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: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
So, what's the deal with that 'spire'/'crystal castle' thing on the moon?
Any news on that?


The "spire":
I've never seen any results of any research into proving or disproving the reality of the "spire." It's been mentioned only. However, look at it this way. The only known photo of the "spire" is way over-exposed and blurry. There are no details to allow a researcher to go to the same location and see if it's there in a high-resolution photo. Yes, one can research orbits and follow the orbit until one sees something recognizable but that entails a quest that few want to venture into. I'm not interested in finding the "spire" at the moment and may never. One thing that is pointed out which I'll mention and that is the X above the "spire." That's a registration mark and is not part of the "spire."

The "crystal castle":
When this was first publicized it was just a closeup of the "castle" with no reference as to where it was located. Natch! Then during a documentary about Hoagland he stands in front of a huge wall mural, a photo of the lunar surface where his "castle" was seen. I noticed the giant crater in the background and the Rima in the foreground. I found the area but no "castle" was visible although a couple of natural features sort-of resembling the "castle" could be seen. I also saw videos of the lunar surface from earth-based telescopes and from orbit and when they went over the particular area no "castle" was visible. In some lunar photos taken from a low angle during low-sun angle, the tops of distant mountains and hills give the illusion that the mountain tops are "suspended." This is what I consider the explanation for Hoagland's "castle" as there cannot really be an unnatural "crystal structure" on the moon. Lots of orbit flights by unmanned and later manned craft and at no time was anything photographed or filmed that look artificial.

At this photo with feature names, look between Crater Manilius and Rima Hyginus. Hoagland's "castle" should be located somewhere to the left of Crater Boscovich. No "castle."

At this photo, bring Crater Manilius into view and then scan down. No "castle."
www.keithlaney.net...




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



For everyone else - here's the site:

apollo.sese.asu.edu...


What I like about such sites that present consecutive photos is that I can use my "free vision" to see the photos in 3-D. It's something else to see the depth of a crater or the height of the craters' rim. The thrill is not that great when seeing the photos on the site but taking a digital photo of the photos and then viewing them larger with Windows Photo and Fax Viewer makes the effort worthwhile.

Anyone else here have "free vision"?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Hmmmm...yes...I see what you mean.
Interesting stuff. I guess we all just see what we want to see.
I've heard so many things about Hoagland's projects, both good and bad, that I don't have much of an opinion on the man myself, and I'm hoping posterity will figure it all out.
Some time ago, here up on ATS I saw some alleged video footage taken by American astronauts while up on the moon of some kind of defunct structure that they toured and filmed.
I can't for the life of me remember the thread or author, but true or not, I found it quite interesting.
Are you familiar with that film and has it been proven or debunked?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
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.


My "work" was concentrated on opening either Leonard's or Steckling's (or other authors or FATE contributors) books, dealing with one photo at a time. Leonard and Steckling made the major mistake of misnumbering the photos so I had to do a lot of searching over and over in my books and when you have a super-large, 9-pound ATLAS on your lap, moving the same pages back 'n' forth was a task, although an enjoyable one everytime I found the photo's real number and location.

My copies of Leonard's and Steckling's books (and other authors') are full of notes around each picture. For example, Steckling's claims of a pond could be seen in a ton of other photos so I would have to write the source and the PLATE numbers around each photo where there was space. I also wrote a lot of notes on yellow pads so, yes, the "work" exists and it's in my "blue book" (my blue file container).

Sometimes it was necessary to rotate the books for a different angle and even look at the pages from the bottom edge, etc., to understand what was being seen in order to come up with the claim.

James Oberg's articles were also appearing in FATE as my letters to the editor also were.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Your "anomaly" looks like a hair or fiber on the recording equipment rather than on the lunar surface.



Indeed.

However, I am researching lunar geological phenomenon that produces features which one would confuse with a fibre, so your confusion is expected.

*Boulder tracks also looks like dark fibres.

For fun:

Just find a nice high albedo area and start looking for tracks. Then post 'em here and watch as people say "it's a fibre". (But don't mention the boulder track part, say something strange like "here is a possible magma-tube" - this will make sure that no one suspects it is a boulder and you can watch they will begin to speculate as wildly as you.)

If you say it is a boulder track, the jig is up; everyone will agree. Especially if it is a boulder track. But if it is a boulder track and you say it is magma-related, someone will say it is a fibre - that's how it works.

Try it. Let's see your fibres.




*Armap, I find your theory to be satisfactory. I have another one for you to look at. Give me a min and I'll edit it in:


Edit:


This strange tube-like feature moves from one frame to the next, but this area relative to the position on the scanner is such that the 'single-fibre on scanner' theory has been ruled out. The circumstances are such that if this object is a fibre, then a different fibre is responsible for the top than the bottom feature, and vice-versa (due to scanner positioning).

We would have to use multiple fibres to account for this, or perhaps one highly intelligent, motivated and mobile fibre. But It might not be a fibre - in spite of it's high mobility....



*What kind of sick monster leaves their snake on the moon.





[edit on 27-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Indeed.

However, I am researching lunar geological phenomenon that produces features which one would confuse with a fibre, so your confusion is expected.

*Boulder tracks also looks like dark fibres.

For fun:

Just find a nice high albedo area and start looking for tracks. Then post 'em here and watch as people say "it's a fibre". (But don't mention the boulder track part, say something strange like "here is a possible magma-tube" - this will make sure that no one suspects it is a boulder and you can watch they will begin to speculate as wildly as you.)


