It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
It's always possible that if the theories about ancient advanced civilizations in our own very distant past are accurate, these aren't alien at all. We could be looking at the ruins of our own ancestors in one of the only places where such ruins could be expected to survive that length of time. Of course, having solid and largely intact 'ruins' that proved that would open it's own can of worms in society on many levels, no ET necessary.
Originally posted by Aim64C
NASA, however, is a civilian agency. They do have classification levels and work closely with a lot of military and former military - but they are not part of the military. Generally speaking, the military regards NASA as one giant security leak - if that tells you anything.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Those images all suck.
It is like they were intentionally trying to find the most explainable images.
*If it is dis-info, the guy who made it ought to be fired. Same for if it isn't.
Originally posted by purplemer
I don't really know if this is true or not but this guy Ken Johnston, is saying that there are artifacts and buildings on the moon and that NASA is covering them up.
Either way there are some interesting photos there. Some of which I recognize.
Personally I think there may well be stuff on the moon and I think it is probably man made from previous earth civilizations. I read somewhere that NASA is a branch of the American military. If they found stuff they are not likely to share it. Which is a shame as it is our heritage...
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by tom502
I firmly believe there are ancient cities on the moon, and perhaps even active bases there as well.
I also believe the Apollo 20 mission is true. The smoking gun is the image within the LM that has the EBE inside, as well as the Soviet rover shown out the window, as well as part of the "city" visible in the top left, being the "cathedral", which has had unclear photos of it appear before.
As I understand it, there simply aren't orbiting platforms designed to look at things that close in high resolution. The ones designed to spy on Earth are designed rather specifically with that in mind with atmospheric distortion and other things considered. Hubble can't look at something that close. It just wasn't made that way.
Originally posted by Eye of Horus
One other question, which I wonder about. Recently they discovered a super massive world orbitng a star some 88 light years away. In the article they went on and on about the event. My question is. If we can see out 88 light years and find new worlds, why is it that we can get really almost perfect moon pictures. I mean heck the moons what 250,000 miles away ruffly and all the pictures are blurry? But we get planets from 88 light years. Thats just odd. Any idea?