Alien Moon Base in a Photo on the Desk of NASA Ames Research Center!

page: 12
84
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Good job Shrike


The word of a Nasa Researcher....
Nothing less from NASA...

Even if... a big "IF"... that "thing"... cast a perfect rectangulat shadow....

edit on 17-3-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
 


Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by The Shrike


kewl
So it really WAS there in the photograph and NOT over pixelation like Phage tried to tell us


It did not say it was "over pixelation". I said I thought it was a marking on the image.
Posted before my comment on artifacting (in the link in my previous post):

Originally posted by Phage
It seems to be a marking on a hard copy which indicates the exact location of the impact. A visual aid for the scientists examining data from the LCROSS impacts a few days afterwards.
www.archive.org...
blogs.airspacemag.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


My comment about artifacting was in response to this post:

Wow, that's an awesome mark!! It totally looks like it's INSIDE the crater. I could swear it's a huge building in the Cabeus. It's so realistic that the shadows of the mark perfectly melt with the shadows of the crater, but naaah... I must be suffering another outbreak of Pareidolia.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That is the artifacting I was talking about. The "shadows of the mark".
I did not say the marking itself was an artifact.
edit on 3/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage,

While I respect you, and all that you stand for here on ATS, it would be a nice gesture for you to give props where props is due to Shrike.

Here is an ATS member who reached out to a source, and put to rest a huge thread.

Can you say "job well done?" without your ass being sore?

edit on 17-3-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
What do not convince me in the reply by Anthony Colaprete...


The image of interest is a simulation of the moon’s surface generated from a digital elevation model and illumination models. It was made prior to the impact of the Centaur with the same lighting conditions as those at the day/time of impact.


In my opinion this is not an image of "a digital elevation model and illumination models".

The image on the "Desk" seems to be a real image of lunar surface and not a digital model.
Totally different.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
 


Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by The Shrike


kewl
So it really WAS there in the photograph and NOT over pixelation like Phage tried to tell us


It did not say it was "over pixelation". I said I thought it was a marking on the image.
Posted before my comment on artifacting (in the link in my previous post):

Originally posted by Phage
It seems to be a marking on a hard copy which indicates the exact location of the impact. A visual aid for the scientists examining data from the LCROSS impacts a few days afterwards.
www.archive.org...
blogs.airspacemag.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


My comment about artifacting was in response to this post:

Wow, that's an awesome mark!! It totally looks like it's INSIDE the crater. I could swear it's a huge building in the Cabeus. It's so realistic that the shadows of the mark perfectly melt with the shadows of the crater, but naaah... I must be suffering another outbreak of Pareidolia.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That is the artifacting I was talking about. The "shadows of the mark".
I did not say the marking itself was an artifact.
edit on 3/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage,

While I respect you, and all that you stand for here on ATS, it would be a nice gesture for you to give props where props is due to Shrike.

Here is an ATS member who reached out to a source, and put to rest a huge thread.

Can you say "job well done?" without your ass being sore?

edit on 17-3-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)


Do you even know what your talking about read the whole thread. Phage called it before it was confirmed by shrike.He didnt attack him at all. He simply was correcting a post that miss stated what he said. As they say keep up!!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 



In my opinion this is not an image of "a digital elevation model and illumination models".

The image on the "Desk" seems to be a real image of lunar surface and not a digital model.
Totally different.


What are you seeing on GoogleMoon, then? Are those real images of the lunar surface?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Arken
 



In my opinion this is not an image of "a digital elevation model and illumination models".

The image on the "Desk" seems to be a real image of lunar surface and not a digital model.
Totally different.


What are you seeing on GoogleMoon, then? Are those real images of the lunar surface?


Exact. Totally different features.

This one


And this one



The presumed "grid" DON'T MATCH...


edit on 17-3-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
The grid perfectly match.

This is an experiment I made with PhotoShop, matching the original picture with the reference grid
files.abovetopsecret.com...
and the picture on the table. I think that no explanation is necessary:











The two images in comparison, original and my "paste into"



edit on 17-3-2012 by Trystero because: wrong link
edit on 17-3-2012 by Trystero because: wrong link
edit on 17-3-2012 by Trystero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 



Exact. Totally different features.