I guess you selected the right nom de plume for your are Indeed exuberant!

I'm not confused. Neither you nor I are in a position to state definitely what the "anomaly" really is. But I stay on the side of reason and do not make claims I cannot support. Chances are that what is seen on the photos is a hair, a fibre, whatever, rather than an anomaly and it doesn't look natural. Since there are a few photos I'm talking about the ones showing the long, thin "fiber"/"thread", etc.

I didn't speculate wildly. But here is a photo of "tracks" which I don't think will ever be confused with anything but tracks and whatever natural force that created them.




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

I guess you selected the right nom de plume for your are Indeed exuberant!




So don't say you weren't warned.



Anyhow,

Ever since I started reading the Apollo transcripts, I've had a fascination with black boulders on the moon.

So here is a picture of some strange back boulders. While they are located in the same place on the lunar surface, the varying lighting conditions are such that the terrain looks very different from one image to the next.

I have highlighted a similiar feature in both images in blue to help everyone get their bearings:




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I hate the photoshop, lets highlight things on the moon crap.
Just using colours to bring out surface terrain I could make anything into an object.

The colourization to me is complete bull#.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by epitaph.one

Just using colours to bring out surface terrain I could make anything into an object.


Well let's see an example that you have produced.

Put your money where your mouth is.


Don't make me call BS on ya.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I think that you missed the "mysterious boulders" with your circle as what is circled can be seen to be small craters. But you're right about what I'm assuming you meant to point out being sort-of mysterious. But we really don't know if they're boulders and you could say that the boulder is casting a shadow but the shadow doesn't conform to what looks like a sort-of tall boulder with a rounded top.

BTW, in order for the "boulder" to be real, the shadow cast by it should match the shadows cast by the large craters. But as it is, there seems to be 2 light sources 'cause the shadows don't match.


[edit on 28-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by epitaph.one

Just using colours to bring out surface terrain I could make anything into an object.


Well let's see an example that you have produced.

Put your money where your mouth is.


Don't make me call BS on ya.


I let everyone "defend" themselves but I agree with epitaph.one because from day one, when I became aware of colorizing efforts to highlight "anomalies", I called "Foul."

People such as Alan Sturm who came out with e-books: "ULOs - Unidentified Lunar Objects Revealed in NASA Photography" - 121 pages of total bs.

He says: "ULOs are Unidentified Lunar Objects - anomalous shapes that appear artificial to the lunar landscape and resist identification as known geological features." And then he presents 121 pages of worthless speculation. There are no anomalous shapes that appear artificial. Only he is seeing this crap. What he points out are natural geological features that have been beautified with his color palette. It's just digital garbage.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 




Read the post again.

You'll see that I was quite clear about what it was I was high-lighting:

"I have highlighted a similiar feature in both images in blue to help everyone get their bearings"


Nothing about highlighting boulders.

They are obvious enough. But the whole point of the image seems to have eluded you - despite the fact that the point is typed onto the image in Big green letters.



Edit:

Had I actually circled the boulders, I bet some of you would have dismissed them. It's a no-win situation:




If you need to trace the object, or highlight it I discount it right away.

-John Phoenix





[edit on 28-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 

No he did not.
Nor did OrionHunterX post any anomalies.

Anomalies? What anomalies? There are no 'anomalies' on the Moon! They are just glitches on the images - hair, dust and so on whilst processing. Why do you want to translate all such 'anomalies' to mean alien structures? Oh c'mon guys. You really think there are aliens on the Moon?


Gawd! And then we have that know-all called The Shrike who claims to be a so called Lunar anomalist (Whatever that means!) since the 80s who has shown nuts thus far!

Damn! What am I doing in this thread? Oh yes...some good entertainment!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Exuberant1=Confusion



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 





People such as Alan Sturm who came out with e-books: "ULOs - Unidentified Lunar Objects Revealed in NASA Photography" - 121 pages of total bs.


Thank you, I'll read more about ULO.
Lunomaly Research Group

With imagination, you can see what you want on these old pictures.
That is the problem.
The resolution is the key for ULO analysis.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Yes, why don't you open a thread with no anomalies.
or just a thread about what you like.




It's close to midnight and something evil's lurking in the dark
Under the moonlight, you see a sight that almost stops your heart
M.Jackson



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 



I just tackle the problems from every angle.

And like Fox, I try to give all sides of the story.


*Plus I know things about the moon that you don't. There are some things that I treat as factual, but you are forced to treat as theoretical/hypothetical by virtue of your ignorance (and my unwillingness to give up the goods and lose sources.)

Take for example lunar resource extraction; Such a thing is not happening in your bubble, but it is in mine - and only because I have seen proof which I consider satisfactory. Until then it was all just hypothetical, as it is for you.




[edit on 28-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
So, what's the deal with that 'spire'/'crystal castle' thing on the moon?
Any news on that?


Castles on the Moon? The corny stuff that Hoagland's written about? He's just building castles in the air!


Gazillions of images of the Moon have been taken after these so called spires and castles were shown, but neither hair nor hide of them can be seen on any! Oh yes, they've been air brushed out by NASA! Damn them!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Oh yes, they've been air brushed out by NASA! Damn them!



They miss sometimes. The guy doing this one must have had a case of the Mondays:




And my amazing enhancement:





[edit on 28-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 





They miss sometimes. The guy doing this one must have had a case of the Mondays:


Explain more please.
What is not airbrush ?
Or simply, what do you see ?




top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join