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.

 

NASA Moon Anomalies III - Other Peoples Work

page: 12
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


i dont understand what the heck you're parroting about.... that picture has already been discussed in that article.....


if you want to discuss hoagland's 'shard'...... refer to......

LO-III-84-M





posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Strange Beam!



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



thanks buddy.....


check this clip.... cant understand a word....




there is a somewhat similar (maybe) object which manifests suddenly & flies out of the fov at the end of this clip....





[edit on 30/12/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey fellas,

Here are a couple more Mars Anomalies from Mike Singh:

And another:





Whether or not that is a tower, depends entirely on the direction of sunlight in that image.

Based on the direction that I think I see based on the surrounding terrain, I'm thinking "not a tower"

P.S. How'd we get all the way to Mars already on this thread?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 

I agree, looking at the full photo we can see that the shadows are not being projected in that direction; whatever that may have been (either on the Moon or just on the photo), I don't think that is its shadow.

PS: larger (4836 x 6039, 3.9MB) and better version available here, although "upside down".



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by amari
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


What Happen to Mike and Zorgon I always enjoyed their finds and hard work on

ATS. Have they moved to another site? ^Y^


Have you seen The Madness of King George III? If so, you will remember before his madness, he developed a vocal tic of "what, what?!". "Good morning, everybody, what, what?!"

Well, poor Mike had that very vocal tic, so it is my presumption that he is currently residing in Broadmoor Psychiatric hospital, ripped to the tits on mental illness.

I'm only playing. Mike was a great lad, he knows my feelings about his aquired "what?" punctuation.

I hope he is only taking a temporary hiatus.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by triplesod]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop


Based on the direction that I think I see based on the surrounding terrain, I'm thinking "not a tower"

P.S. How'd we get all the way to Mars already on this thread?


You "think" you see - sheesh, get the big lunar orbiter V image and check the shadows and terrain for yourself.


I call it Mike's Tower - on account of that what everyone else called it and its appearance at first glance. (I know it wasn't mike who started calling it "his" tower - but somebody did... some sick twisted individual that was....)


I like this image. It has some features that I find interesting.



Edit:

Here is a cropping from the same lunar orbiter image, to give you an idea of the direction of the shadows when out in a more open area:



So the shadow of the tower would fall into the darkened area and not be visible.







[edit on 31-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
Yeah, I realize we're talking about the moon. There are many sources for high quality photos and I would not include the Internet as one.
Don't you think the following image (taken from what I think is the full size version of the photo from where Exuberant1 got the cropped version he posted before) is a high quality scan of the original photo?



It probably even has more detail than a good book photo, considering the limitations of the printing system.

Today, with the new digital photos and the high resolution scans we have really good photos, the problem is that we don't have enough of those.


PS: the full size version of that photo is 22900 x 22900 pixels.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:25 PM
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'


Where did you get the idea that I'm a "protecter" (sic) of the "innocent"? Who the hell is the "innocent" and why should I care about them? I come to this Aliens and UFOs forum, I post my views which are usually negative because there is a lot of bs being posted mostly by the gullible who are John Lear's target 'cause he doesn't score points with the intelligent members which are few in numbers. I call 'em as I see 'em. BS will always stand out and if you have eyes to see...


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


You bet I am!


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.


Do you find the following plausible?:
www.illuminatiarchives.org... from a Coast to Coast interview:
"Lear also argued that the moon was towed into its current orbit by a huge electromagnetic vehicle, and that vehicle can be seen in a photo taken of the moon crater Tsiolkovsky. He also believes that the moon contains a breathable atmosphere, as evidenced by photos showing smoke or vapor coming from the surface."


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


Well, I didn't read them, I looked at the photos he supplied and tried to see what was being pointed out: vehicles, signs of mining, etc. All I saw was signs of lunacy!



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

Can you post a pic?



[edit on 30-12-2009 by Zarniwoop]


Here is a sketch I just made to help you locate the "sickle" in Crater Delisle. In smaller, higher contrast photos it stands out much clearer. I hope it helps you and all other curious members.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
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."

And another:

Source images courtesy LPL

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Exuberant1]


Even highlighted there is nothing to see except for fantasists. It's not visible in the b&w image so coloring has to be added which doesn't do a damn thing to the original since no one knows what is to be seen. Mike Singh has to create anomalies with his coloring pastel 'cause there's nothing to be seen in the first place. What a joke!


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



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
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]


No Japan space agency made any such announcement! The announcement is being made by a combination of a total jerk named
remanuelli and another total jerk named Gregory Brewer who writes bs stories for the Sacramento UFO Examiner. This guy Brewer is parroting remanuelli and is commenting on remanuelli's video on YouTube. The video is horrendous and does not prove anything except that he sees buildings, etc., in highly overpixelated footage.