You didn't understand the question. What are you looking at when you use GoogleMoon? Do you have any idea? Also, the images you posted match, they're just rotated.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
The grid does not explain the adjoining rectangular shaped structures half embedded in the surface.
This is a ridiculous explanation from supposed debunker's/main streamer's.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by naiveharry
 



The grid does not explain the adjoining rectangular shaped structures half embedded in the surface.
This is a ridiculous explanation from supposed debunker's/main streamer's.


Okay, I'll bite: What " adjoining rectangular shaped structures half embedded in the surface?"



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by naiveharry
The grid does not explain the adjoining rectangular shaped structures half embedded in the surface.
This is a ridiculous explanation from supposed debunker's/main streamer's.


OH! You're right!
The original is brownish but my reconstruction is black and white!
In the original there is a shadow of the arm, in mine there's no shadow!
The original is blurred, mine is sharper!
edit on 17-3-2012 by Trystero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 



Many many compliments for your first post on ATS.....


Yes, because he/she made the effort to do some actual analysis, rather than espousing an opinion or simply chanting "Never A Straight Answer." ATS needs more members like him/her on all sides of every thread.
edit on 17-3-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


You should challenge Anthony Colaprete to a debate in the debate forum.
I'd really like to see that.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Good job Shrike


The word of a Nasa Researcher....
Nothing less from NASA...

Even if... a big "IF"... that "thing"... cast a perfect rectangulat shadow....

edit on 17-3-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)


Just shows to go you that optics can mess with your optical nerves! For a while there I had my doubts but I'm glad I didn't "lose it" as I have to be a skeptic first and a researcher second. It was, honestly, thrilling when I checked my Suspect email and saw Anthony's reply and I knew that even the proponents of a lunar base of sorts were still going to enjoy the truth from the "horse's mouth".

I'm looking forward to the next thread of a proposed lunar anomaly/structure.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
 


Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by The Shrike


kewl
So it really WAS there in the photograph and NOT over pixelation like Phage tried to tell us


It did not say it was "over pixelation". I said I thought it was a marking on the image.
Posted before my comment on artifacting (in the link in my previous post):

Originally posted by Phage
It seems to be a marking on a hard copy which indicates the exact location of the impact. A visual aid for the scientists examining data from the LCROSS impacts a few days afterwards.
www.archive.org...
blogs.airspacemag.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


My comment about artifacting was in response to this post:

Wow, that's an awesome mark!! It totally looks like it's INSIDE the crater. I could swear it's a huge building in the Cabeus. It's so realistic that the shadows of the mark perfectly melt with the shadows of the crater, but naaah... I must be suffering another outbreak of Pareidolia.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That is the artifacting I was talking about. The "shadows of the mark".
I did not say the marking itself was an artifact.
edit on 3/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage,

While I respect you, and all that you stand for here on ATS, it would be a nice gesture for you to give props where props is due to Shrike.

Here is an ATS member who reached out to a source, and put to rest a huge thread.

Can you say "job well done?" without your ass being sore?

edit on 17-3-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)


Thanks, Amongus, but my satisfaction peaked when I saw Anthony's email reply with the accompanying photos. Phage, like everyone else, was working with available data. If he had posted the same answer which Anthony provided, then everyone would be congratulating him for being right on.

While I love to debunk, this was not a debunking case, it was just my hoping that after I found out the name of the man whose arm rests on the photo and he had a published email address that my message to him would be considered worthy of a reply with an explanation. And it was so.

Like a lot of members I also rely, sometimes, on Phage's replies as he has an enviable insight into a lot of the topics that are discussed here.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

No. Seriously: THIS is how NASA "debunked" the alien Moon base photo of the Ames Research Center?



edit on 18-3-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by Arken
 


You should challenge Anthony Colaprete to a debate in the debate forum.
I'd really like to see that.


Yes,
on the "presumed grid" but also on this statement


We had a number of observatories on the ground (for example in Hawaii) trying to look for the impact plume (most didn’t see it, but some did)


"BUT SOME DID(?)".....


Which one? Which one?

I never seen one image/footage of observatories that detected the "Centaur impact" or "Plume" in Cabeus crater.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 



I never seen one image/footage of observatories that detected the "Centaur impact" or "Plume" in Cabeus crater.


Why are you so obsessed with images? The most important data comes from tools like spectroscopy. Have you looked for Earth based observations? Or would you prefer to believe that NASA is lying? As it turns out, Dr. Colaprete's statement is both candid and accurate:

www.sciencedirect.com...

arxiv.org...





new topics
top topics
 
84
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join