posts entertaining at the least, and somewhat plausible at the most.

Of course, you were not one of the few poor people who were sucked in, mildly entertained, or interested by JL's posts. BUT... YOU READ 'EM all the same


P.S. I honestly can't find your sickle at 7:00.

Can you post a pic?

Here is a good site to find it at... whatever/wherever it is.

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Zarniwoop]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


One thing I mistrust is blurry, out-of-focus, and overpixelated images. The equipment that we sent to the moon did a hell of a good job in imaging and I don't think NASA would have been satisfied with their efforts if all of their photos came back looking like the ones you posted. But, since they seem to be genuine images taken with primitive equipment, one by the Russians (correct me if I'm wrong), then I cannot comment on an image where there is no detail.

Additionally, here is a "full frame" of the photo containing Hoagland's "shard." Please notice the emulsion "errors" on the right edge. Perhaps the "shard" is just one of those errors as that would be a good prosaic explanation since the "shard" or the "towel of babel" do not appear in higher quality photos.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


but your prosaic emulsion seems to be casting a shadow......



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Look at this strange thing on the print... No it isn't Worm-Sign.


I wonder what it is made from? Any guesses?


So that's where my Brillo pad landed after it slipped out of my hands while I was doing the dishes!


No, wait! That's an unspooled roll of mining cable!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Here is a better copy of the book in George Leonard's book "SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THE MOON" I laughed when I read the caption for the photo: "Unexplained white light, which may be pure energy, is flowing over rim of Lobachevsky Crater."

In Steckling's book "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON" he says of the same photo but cropped to show the "white light": "Large low cloud bank hugging the crate's edge of the Lobachavsky (sic) crater in this Apollo 16 No. 16-758 photo. Also notice large oval object on the crater's edge casing (sic) a shadow."

Let me tell you, I never laughed so hard at these 2 fools. They were oblibious to what albedo is, especially bright albedo. And Steckling's "oval object" took on a life of its own that I head pleasure in debunking when Liz Edward overpixelated the hell out of the image. All these fools didn't realize that it was simply a small crater with some high albedo leaking "lava"!

I "forced" rense, with logic and common sense, to remove the image from his website when I offered him my research results. Also from other websites. Then I shamed Dr. Johannes Fiebag (Geologist) for endorsing bs.

Oh, yeah, those were the days!




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by The Shrike
 


but your prosaic emulsion seems to be casting a shadow......


But my dear friend, you are assuming it is. You really don't know for a fact that the "shard" is actually a 3-dimensional object. No judge would accept it as worthy evidence. It's a detailess photo.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

Originally posted by The Shrike
It was frustrating, though, to be honest, seeing John Lear suckin' in his blind followers who kept begging him for more and he must have been laughing his butt off at the crazies. I wasn't one of them, of course.


Therein lies the rub. You and other 'protecters of the innocent' feel that John Lear has sucked in poor, blind, feeble-minded followers. You really must think you are smarter than the rest of the herd to think that more than a few outliers believe everything John says. John stirs up the pot... He'll be the the first to admit that. If he's right on even less than 1% of what he says (yes, here we go with percentages again) then more power to him.


Whatever happened to John Lear's so called 'Soul Collector'?
Have any of you 'anomalists' here found an image showing this contraption?
Oh yes! That's been brushed out by NASA too! I should've known!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
But my dear friend, you are assuming it is.


i'm assuming you did not type those words.....




based on experiences.....






posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by The Shrike
 

here you go......


That's the biggest hoax of all time! Check out the image below from Hoagland's Enterprise Mission:


So called 'tower' according to Hoagland.
Enterprise Mission


I've shown below the exact same image where Hoagland says the 'tower' exists. This has been taken from the images published in the Atlas Obratnoi Storony Luny. I've applied all the available filters to get hold of it but don't see hair nor hide of that so called tower! I wonder if he can explain what process he has used? And then there are a few more images taken by Zond 3 of the same area, but no 'towers' are visible. If a tower did indeed exist, then this should have been visible in the other images as well.

But Hoagland seems to have avoided doing that because that so called tower of his may be nothing else other than just pixellation on that one image!

Here is that image from Zond 3 taken from the Atlas. I've marked in red the area where that 'tower' should be. I've experimented with all available filters, but see nothing out there!

Here's the image...



Now compare this with Hoagland's image above as seen in his collage (at bottom left). Nothing here!

Here's a link to the original Zond 3 image:

www.mentallandscape.com...

As I mentioned earlier, that's just building castles in the air!


[edit on 30-12-2009 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Hey fellas,

Here are a couple more Mars Anomalies from Mike Singh:

"These images (including the one shown in the post above) were taken by the High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera flying aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) from an altitude of approx 250 km above the surface. These have been zoomed and cropped."




Highlighted...



And another:




Source images courtesy LPL




[edit on 30-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Strange Beam!



This looks like a beam hitting a satellite or pointing at a star.









posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
just came across this.....



Japan space agency announces proof of civilization on earth's moon

www.examiner.com...




[edit on 30/12/09 by mcrom901]





new topics
top topics
 
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join