Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What's going on in Copernicus crater?

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409
Anomaly hunting may be good for business but not for science. How did we get cranes (and 70 foot high to boot) to the Moon ?


THAT is a very good question
Probably the same way they got the bucket wheel excavator up there


This one...


An insider I talked to in 1990 told me that he worked on a piece of mining equipment for the moon that was 30 stories tall. He told me that toward the end of the contract he rented an airplane and flew around it just to get an idea of its enormous size. He said he had no idea how they would get it to the moon - John Lear


So looking around the net as I usually do for stuff to support what John says...

There is a company called NORCAT in Canada, a defence contractor that is working with the US government and Colorado School of Mining on developing technology for off world mining. They also run an annual symposium on off world mining and are testing equipment in Sudbury Ontario. The Sudbury region is a major source of nickle and cobalt in the world, because the area is actually an asteroid impact crater. So all that nickle and cobalt is space rock


When John called the company and we spoke to the guy in charge.. the first thing he asked John was "What is your clearance level" and later he mentioned that Tim Huff, one of the people on the project was now working at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works

What was this project?

REPORT ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A
BUCKET WHEEL EXCAVATOR


The Northern Centre for Advanced Technologies Inc. (NORCAT), in partnership with Electric Vehicle Controllers Ltd. (EVC), is presently engaged in the development and adaptation of existing mining technologies and methodologies for use extra-terrestrially as precursor and enabling technologies for ISRU and for use as ISSE in support of longer term missions.

More specifically, NORCAT, in collaboration with Colorado School of Mines, has developed, constructed, and tested a bucket wheel excavator. The unit is based upon the design developed by CSM’s Mike Duke and Tim Muff.


Source is Lunar and Planetary Institute where you can find literally thousands of abstracts (but not the whole paper) on off world mining. This one is from 2004 and numbered 6004

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Now we didn't get the full details of the big model but we did get the info on the 14" scale model


NASA also has plans for one. Robot controlled





I have a lot more but really, I already covered all that



I'm assuming that aliens would have better technology than Earthly machines that are designed for gravity laden Earth projects with an atmosphere to support smoke belching engines.


Why would you assume that? And who said anything about aliens?



Smoke and steam coming from these machines? How in a near vacuum?


who told you it was a vacuum?



Copernicus crater is pristine in overhead images, where are the tracks of these huge dinosaur machines and what are they mining in full view of Earth telescopes?


So now your claiming that telescopes on Earth are good enough to see small equipment and tracks on the Moon?
As to 'what' The term ISRU means 'in situ resource utilization' so I would image titanium, iron and thorium oxides and reducing those oxides to building materials with a solar furnace. The oxygen thus released can be used for breathing, making water and rocket fuel. Also Silicon dioxide (quartz sand) can be processed the same way and used to make very strong glass - as strong as steel if there is a vacuum as you claim


LUNAR AND MARTIAN FIBERGLASS AS A VERSATILE FAMILY
OF ISRU VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS
www.lpi.usra.edu...

As I said THOUSANDS of documents


My favorite is this one...

SPACE TRANSPORTATION FOR A LUNAR RESOURCES BASE (LRB)
Hubert P. Davis, Starcraft Boosters, Inc.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
edit on 17-12-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

I had to spend some time looking for it myself


Thanks, ArMaP. It is my opinion that the area you indicated in your photo appears to be natural geological formation. Do you know if there is a high-res photo of the area known as The Boneyard?
edit on 17-12-2011 by papajake because: clarification
edit on 17-12-2011 by papajake because: more clarification



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Boeing Delta IV's are being used all the time for sending up secret payloads and they have that launch facility on Kwajalien Atoll



Starcraft Boosters? Buzz Aldrin's company
buzzaldrin.com...

Aquila Cargo transports? Buzz Aldrin's ship

buzzaldrin.com...

There are so many things going on and a lot of it is hidden in plain site. Like the fact that HH Schmitt Apollo 17 astronaut, Senator, geologist and teacher on HE3 fusion at Wisconsin/Madison University is the owner/CEO of Inter Lune Inter Mars LLC, a space mining company


"Crane 1" GRID I-5a" , resembles Nessie more than a machine. Maybe the Copernicus monster was chasing the seal rock across the sand sea in hopes of a tasty snack?


You don't see it... fine but now your being silly. Wouldn't Nessie need an atmosphere?


And why make primitive stone structures to live in? is it to blend in with the surrounding moonscape?


Who said primitive stone structures? They have the fiberglass
But yes 'adaptive camouflage is the term you want. Look around Kirtland AFB on google Earth. They use a lot of it around there if you look close... like this huge machine covered but a camouflaged net...



And isn't it odd that one of the three people who own (legally) the mineral rights to the Moon just happens to also own a company that is involved in camouflage for the military? Hyperstealth.com


Then why have Earth-movers in plain sight belching smoke with invisible tracks all to do what?


Well they are not invisible to some of us
But if they were in plain site, you and the other skeptics wouldn't have such a hard time seeing them. And I challenge you to show me ANY Earth based telescope picture of the Apollo hardware and tracks on the moon



Bandwidth usage comes from grainy, shadowed images that could be anything from Nessie on the moon to just rocks.


I have unlimited space and bandwidth on my server... the point was why would skeptics who see nothing need to bother downloading my stuff? Seems to me a silly waste of time... to constantly repost "We see nothing, your crazy" over and over again.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein.

:shk:








edit on 17-12-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)
[/quote



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by undo
 


Do your worst we might even see Santa after all its that time of year



changed my mind. do as you will. besides, i have no where to upload the images now.
lucky you.




Nice cop out try tinypic it's FREE!



