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.

 

ET structure on Moon

page: 9
80
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mcx1942
 



Um, considering he is saying it originated in the imaging process on earth, it isn't ET. No definition needed bro.




posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mcx1942
 


Hey buddy.. The damn OP's title to the thread is called ET structure on the Moon.

I know the definition on E.T.

This is a static discharge within the camera. If you want to get REALLY technical its an E.T static discharge within the non earth located camera.

And its clearly not a "structure"

Is this seriously all you have to contribute?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcx1942
The lunar dust storm idea seems very plausible. I myself really know nothing about the phenomenon other then the links provided earlier in this thread.


Heh, me to, thought to myself something similar like a twister but then thought, hmmm no atmosphere how would there be storms on the moon?!

So if anything, this threads helped me learn... the moon has dust storms, so im happy
.

edit on 13-7-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 



That claim was never made. You obviously don't know what a nuclear explosion looks like at any point of its detonation.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 


Here is what strikes me when comparing the Op's image with the later images that are artifacts.

The images are similar but still different. The artifacts in gortex's images begin from the edges of the image. The one in the op is near the center. That leads me to believe it is not on the camera itself.

According to NASA, the moon experiences Lunar dust storms.


Electrically charged lunar dust near shadowed craters can get lofted above the surface and jump over the shadowed region, bouncing back and forth between sunlit areas on opposite sides, according to new calculations by NASA scientists.
source

This sounds more plausible, then a electronic discharge occurring on the middle of the lens.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I will it say it again, there is no reason to believe this is not a thermo-nuclear weapon detonated on the moon by the United States. This in cooperation with every other country in the world that was really interested in seeing the effect of such an event.
edit on 13-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content


In so far as why the effect would be slower on the moon vs. earth that is irrelevant. The photograph could have very well be taken at the time of impact in which case yes this could be a nuclear bomb.

Any thought?
edit on 13-7-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Don;t even waste your time and energy bro, its like trying to explain to cat that the light reflection on the wall isn't really an object it can touch.

Whoever thinks its a nuclear explosion is human specimen 1.0 and will one day day off and hopefully give rise to the real intelligent human 2.0



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcx1942
reply to post by raifordko
 


Here is what strikes me when comparing the Op's image with the later images that are artifacts.

The images are similar but still different. The artifacts in gortex's images begin from the edges of the image. The one in the op is near the center. That leads me to believe it is not on the camera itself.

According to NASA, the moon experiences Lunar dust storms.


Electrically charged lunar dust near shadowed craters can get lofted above the surface and jump over the shadowed region, bouncing back and forth between sunlit areas on opposite sides, according to new calculations by NASA scientists.
source

This sounds more plausible, then a electronic discharge occurring on the middle of the lens.


At least the ATS dictionary cop agrees it isn't an alien structure on the moon. Alien.. by alien I mean alien life form with a high level of intelligence. Please don't correct me on my use of the word alien.

It could be... I guess... an "Alien" electrical lunar dust storm
edit on 13-7-2013 by Nomad451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nomad451
reply to post by Kashai
 


Don;t even waste your time and energy bro, its like trying to explain to cat that the light reflection on the wall isn't really an object it can touch.

Whoever thinks its a nuclear explosion is human specimen 1.0 and will one day day off and hopefully give rise to the real intelligent human 2.0


That response is nonsensical this really looks like a nuclear explosion.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Oh really? Please provide me an example of a documented nuclear explosion conducted in a vacuum.

I'd really like to see what your basing your opinion on that this looks like a nuclear explosion conducted on the lunar surface



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nomad451
reply to post by Kashai
 


Oh really? Please provide me an example of a documented nuclear explosion conducted in a vacuum.

I'd really like to see what your basing your opinion on that this looks like a nuclear explosion conducted on the lunar surface


I am basing my opinion upon what a nuclear explosion would look like on a lunar environment. Again no atmosphere that changes the effect of what s observable.

In so far as a nuclear explosion conducted in a vacuum it seems silly the US or for that matter Russia would have conducted such experiments clandestinely.

I mean honestly if you actually feel that way I have some great
swampland near Miami you would love.


edit on 13-7-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Where's Darwin when we need him.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mcx1942
 


My experience and education disagrees with your assumption.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


No your basing your opinion on what you THINK a nuclear explosion on the lunar surface would look like.

I'm simply asking why do you think it would look like the OP's image? What are you basing this on?

Your just guessing. And it's not a nuclear explosion.... I guess we are agreeing on that.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko
reply to post by Kashai
 


Where's Darwin when we need him.


Could Jesus Christ have been the result of an evolutionary spurt otherwise implied in relation to Punctuated Equilibrium?

You point is irrelevant this could very well be a nuclear explosion, your off topic point offers that you are in denial.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
ATS is the biggest hoot in all internet history.

It's a great microscope into the evolution of most humans psyche. Whackos are abound!

Camera artifact = ALIENS

Proven to be camera artifact = STILL ALIENS



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nomad451
reply to post by Kashai
 


No your basing your opinion on what you THINK a nuclear explosion on the lunar surface would look like.

I'm simply asking why do you think it would look like the OP's image? What are you basing this on?

Your just guessing. And it's not a nuclear explosion.... I guess we are agreeing on that.


I am saying it could very well be one. What plausible argument are you trying to offer otherwise? God willing it has nothing to do with dust moving at faster than that of light.


edit on 13-7-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


apollo.sese.asu.edu...

Have a read



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Nomad451
 


None of these images are consistent with what was observed in any real exacting way.

Whatever you do, do not quite your day job


This very much looks like a nuclear explosion nothing you have offered makes any sense.

If it is a reflection what is it a reflection of? What kind of reflection is it of? When has such a reflection ever been observed in nature? The examples you have offered are not consistent with the phenomenon.


Get over it


Any thoughts?
edit on 13-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by cheesy
 


Amazing quality photos. What the heck is that!



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join