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: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by The Shrike
 



So no anomalies from you then...

That was predictable.


What do you want from me? Anomalies? You ain't going to get them because I don't deal with bs. What's predictable is that people such as you do not seem to exercise common sense, logic and reason.

Why don't you, and the others, instead ask me about the Steckling photos you might hold dear and ask me what my take on them is, what I may have found. Pick a photo, any photo. Let's go! Put your $ where your mouth is, I'm ready.




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 





That's because the Moon has had a Brazillian since then


a sx comment on the moon


No brazilian inside
Youtube: KAGUYA taking "Anaxagoras" by HDTV (telescopic camera) [HD]

Youtube: KAGUYA taking "Anaxagoras" by HDTV (wide camera) [HD]



[edit on 27-12-2009 by mixmix]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Still no anomalies?

I see how this is going to play out...

You'll reply to this post with no anomalies, but you will say nice things about us.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Does that mean that you are (or were) an "anomaly researcher" but not an "anomaly finder"?

Or does "anomalist research" mean something else?


Now it's too late and even if I were to go though the trouble of publishing the results of my research, even on the Internet, it's too late.
It's never too late. Even if it may be too late for some people it's not too late for those that will start their research in the future.


As long as I have Steckling's letter admitting I was right and he was wrong, I'm happy. It's just frustrating seeing the gullibles here on ATS and other forums believing the bs.
Could you please post that letter?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Greetings All,

I have another anomaly for you.

This one is a tube-like feature which was imaged multiple times and under different lighting conditions. It appears to be of higher albedo than the surrounding lurain and also appears to be stationary.

Some researchers say that this object is natural, but others say that it is an artificial structure - but ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubts about the fact that it is actually on the lunar surface:



*This wondrously strange feature can be located in Apollo 15 metrics images as15-m-0074 through as15-m-0076.




Armap, Here is fibre for you mate.








[edit on 27-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


WOW!

I like how the images are different yet the anomaly is exactly the same shape and size. Wicked find E1!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 




Thanks WZN.


If you perform the test on most of my anomalies you'll find the same thing - they're actually on the moon.



Whenever possible I check multiple images of the same region to see if the object is still there - then I post the best version and watch as people say that it isn't.

People are so darn skeptical these days and many too lazy to check for themselves before declaring an object non-existent... so I decided to do it for them this time. I even showed 'em how to check in my earlier posts.

Alas.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Here are a couple of strange features from the Apollo 15 metrics imagery.

I have spotted a few of these elongated objects in the region - usually near other neat stuff:









[edit on 27-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Some researchers say that this object is natural, but others say that it is an artificial structure - but ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubts about the fact that it is actually on the lunar surface:
To me it looks like a fibre, but if they are on the same place on the Moon's surface on the three photos and in exactly the same position makes it very unlikely to be something on the scanner or on the photo, so I have to agree that the most likely explanation is that it's something on the Moon.

If they would appear on the same position on the photos instead of the same position on the Moon, then the most probable explanation is that they were something on the scanner.


Armap, Here is fibre for you mate.
Yes, that looks like a fibre, but like an artificial fibre, like nylon, while the other things I said looked like fibres look like natural fibres, like cotton.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
.... I have to agree that the most likely explanation is that it's something on the Moon.

If they would appear on the same position on the photos instead of the same position on the Moon, then the most probable explanation is that they were something on the scanner.



I'm glad you agree.

I have also ruled out the possibility that it was something on the scanner.

So in this case we have a strange, high albedo, tube-like feature that is on the moon.

It may be evidence of the volcanic activity which has recently been acknowledged by NASA.

*Lately I've been studying the theorized behaviour of magma in the lunar environment. One would be surprised at the antics a low-density magma can potentially perform at -200 degrees and 1/6th earth gravity. Eruptions of magma that look like giant noodles can be extruded. (I'll have to try and find that paper and post some choice excerpts to accompany my lava noodle images)


Only since the recent discovery of ongoing lunar geological activity I decided to start looking for strange magma formations.

Pictures aren't as fun as documents, but what the heck, somebody's gotta look at 'em.


Edit:

Armap, Read this article:



Forget almost everything you ever thought you knew about the moon.

NASA's latest missions indicate the moon is much more than a dead, unchanging satellite orbiting Earth. It's a dynamic environment, with changes occurring by the day and week, not over millions of years....

..."We used to think of the moon as this really dead and unchanging place, that the moon was a dead planet. ... There are changes that occur there not over the course of thousands or millions or even billions of years, but are changing over the course of days and weeks and months. That's something people just hadn't thought of until just weeks and months ago. ... This isn't your grandfather's moon anymore."

www.cnn.com...




[edit on 27-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I don't have any problem agreeing with anything, people just have to show me the right data.


I had already read that article, thanks anyway.

PS: where did you got those metric photos from, the Apollo Image Archive? I will try to download the CUB files.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I don't have any problem agreeing with anything, people just have to show me the right data.


I had already read that article, thanks anyway.

PS: where did you got those metric photos from, the Apollo Image Archive? I will try to download the CUB files.



