John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

armap,

well you are a great guy. zorgon has mentioned several times to me, that he thinks you're a true blue skeptic, but i'm having trouble understanding the skepticism unless you're saying that the only thing you've been shown that looks artificial is the walls pic? what about all those other images?
the bucket wheels? the buildings? the smoke plumes? the gold triangles?
there's so many anomalies in the moon pics, it's amazing anyone even argues that none of them exist. are you sure you see somethign artificial in the walls pic? i mean, how could it be the only one?
any others? i'm concerned that another image will pop up one day, where the walls pic will have been completely modified, to look totally naturally and then it'll be back to armap doesn't see anything.

either i'm seeing things or you're inability to see things is due to some unexplicable something, that i can't figure out.

posting so it pages over.
i wonder why it does that on these long threads? some kind of glitch i guess

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon....'rather lengthy post'???

Hello pot? This is kettle...

But, enough...you accuse me of 'calling out' the esteemed Capt, when I in fact, did not...but we will not do this on thread...

(BTW, my name is Tim...I know your first name; the Capt, I believe, revealed it already) Oh, and if you have read all of my posts, you will see that I have experience that cannot be gleaned from the 'internets'...if you care to be honest about it. Of course, I present actual flight experience info, and knowledge, whereas we were regaled by the esteemed Capt with WAY OUT stuff...he seemed to revel in provoking responses?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I just got started at ATS. This thread is huge. Can someone please point out which moon image ( and aprox. where on the image) this closeup with the 4 walls comes from.

Most certainly and welcome to our madness...

The original image AS11-41-6156HR is currently still on NASA... it is here..
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The area in question is a small crater next to Crater 308 or Daedalus Crater

Here is a map to help you find the location of the walls...



The NASA original image should allow you to see the area by simply enlarging the image... but please use a graphic program, even though THIS one is good enough to see with a browser (as long as you are not on AOL dialup with their compression)

There is another view of Daedalus Crater... that also shows some interesting rectangular areas but it does not get close enough to look into this area

However both views have many items of interest, though we are focussing on the most obvious one

Here are some found by TheBorg



And this one by Groinrinder...



The other view is AS11-44-6611

Here is the original from NASA
AS11-44-6611

and here is the orientation map



A third view is found in AS11-44-6609
AS11-44-6609

The studies are here...

www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

As to the size of the walled area... this is hard to determine...

NASA gives us figures for the diameter of Daedalus Crater (Crater 308)

"The large impact basin pictured above is Crater 308. It spans about 30 kilometers and was photographed by crew of Apollo 11 as they circled the Moon in 1969."
www.nasa.gov...

"IAU (lunar) Crater 308, 80 km in diameter, has slumped walls and a central peak (NASA)"
www.astro.uwo.ca...

"The largest crater in the picture is Daedalus. Located near the center of the far side of the en:Moon, its diameter is about 93 kilometers (58 miles). This image was taken by en:Apollo 11 with Daedalus being Crater 308."

www.hq.nasa.gov...
From...
commons.wikimedia.org...:Moon-craters.jpg

So with excellent data like that from NASA it makes it very difficult to get an accurate size... 30km... 80km... 93km...
So maybe some math wizz here can work out the size based on the average



[edit on 14-2-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by ArMaP
2) they are the only thing that do not look natural

Thanks ArMaP....

It is true we have no way to determine exactly what we are looking at... but as I have said before... even finding ONE image that does not look natural, is one hell of a start...

Out of all the people here I truly wish you could see what we see... but I fear I will have to drag you up there in a spaceship before you will be convinced

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I know your first name; the Capt, I believe, revealed it already)

Ummm I think everyone knows my first name by now... Its not like I am 'undercover"

www.thelivingmoon.com...



Now will you vote on the image and stay on topic please?