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by papajake
Do you know if there is a high-res photo of the area known as The Boneyard?
No, but I will look for it.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
As far as the vacuum:

Gravity and lunar vacuum


Light gases, like hydrogen, are heated to velocities sufficiently high enough to escape the gravitational pull. Most gases are eventually removed by the solar wind. As a result there is essentially no atmosphere to create an atmospheric pressure on the surface, as we experience on earth from pressure created by the weight of the column of air above us. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of the moon was measured at ~1x 10-12 mm Hg (760 mm Hg = 1 atm= 1.01E5 Pa = 101 kPa), which is so little pressure that the moon can be considered a hard vacuum. This is a pressure that can only be achieved on earth in special vacuum chambers.


source: education.ksc.nasa.gov...

The lunar landing artifacts are not 70 foot tall. A simple search on amateur astronomy brings up some amazing details of the moon surface. they are not limited to using 3" lenses only.
edit on 17-12-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by DJW001

In any event, I don't think Arianna is claiming to see straight lines.


it wasn't a response to arianna. it was a response to the guy that says we're all just seeing
things that aren't there. now arianna might be seeing things that aren't there, i dunno yet.
but i do know what i can see or have seen from past investigation of the images. really
interesting stuff, these old photos (by the way, john lear's example is a much better resolution
than the one you offered, by like a country mile)



Well have a look at this and learn something about resolution and digital images if you zoom in on a digital image guess what at some point its all straight lines!!!



In the picture above the letter R at 100x100 resolution down to 10x10, the 10x10 letter R is a good representation of what you guys do when you think you see something in a picture. You zoom to far lose any detail you had and then see what you want.

Prime example from another thread

rdunks skull

Looks like a skull here in his lower resolution shot and you can see why he thought it was a skull!



Not from another angle and a better resolution.




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Are you claiming that a Delta IV is capable of lifting a payload to the Moon?

Kwajalein. Ballistic missiles go up and then come back down but Space X has launched a Falcon 1 there. A Falcon 1 does not have the capability of getting anything to the Moon.

No one legally owns mineral rights on the Moon, no matter what Resnik claims. Does he claim land in Antarctica as well?


"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein.

Not Einstein but to the point, why do you keep repeating the same things when you get the same replies?
wiki.answers.com...

edit on 12/17/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Can you tell us how documents dated 2004 for systems not yet developed explain what you and others claim from an image taken in 1966.

Next you will tell us this is a NASA staff car!




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I have posted this particular piece of artwork as it is important to the discussion.

Many claim they cannot see what I see in an image.

Have a look at the image and count up how many figures you see and post your result




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Maybe that's why the moon is receding, they're mining the crap out of it and reducing it's mass



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Donegal_TDI
 


Lol, good idea.

But it makes me wonder, in order for the overall mass to be reduced then the mining material should be shipped off world instead of made into another product with similar weight and mass, minus the waste product.

If I'm wrong, its because I'm lunar excavation stupid and I plead the fifth. But if I'm right, Then where are all of the super space dump trucks?

I hope you know that I am jk.
edit on 17-12-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
Have a look at the image and count up how many figures you see and post your result
Why? What do we gain by doing that, besides an headache?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


well the hasselbad images don't pixelate, if i remember correctly.
although i must say the one armap linked, did pixelate. no, i take that back,
rather, the photo of the photo john had, pixelated.
this one, pixelated

edit on 17-12-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
Have a look at the image and count up how many figures you see and post your result
Why? What do we gain by doing that, besides an headache?


ArMaP, I would have thought you would be asking why am I showing a piece of artwork?

The answer is quite simple. What you see in the picture is very relevant indeed. There are many figures showing with some more prominent than others. Studying the image carefully you may notice that there are shapes of figures and faces showing. You will probably notice that some of the faces become part of another face. The whole picture would appear to be depicting a scene and telling a story. Now, you may not agree with me on this point but I would ask you and other members to analyze carefully what they see. I can assure you that any headaches will be well worth the effort.

Here is the same view colorized which may make viewing easier.





posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
why do you keep repeating the same things when you get the same replies?


because I is crazy... dontchaknow...



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Here is the full view of the picture scene which may help with recognition of the figures.





posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
The animation below ia a compilation of the features I see in the picture view shown above.

Do you see what I can see in the animation? Your comments would be welcome.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


well the hasselbad images don't pixelate, if i remember correctly.
although i must say the one armap linked, did pixelate. no, i take that back,
rather, the photo of the photo john had, pixelated.
this one, pixelated



What Hasselblad?

Any image can pixelate it depends in what format its stored as but at some point when you zoom into what ever format you dont gain any detail.

Some info for you here on film and grain!

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com...

Digital images have pixels guess what film images have GRAIN guess what happens when it gets scanned!!!
From site above!!!


Film grain is extremely small, even in coarse-grained films. Forty-eight hundred PPI scans don't resolve it. What you get are little square pixel-sized blobs in place of the original grain that mimic the pattern of the grain.


An example image


How do you think the images taken from the Lunar Orbiter got back to earth were they devloped on board and the negatives and prints put in an envelope posted back to earth?

They were scanned and transmitted back



Every step you use to process a picture detail can be lost!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, I would have thought you would be asking why am I showing a piece of artwork?
My idea was more or less the same, as can gain nothing from looking at some piece of artwork, as we are looking at someone's work instead of looking at a photo of a real place.

There are many figures showing with some more prominent than others. Studying the image carefully you may notice that there are shapes of figures and faces showing. You will probably notice that some of the faces become part of another face. The whole picture would appear to be depicting a scene and telling a story.And that's why I asked "what do we gain by doing that", what's the relevance of looking at something that is not a photo? Or do you want our opinion about the artist's work?


I can assure you that any headaches will be well worth the effort.
You only say that because it's not your head.



Here is the same view colorized which may make viewing easier.
It does not, at least to me.






top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join