Geezus, this crap is getting out of hand!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I know it is improper, but I lol at your 'sickle.'

MikeSingh is a very good anomaly hunter. He is a much better researcher than you could ever hope to be (just so you know).



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by The Shrike
Yeah, I realize we're talking about the moon. There are many sources for high quality photos and I would not include the Internet as one.
Don't you think the following image (taken from what I think is the full size version of the photo from where Exuberant1 got the cropped version he posted before) is a high quality scan of the original photo?



It probably even has more detail than a good book photo, considering the limitations of the printing system.

Today, with the new digital photos and the high resolution scans we have really good photos, the problem is that we don't have enough of those.


PS: the full size version of that photo is 22900 x 22900 pixels.


Okay, ArMaP, you got me I'm eating crow at the moment. I should have been more precise in my criticism because I was really reacting to the digital version of NASA's "THE LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE MOON", which I have. It is a large pictorial publication with very large PLATES which weighs 9 pounds. When it was digitized for the Internet I could see that the resolution was shy of the resolution found in the PLATES which I attributed to digital conversion which sometimes does not equal emulsion film prints. Web-wise, that is.

Here is a digital photo of the published photo which is a beautiful, 7"x9" image in "APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT", NASA SP-362, page 191. Keith Lany did a good job digitizing the book and you can the quality of the photo here and the "sickle" is as clear as in the published photo: www.hq.nasa.gov...




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



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I know it is improper, but I lol at your 'sickle.'

MikeSingh is a very good anomaly hunter. He is a much better researcher than you could ever hope to be (just so you know).


In your wildest dreams! Don't be insulted but I don't value your opinion of me. Just so you know.









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

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



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Ah! At last you, Shrike, have shown an 'anomaly'!! After all you've been at it since the 80s!!
Long time for just one anomaly that's nothing but part of the terrain. Do you know anything about geology, Shrike? Have you heard of lava tubes and how they are formed?

This one grand anomaly that you've managed to dig up over the last three decades turns out to be nothing but pareidolia!!
But you see an alien 'sickle'!!
Remember those bunnies in them clouds?



[edit on 30-12-2009 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Ah! At last you, Shrike, have shown an 'anomaly'!! After all you've been at it since the 80s!!
Long time for just one anomaly that's nothing but part of the terrain. Do you know anything about geology, Shrike? Have you heard of lava tubes and how they are formed?

This one grand anomaly that you've managed to dig up over the last three decades turns out to be nothing but pareidolia!!
But you see an alien 'sickle'!!
Remember those bunnies in them clouds?



[edit on 30-12-2009 by OrionHunterX]


You, my dear sir, are assuming as you are wont to do. I challenge you to find where I called it an alien sickle. And, yes, my friend I could almost claim to have introduced the word "pareidolia" to the forum. What bunnies in what clouds? I see dogs, dragons, etc., but no bunnies. Show me one.

And why haven't I shown anomalies? 'Cause I ain't never seen one. And that could be because there are none to be seen.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
What bunnies in what clouds? I see dogs, dragons, etc., but no bunnies. Show me one.

Aw shucks! You haven't seen bunnies in clouds? Errr...I didn't mean Playboy bunnies for Chrissake!


Here's what I meant:






posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by The Shrike
What bunnies in what clouds? I see dogs, dragons, etc., but no bunnies. Show me one.

Aw shucks! You haven't seen bunnies in clouds? Errr...I didn't mean Playboy bunnies for Chrissake!


Here's what I meant:


Try these on for size. One is on the marble lobby floor of my apartment building which is a gallery of pareidolia. The second is a real guy for a sort-of reference.

Marble "bunnyman"


"Real" hu-bunny-man



Happy New Year everybody! Disclosure, yeah!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
And, yes, my friend I could almost claim to have introduced the word "pareidolia" to the forum.


try EFT......




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You "think" you see - sheesh, get the big lunar orbiter V image and check the shadows and terrain for yourself.


I call it Mike's Tower - on account of that what everyone else called it and its appearance at first glance. (I know it wasn't mike who started calling it "his" tower - but somebody did... some sick twisted individual that was....)


Why would I look at a Lunar Orbiter V pic to see a tower on Mars


Sheesh!


EDIT to add. The sun can't shine in two different directions.

Can you show which direction you think the sun is coming from in that pic?

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Zarniwoop]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 



I am really old so I can make these mistakes.

But at least I was thorough with my mistake. I misinterpret things in detail.



*So Mike has a Tower on Mars too eh? What!



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join