Thanks for your post

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks for your post, Z

I am attempting to figure out how to send a photocopy of my licenses to you, via U2U. (since you didn't bother, apparently, to read my posts, on various threads, ones that if you show to Capt Lear may, just MIGHT, convince him that I know what the heck I am talking about, as pertains to airplanes...specifically, the B-757 and B-767...oh, and I am also type rated on the B-737, and the DC-9...[which, we all know, includes the MD-80]...but maybe we all don't know that. Ask Capt Lear, he should confirm.

I can talk about how Boeings are electrically distributed...I can walk Capt Lear through the procedure, from a 'cold' airplane, and what occurs, in a Boeing, when the Battery Switch is turned on (hint:....even when the Switch is 'OFF', the 'Hot Battery' bus remains powered...)

Look, I don't want to waste time on this board. Our esteemed Capt Lear did a lot, and that is on the record. I just flew the line for 22 years, got my paycheck, and lived my life. I didn't have a famous Father.

YOU wanna see if I actually know how to fly?!? THEN...invite me to Capt Lear's challenge, the one about how it is impossible to hit the WTC Towers in a Simulator at, what was it? Oh, yeah....500MPH. (The A/S indicator will only go up to jsut a little more than 380KIAS...and we will have to endure the OverSpeed warning above 340KIAS...it is not a 'clacker', it is a very loud 'hi/low' siren....If invited, I will pay my own way, this goes without saying.

(for all to see, there is another thread on this subject...I do not know how to provide the link, but you should be able to find it...)

If I were some sort of dis-info agent, I would know how to 'link' things...I can't even pull down a decent quote. I have gone to the 'ATS Handbook" to try to learn, but I need time to understand.

In the meantime, I look forward to our next correspondence.

Tim

edit...I will vote, but which page are the images, the 'A, B, C, D' images located, please.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
edit...I will vote, but which page are the images, the 'A, B, C, D' images located, please.

Marvelous!! Finally got your attention... well sort of

Only ONE Image
FOUR options
Bottom of THIS post
Only ONE page back

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Zorgon,

WEEDWHACKER, DON'T READ THIS POST NOR RESPOND TO IT TILL YOU HAVE ANSWERED ZORGON, OR I SHALL STALK YOU ALL OVER ATS AND BUG YOU TILL YOU DO.

Anyway, Zorgon,

I apologize for the skeptics (mwahaha) for encouraging you to put so much time and effort into the subject, which you do with thoroughness, and then not even bothering to read your responses to them. I think weed gets through your first few sentences, stops there, posts an answer, leaves, comes back, scans your next response, doesn't look at the pics, reads the first few sentences of your response, rinse wash repeat.

You may have finally broken him out of the cycle (i will make sure this post doesn't side track him by adding that info at the beginning of this post in caps)

[edit on 15-2-2008 by undo]

p.s.
this image?

Originally posted by undo
Zorgon,

WEEDWHACKER, DON'T READ THIS POST NOR RESPOND TO IT TILL YOU HAVE ANSWERED ZORGON, OR I SHALL STALK YOU ALL OVER ATS AND BUG YOU TILL YOU DO.

Anyway, Zorgon,

I apologize for the skeptics (mwahaha) for encouraging you to put so much time and effort into the subject, which you do with thoroughness, and then not even bothering to read your responses to them. I think weed gets through your first few sentences, stops there, posts an answer, leaves, comes back, scans your next response, doesn't look at the pics, reads the first few sentences of your response, rinse wash repeat.

You may have finally broken him out of the cycle (i will make sure this post doesn't side track him by adding that info at the beginning of this post in caps)

[edit on 15-2-2008 by undo]

Thanks, undo, for providing that picture...I am afraid I did not comply with your demand to not reply, so sorry....

I looked really long and hard at that picture...and I am afraid I still see nothing....sorry!

Perhaps if you told me what I am supposed to see, I won't be sent to the Gulag.....

edited to spell...and to figure out why my 'delete' key kees screwing up!



[edit on 15-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

you are probably one of only a small minority of skeptics that doesn't see anything in this image. and by small minority, i mean only 2 or so skeptics that have frequented this thread, have said they don't see anything. almost every skeptic has said, this is like the only one they DO see the anomalie in.

now that's an interesting answer. and i don't do gulag. i do things like
make ya listen to the hammer! and
PRAY!


and after that, you have to listen to 7 guys on a bus!


