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.

 

Does NASA really know that there are artificial structures on the moon ?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
If you believe that the NASA pictures you look at show structures on the moon, would you believe looking at the far side of the moon pictures/videos that NASA has posted? The far side of the moon isn't too much of a mystery any more, it's been photographed and video'd many times including this year.

VID: www.nasa.gov...

PICS: www.nasa.gov...




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
They airbrush kids in magazines, I have the sneaking suspicion that NASA has the means to do it to whatever they please.......



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Here is a crazy moonwalk MoOnWaLk



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

Old news ...blah blah blah...give me something new.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nighthawk1954
 


There is nothing new : ( : ( Every UFO show has the same stale Roswell, Rendelsham forrest boring nonsense on, Ancient Aliens went stale a long time ago, Chasing UFO's isnt worth tuning into. We need something good to happen, and I dont mean The Baltic Schmaltic sea object !



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mckeesport
reply to post by nighthawk1954
 


There is nothing new : ( : ( Every UFO show has the same stale Roswell, Rendelsham forrest boring nonsense on, Ancient Aliens went stale a long time ago, Chasing UFO's isnt worth tuning into. We need something good to happen, and I dont mean The Baltic Schmaltic sea object !


How about something REALLY new?

Here it is: serious double-checking and corroboration/contradiction research for bizarre claims that get bandied about hyper-credulously by the eager-believers on youtube.

Case in point from the OP: the claim at 'Disclosure' conference that a sergeant was shown top secret NASA pictures of cities on the back side of the Moon.

Instead of automatically concluding that the claim is authentic, and that believing it makes you a whole lot smarter than your science teacher, how about working out a way to test the assertion? If you can't verify the BIG claim, how about the smaller claims in the sergeant's story, like how it happened in "mid-1965". How might one subject that claim to an independent test?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Here is a new documentary trailer, this was just advertised today by the infamous Jose Escamilla, I dont think to highly of him but I dont think many do... new moon doc



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Here is a good moon vid



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mckeesport
 

Carl Wolf. He talks about images from the Lunar Orbiter project in 1965?
That's strange. The first Lunar Orbiter didn't launch until August of 1966.
Wolf is a liar.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

edit on 7/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I believe NASA is being economical with the truth with reference to structures on the moon.

Take a look at the following images that I processed from one of their Lunar Orbiter images.

The first image is a general view and the second is a close sectional view.


Reference information:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Center latitude: 52.78 Longitude: -169.05








Direct views:

i985.photobucket.com...

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


So you see highways?? This can be done by:

A: objects that continually rolled on the surface and made lines with some sharper part that was pointing at the ground when rolling.
B: Lava flows in the past. however this picture shows not the parts of the Moon that were formed by solidified lava so it's more like A

I would say C: Ejecta but it looks different, the rays formed by the splash and destruction of some objects also looks different



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by arianna
 


So you see highways?? This can be done by:

A: objects that continually rolled on the surface and made lines with some sharper part that was pointing at the ground when rolling.
B: Lava flows in the past. however this picture shows not the parts of the Moon that were formed by solidified lava so it's more like A

I would say C: Ejecta but it looks different, the rays formed by the splash and destruction of some objects also looks different


No Imtor, I do not see any highways but the dashed lines could be some form of communication between the structures. The ideal way to view this image is via the Direct view using a strong magnifying glass as digital magnification only degrades the quality. When viewing the image in this manner it can then be observed that what is showing on the surface is not geology.

We also have to remember that any structures built on the moon will not look anything like the built structures on this planet although there may well be some related ancestral links with the species living there.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mckeesport
 


GREAT find OP Star and stealing your video =D.

the first video is great up until the point where he adds that there are no craters -.- ever looked at the moon with a telescope... can blame the govt on that one.

but it is amazing how well the craters would match if they were mounds instead. As for the pyramids on the moon, Russians are onto that one aswell lol =D. 0o but the castle.

Anyway all in all i loved the vid and thank you for your post.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mckeesport
 


I think they know, but tunnels seem possible too



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by whatwasthat
 


whatwasthat said, "......I've been watching the moon for a while with my telescope. There are no visible structures on this side of it."

You obviously haven't been looking hard enough.

Check out Copernicus crater noting especially what is on the northern crater wall and the area just outside of the south-west crater rim. The structures are well covered which also acts as good camouflage but with perseverance you may be able to spot them.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Good idea Jim, have you filed the request?
Here's the top secret link to the FOIA forum www.abovetopsecret.com...
Post up the docs when you get them.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by whatwasthat
 


whatwasthat said, "......I've been watching the moon for a while with my telescope. There are no visible structures on this side of it."

You obviously haven't been looking hard enough.

Check out Copernicus crater noting especially what is on the northern crater wall and the area just outside of the south-west crater rim. The structures are well covered which also acts as good camouflage but with perseverance you may be able to spot them.



What kind of telescope do you think he has even the Hubble can only resolve an object 300ft across at the distance of the distance Moon.

Sorry but you are talking BS!



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Good idea Jim, have you filed the request?
Here's the top secret link to the FOIA forum www.abovetopsecret.com...
Post up the docs when you get them.


I'm not the gatekeeper for this kind of evidence -- people claiming the guy Wolf's story is legit are the ones responsible for the supporting evidence. They're also responsible for explaining how he can claim to have seen space photographs two years BEFORE they were taken.

He fails even the simplest tests for credibility. Why are so many people such willing dupes for such easily-debunked stories?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


If you are in the know you would realize that Hubble was not designed for looking at the moon.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I guess the simple and EASY part would be getting someone else to do the work for you, eh Jim?

Looks like this one will remain a mystery then. Troll on my friend, troll on.



edit on 17-7-2012 by freelance_zenarchist because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join