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.

 

Arch on the Moon?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What do you think keeps Skipper going despite all the debunks of his material?

What about the other images? They look like Boreal/ pine forests to me. Looks can be deceiving though, which was my whole point. I'd love to see similar quality of the Earth, Mars, and the moon.

What about the lake type images?





From Google Earth, far superior quality...




edit on 30-1-2012 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

Sand dune covered mesas.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I do enjoy these back & forth engagements with you Phage, I thank you for your time. I do find myself to be a wiser man from the experience.

From the thread you posted:



files.abovetopsecret.com...
I also found a HiRISE image, that although not showing the same place it shows a place some 4 km to the Northwest of this area...


Is this the definitive conclusion of those particular "lake" areas, an example of a similar area further away? I'm really not trying to break balls here, I'm genuinely sick of being so skeptical of NASA, I really am. I've been enthralled with Astronomy for 30+ years, Got A's in Astro lab, Physics, Planetary Science, I do love this stuff, and I am a "conspiracy nut".

Are there any zoomed in images of these particular lake regions of Mars in the same quality that ArMaP posted? I would like to put this to bed in my mind once and for all.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

From the link which ArMap posted:
hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

From the link which ArMap posted:
hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...


Right, not the same area in question though. This particular area is of sand, the area in question is a different color, which is greenish.

I don't think we're going to solve this one to my satisfaction tonight Phage, I do want to thank you for your efforts. You have changed my opinions before, but there are more than 1 or 2 "forests" and "lakes/ ponds" images that still have me at WTF!?!

The ones you presented are of sand beds, nothing to debate there, but they aren't of the same regions I'm questioning. There are other images I didn't list, I'm sure you've seen them. There are a few weird zones that deserve scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

The original images have no color. They are greyscaled images. Skipper likes to use green.
hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...

The images are of the same region. You honestly can't see that the terrain is the same but of better resolution? That's what Skipper relies upon, low resolution imagery. Because the higher resolution imagery does not show what he claims.

edit on 1/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's not about the color I know that means nothing, I'm talking about the specific shapes of the depressed areas of supposed lake beds. Just the mere shapes alone do not match up to any of the depressed sand beds in ArMaP's referenced images. ArMaP said it was a region 4 km away from the "green" lake beds, yes?

I put them side by side and can't identify any "identical' regions. They are similar, but not of the same region. I don't see why there can't be water and sand lake beds near each other.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

For one reason, the atmospheric pressure on Mars is far too low for liquid water to exist. For another, it is far too cold in the polar regions of Mars for liquid water to exist.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

For one reason, the atmospheric pressure on Mars is far too low for liquid water to exist. For another, it is far too cold in the polar regions of Mars for liquid water to exist.


I've heard this argument before. You've probably heard this one too...


From what they've told us of Mars, "airplanes" wouldn't have sufficient pressure to sustain flight as NASA had envisioned. What were these "future plans" for Mar's missions all about then? A plane needs sufficient atmospheric pressure.

I have seen trees at Earth's equator and near the poles, and I've seen life under our oceans thriving at incredible pressures and temps... I need sufficient convincing evidence that Mars' atmosphere is so "threatening" that life, in plant or microbe forms, can't sustain themselves in such an environment.

As far as I'm concerned, NASA, the gov't, and black projects are not about losing their leverage on the naive masses. I'm not so obedient and gullible, I question everything I haven't personally tested or verified, that's all I'm doing here. I hope I'm wrong, makes life a lot easier.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


From what they've told us of Mars, "airplanes" wouldn't have sufficient pressure to sustain flight as NASA had envisioned. What were these "future plans" for Mar's missions all about then? A plane needs sufficient atmospheric pressure.

Know a lot about aerodynamics do you? Have a look at this.
aero-comlab.stanford.edu...
You should know that given sufficient thrust a wing will produce enough lift to stay aloft in a very thin atmosphere.

How do you propose "testing" the data from Mars? From looking at low quality images from Skipper and believing what he tells you?
edit on 1/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Interesting!

This feature is telling. It appears to be a continuation of a ridge that continues upward (including the "arch") as it's height increases so does the exposure to the sun.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 



This feature is telling. It appears to be a continuation of a ridge that continues upward (including the "arch") as it's height increases so does the exposure to the sun.


I'm curious why the conclusion that it is an "arch"? When it could very well just be a prominence or peak of a terrain feature.

The very low angle of the sunlight leads to these sorts of illusions. This same area should be compared to other photos taken at different Sun angles, to ascertain more precisely the actual terrain arrangement.

Maybe the LROC resources, and the ASU (Arizona State University) archives? I would link, but I expect many know how to us an Internet search by now......



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


That's exactly what I was saying though you said it better.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Sorry I don't see it. Looks like rock. People see what they want to see in things. If you went looking at moon pictures specifically for architecture created by something other than natural causes, I'm sure you will find it. In this case, whatever it is that you circled. For me, all I see is rubble. Personally, I think that instead of focusing on our own Moon, we need to be expanding outwards into the cosmos.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I see a lot of these "bridges/towers/arches on the moon" posts but no real definitive, clear images of man/alien made structures. Don't get me wrong, I think the moon shouldn't be here, it's easier to explain the non existence of the moon than it's existence.

Here's some examples of natural land bridges...









Showing us the same phenomenon on the moon is not proof of anything other than natural occurrences. Personally I can't see much of anything in the OP example.


Your naturally occurring bridges have occurred from weathering by seas, rivers or ancient examples of both.

No seas and rivers on the moon ancient or otherwise

Next excuse?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I don't see a bridge in the lunar images. I also don't see the significance of such if there are natural bridges.

Maybe you can enlighten us on both the significance and verification of said 'bridges'. That would have more significance than viewing natural bridges in Arches National Park, and that is not the only place natural bridges are, I've been to a big one in Virginia, with trees on top of it.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


if you beleive they put an arch on the moon, arch on the moon
sorry already had the song in my head
as for pics i cant see anything sorry



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Maybe you could enlighten me, how a natural arch could be formed without erosion



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by maryhinge
 


I never said that somebody 'put' an arch anywhere



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


Different mineral layers, impact at the right angle and size. Its a big world out there, probabilities are at staggering figures in terms of numbers.

I still don't understand a significance of a natural bridge.

Would excavated salt mines in the world fit a description of a bridge? If so, we know there are areas of our earth's crust that have concentrations of particular minerals as opposed to a steady consistent distribution of all like mater.

That's how we find oil, coal, diamonds, and gold.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join