So, are you ready to confess now? Ah, I think I need to get some sleep



[edit on 15-2-2008 by undo]

Hallo. I'm a sort of wishy washy skeptic, who occasionally agrees that some objects are possibly extremely odd, but probably only about 5% of the time, if that. However, I subscribe to the theory that even if 0.1% of the stuff that Lear or Zorgon post is accurate, and actually is an unnatural phenomenon - that would be enough.

I've never flown a plane (not sure how that's on topic, but a lot of other people seem to think it's important, so I thought I'd better declare my ignorance).

I do work a lot with photoshop in my day job.

Now you know my credentials - here's my 2 cents.




Here's the photo at the top of Zorgon's most recent post - taken from Nasa's own photo galleries, as I understand it. All I've done on this is zoom in four times. I think there's a square shape here. I concede that is an odd phenomenon. I do not know what could have caused it.

On the other hand, I don't see why the square shape in my image is so less well defined than the enhanced close up versions I've seen elsewhere in the thread. My point being - if you examine the enhanced images, I don't see how anyone could shout down the suggestion that this is an artificial structure. But in my own close up version, I think it's reasonable to postulate that the formation, while odd, could conceivably have been caused by natural forces. It just doesn't look quite so clear cut to me.

So, the question is a technical one - what has been done to enhance the straight lines in the close ups posted earlier in this thread, and are those techniques reliable? On that rests my judgement on whether or not this is artificial.

LW

reply to post by undo


just a reply to undo...

I'm not really a 'sceptic'...not sure how one would go about getting such a moniker...OK, that was just stupid of me, trying to write as if I was a PhD or somethng....

Let's say I want to provide full disclosure, about me...'cause it's always about me, n'est pas?

I can understand that we humans are not the only sentient beings in our Galaxy...that should be a given, but many do not think it is even a starting point for discussion...

This is where I begin to think that, from the perspective of ME, and us...we get a little too full of our own sense of superiority. I can't find the right word...oh!! it is hubris to opine that we are the 'end all and be all' of the incredible Universe that we are, IMHO, just a teeny tiny small part of.

I understand how our little planet, the one we call 'Earth' has evolved. I expect that in the vastness of probabilities, others have evolved as well, in different Systems. When you understand the idea that 10,000 years is NOTHING compared to the millions of years...or the billions of years...you may begin to understand.

I pointed out that our species, 'Homosapien'...has been around for a few thousand years...let's say 10,000, since I mentioned it in the last paragraph.

IN the course of cosmic evolution, it is but a moment, less even than that.

We toss around terms like 'year' because we know, from our experience, that the planet we happen to live on takes one 'year' to complete its orbit.

Our society is based on this cycle, because due to seasonal changes, we had to learn, as an agricultural people, when to plant and when to harvest. Religions grew up, during these times...some good, some not so good...it was, religion, was, IMO, an attempt for early thinkers to comprehend the world around them. At this early stage of development, science was not in the fore-front, it was human envy and human emotion that dominated.

Science, though, keeps poking in ... and those that want to control believers in magic...the uninformed who believe in 'magic'...will always be there.

This is not meant to 'de-bunk' anything...it is just a statement of logic...

So...am I a sceptic? Well, yes, until I am proven wrong about what I percieve to be 'true'. Show me something I can wrap my head around, as the phrase goes, and then I am on your bus!!

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
I've never flown a plane (not sure how that's on topic, but a lot of other people seem to think it's important, so I thought I'd better declare my ignorance).

I have no idea I think it has something to do with 'thread derailment' like keep the rhetoric burying the topic... anything to avoid the question

So, the question is a technical one - what has been done to enhance the straight lines in the close ups posted earlier in this thread, and are those techniques reliable? On that rests my judgement on whether or not this is artificial.

I use Paintshop Pro... but good question... I will have free time on Sunday and duplicate the enlargement and track the steps.. Its been a while on this one

Originally posted by weedwhacker
about me...'cause it's always about me, n'est pas?