I don't really care if you agree anyways. I'm just glad when anyone does.



And Yup, That's where I got 'em.

For everyone else - here's the site:

apollo.sese.asu.edu...



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I don't really care if you agree anyways. I'm just glad when anyone does.
I was expecting an answer like that.


I have downloaded one of the CUB files (a 2.0GB file) and I am going to look at it to see if the image is better.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
So, what's the deal with that 'spire'/'crystal castle' thing on the moon?
Any news on that?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

I take that back, I do not agree.


OK, I still agree with the idea, but after looking at the photos, what I don't agree with is the conclusion, because I saw that the location on the Moon's surface is not the same (for some reason I thought it was), while the location on the image frame is always on the left top corner, with some little changes.

These are the three photos, showing the area with the "anomaly" in red, blue and green.

Photo AS15-M-0074


Photo AS15-M-0075


Photo AS15-M-0076


In this image you can see the three locations on the surface where the "anomaly" appeared.



Considering this, now I have to give more weight to the fibre theory again.

PS: the CUB files are really better, as you can see by this small crop of the "anomaly". Too bad they are so big.




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Credit to you for finding these.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I'd love to see some of your work Shrike, including the letter. I value any kind of input and research that is done factually and scientifically. I never draw conclusions or make up my mind on any issues until all facts are explored and all evidence brought fourth.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Does that mean that you are (or were) an "anomaly researcher" but not an "anomaly finder"?


The Shrike: "I was an anomaly researcher. At no time did I see, or find, anything worth taking to the bank. When you are an anomaly researcher the results are finding or not finding anomalies. If they are visible, as indicated by the person making the claims, then one can criticize the validity of the claim. At no time were Steckling's, or any other "anomalist" past or present, claims valid. However, I'll admit that once in a while someone will post a photo here that shows something that could be of interest but because there is no other information other than the photo, one cannot come to a definite conclusion. But the majority are valueless."


Or does "anomalist research" mean something else?


The Shrike: "See above explanation."


Now it's too late and even if I were to go though the trouble of publishing the results of my research, even on the Internet, it's too late.



It's never too late. Even if it may be too late for some people it's not too late for those that will start their research in the future.[/quote

The Shrike: "While this is true, the amount of work involved starting with acquiring a website, it is now more than I want to involve myself with. I could put the photos Steckling used in his book, which I have on my hard drive, on a Picasa album and add my findings from my various NASA photo books such as the LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE MOON, plus others. But it is now 2009, in hours 2010, and most if not all NASA photos are available online including the above named atlas. So it behooves a true researcher to not accept claims until they've done sufficient research using the vast amount of online tools available. Only a sloppy researcher will ignore the tools and accept the claims. Much as what's happened with Roswell."


As long as I have Steckling's letter admitting I was right and he was wrong, I'm happy. It's just frustrating seeing the gullibles here on ATS and other forums believing the bs.



Could you please post that letter?


The Shrike: "I should get the OP's permission first but at the moment I have a persistent TrojanClicker on my PC and I'm waiting for a call from Microsoft to deal with it yet again (I did a scan that lasted 5 hours and it didn't help!) so I'll apologize to the OP and present the letter below. Keep in mind as you read it that Steckling wants to save face but it was useless as he really didn't accomplish anything with his book since the photos he selected do not show anything unnatural except in his mind and his associates. I was on a Los Angeles radio program countering his claims and the radio host told us to get together, discuss the differences and get back to him. I was ready with my various NASA photo books but as you read in the letter, Steckling declined. He just didn't want to be embarrased in person!"


Thanks in advance.


Photo of the envelope containing Steckling's letter.


Letter from Steckling acknowledging, sort of, his books errors.




[edit on 27-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Still no anomalies?

I see how this is going to play out...

You'll reply to this post with no anomalies, but you will say nice things about us.


I will reply to this post with no anomalies because I have not found such. Speculation is all I've found and Aliens and UFOs forum is full of speculation, especially under the topic of lunar anomalies.

I will say nice things about you, but I cannot recommend you until I see some common sense when dealing with topics such as UFOs and the alleged aliens. We all have a curiosity about such things but one cannot lose sight of common sense, logic and reason. They should always be at arm's length and should kick in automatically when looking at photos or videos or reading claims.

Back in the early '80s before or while I dealt with Steckling, Leonard, et al, my letters to the editor of FATE magazine were being published and the one thing my letters contained were logic beyond mondo! I learned to see while some individuals see things that are not really there, especially those seeing them with telescopes with 50mm lenses!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 




Thanks WZN.


If you perform the test on most of my anomalies you'll find the same thing - they're actually on the moon.



Whenever possible I check multiple images of the same region to see if the object is still there - then I post the best version and watch as people say that it isn't.

People are so darn skeptical these days and many too lazy to check for themselves before declaring an object non-existent... so I decided to do it for them this time. I even showed 'em how to check in my earlier posts.

Alas.


Your "anomaly" looks like a hair or fiber on the recording equipment rather than on the lunar surface. It doesn't matter how many photos are taken with the same lens, until the lens is cleaned you'll see the same lens "anomaly."



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join