No it's about anomalies on the Moon images not about you...

My finger is getting REAL ITCHY on that ignore button....

Originally posted by undo
well you are a great guy.

Thanks.

zorgon has mentioned several times to me, that he thinks you're a true blue skeptic, but i'm having trouble understanding the skepticism unless you're saying that the only thing you've been shown that looks artificial is the walls pic? what about all those other images?
the bucket wheels? the buildings? the smoke plumes? the gold triangles?
there's so many anomalies in the moon pics, it's amazing anyone even argues that none of them exist.

I never said that they don't exist.

Although I don't see them, I have no way of knowing if they do exist, so I can not say while being true to myself that those things do not exist, that would be giving myself powers of knowledge that I do not have.

The only thing that I say is that I don't see the things you see and sometimes I have tried to show why I think the methods used are not helping getting the to truth.

are you sure you see somethign artificial in the walls pic?

No, I said that they look artificial, I have no way of knowing if they are, right?

i mean, how could it be the only one? any others?

I have said it before, because it is the only one where I see things that look artificial, I did not see artificial looking things in any other Moon photo, at least that I remember.

i'm concerned that another image will pop up one day, where the walls pic will have been completely modified, to look totally naturally and then it'll be back to armap doesn't see anything.

There is no need for concern, if one image appears that does not show the "walls" then that will not prove to me that they did not exist. For that to happen I must know why those "walls" are visible on the photo, just showing me one photo without them will not convince me.

And do you know why? Because I don't believe everything I see, and once I have seen something that I find out of the ordinary I must find an explanation for that, regardless of it being straight lines on the Moon or footprints on the ceiling (which I haven't seen, just heard about)

And I don't know if you noticed, but the way you wrote implies that the "walls" are real and if a photo appears and does not show them then you will assume that they were modified. I try not to assume anything, that is what I think is the best way of not being distracted from the way to understanding what I am looking at.

either i'm seeing things or you're inability to see things is due to some unexplicable something, that i can't figure out.

It can have an explanation, I just don't know what it may be.

reply to post by zorgon


Enlarged picture from NASA:


Zorgon's picture:

I have posted this several times... this ONE IMAGE that is un altered save a simple enlargement from a NASA source

Unaltered? You mean before you added the straight walls in Paint Shop?

Now lets take a vote...

E) It's obviously faked.

How else can a 25 pixels/pixel enlargement display perfectly straight diagonal edges that are not visible in the original?

LoneWeasel noticed it too.

Originally posted by nablator
E) It's obviously faked.

How else can a 25 pixels/pixel enlargement display perfectly straight diagonal edges that are not visible in the original?

LoneWeasel noticed it too.

I like that skepticism. I had that when this thread started all those pages ago. However, the anomaly in question was discovered by myself at NASA's own website, so if there's a complaint to be had, it should be with them.

If you look at the small crater just at the NE rim of the big crater in the lower left of the image, and magnify it, you'll see the aforementioned image in the crater. It's nestled in all nice and tight.

I do hope that you see it now.

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg


Thank you TheBorg. I have no problem with the enlarged NASA picture that you see in my post. It is indeed interesting, and I went to NASA archives looking for more pictures of the same area west of Daedalus. Too bad AS11-38-5564 is not available in HR yet.

I tried to display Zorgon's picture below NASA's picture, for reference, but I see it as an "external image".

I believed at first that Zorgon found a better picture than AS11-41-6156 or a better scan. However this is obviously not the case. Individual pixels can be seen at the same place on Zorgon's picture.

Let me show you the problem in a contour enhanced version of Zorgon's picture. How come the edges of the "compound" are perfectly straight and not pixelated at all?



If you want huge straight features, try Rima Petavius.




[edit on 2008-2-16 by nablator]

check it
www.thelivingmoon.com...

he always added color or light to help people see anomalies because alot of times, they couldn't differentiate. one of the drawbacks of nothing but
grey as far as the eye can see, is that everything just sorta runs together.