New picture of two huge weird structures on the moon

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by disownedsky

Show me one example of an image that NASA has faked. I don't think you will find a single one. There have been a few purported fakes, but these claims have been more roundly debunked then they deserve.

Happy to oblige disownedsky. This is an image of Kepler taken by Lunar Orbiter (LO-III-162) in 1966.

This is Kepler, the same crater but viewed from a slightly different angle taken by Apollo 12 a few years later. Can you see the difference? Look at where the blue circles are on the top photo and then look at the same area on the Apollo 12 photo. Thats called 'airbrushing'. Hold on, I've got some others to show you.

I can see the first two features.

But hey 2 out of 3 aint all bad

I *think* the third circle is the center of the crater. The different shadowing makes it appear larger though.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by merka]

Hi there John.

I for one WOULD like to see more examples.

And can i just say that im am ALWAYS impressed by your decorum when you are subjected to such comments..."nut job" and alike. GOOD SHOW there my man

What i really WOULD like to see john, either on this thread or (even better) a NEW thread, is a collection of examples pertaining to the BEST evidence for air brushing and/or structures. The "blue Jem" above (page 7) is by far, one of my favorites. Do you have any others on par with that.?

Thanx for your time

AoN

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]

As much interest as the 'blue gem' image draws, what's to say that it isn't photo-shopped itself? I've looked at the moon through a telescope (I wish I owned one but I think city life leaves little in the sky to look up at) and I've never seen anything like that, of course the telescope that image was taken from must of cost a mint, its pretty darn good for an amateur.

Sorry to be so Sceptical but its all I have left

Originally posted by johnlear


Happy to oblige disownedsky. This is an image of Kepler taken by Lunar Orbiter (LO-III-162) in 1966.

img153.imageshack.us...

This is Kepler, the same crater but viewed from a slightly different angle taken by Apollo 12 a few years later. Can you see the difference? Look at where the blue circles are on the top photo and then look at the same area on the Apollo 12 photo. Thats called 'airbrushing'. Hold on, I've got some others to show you.

img153.imageshack.us...

Nope, sorry, all those features are there; the lighting is much different. I'm going to need to see much more rigorous analysis than that.

BTW, only links to the original image have any validity. It is just too easy to PS in "features."

Originally posted by johnlear
Would you like to see some more examples of NASA airbrushing?

Still wating to see one credible example of airbrushing. The two provided so far show no evidence at all.

All the areas in the blue circles are identifiable in the second photo even though it's taken at a different angle and different time.

The 'amateur astronomer' example doesn't even look like a real photo so it can hardly be placed along side a high resolution NASA photo for comparison.

Is that blueish glowing structure in the centre of the crater supposed to be the 'soul catcher'?

Originally posted by disownedsky

BTW, only links to the original image have any validity. It is just too easy to PS in "features."

Excellent observation. Why don't you go to the NASA website and download LO-III-162, after all, NASA is not going to release a photoshopped version are they? Then we can compare the difference between two versions of Kepler, both of which are from NASA themselves. Any problem with that?

Originally posted by Navieko

Originally posted by disownedsky
Show me one example of an image that NASA has faked. I don't think you will find a single one. There have been a few purported fakes, but these claims have been more roundly debunked then they deserve.

I wouldn't expect a 15 billion dollar (atleast that we know of) funded organization that's been around for over 50 years to make many "mistakes" -- or accidently leak such "proof". I see that argument all the time... it's so weak.

All I'm saying is: show me the evidence.

Your reply: the lack of evidence is proof of a cover -up. Evidence offered: NASA's pathetic little budget, which is not much peanut butter given how far it has to spread, and the absurd costs of maintaining the shuttle program and the space station.

The non-existence of a cover up is far more consistent with the facts. If you've ever worked with NASA scientists, as I have, you would know how preposterous such a purported cover-up is.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by disownedsky]

Please be as civilized as not to call one another "a nut job" etc. , to quote Voltaire "I respect your opinion, and I'll die to protect your right to say it. "

- Peace out from the thread starter.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Acharya]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by disownedsky

Show me one example of an image that NASA has faked. I don't think you will find a single one. There have been a few purported fakes, but these claims have been more roundly debunked then they deserve.

Here is one of Aristarchus taken by Apollo 15:

img58.imageshack.us...

And this is one of Aristarchus taken by an amateur astronomer here on earth:


img407.imageshack.us...


Do you notice the difference? The top one has been airbrushed. The bottom photo is just like it really is. Would you like to see some more examples of NASA airbrushing?

First, I see no evidence of airbrushing in the first image.

Second, I see nothing anomalous in the amateur astronomer's image.

Third, a real comparison between the two would take some serious analysis. The image you will get from orbit is going to be very different from the image an amateur astronomer gets, even with the best available equipment (and I have respect for amateur astronomers). There is a long list of reasons why we would expect them to be different.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by disownedsky]

Originally posted by disownedsky

First, I see no evidence of airbrushing in the first image.

Second, I see nothing anomalous in the amateur astronomer's image.

I know of 2 other members here at ATS that would agree with you.

There is a long list of reasons why we would expect them to be different.

Thanks disnownedsky. Please post the entire list when you have time. Your efforts wil be appreciated by many of us and will be helpful in denying ignornace.

(RANT)
I believe that no amount of evidence can compel some people to accept something as a fact or even consider it not being a fact. So John my friend, I think you are wasting your time with those people, just let them be.

Instead keep posting for those of us who are willing to look, or at least wonder, what's outside the box. It is really unnecessary to try to prove anything to people who are not willing to think beyond their indoctrination, or question their "experts" whom they admire, praise and blindly believe without question. After all if NASA said so it must be true, we just have to take their word for it and regurgitate it long enough for everyone else to accept it...

Thus I'll take that to the very end and wonder how is that different from me saying so? How come no one believes blindly what I say, but yet they believe NASA? Do I lack a "critical mass" of parrots repeating what I'm claiming to be true. or do I need to have a bunch of letters and acronyms behind my name as well.

What if I formed an organization of "experts" and called it KAKA, would people then believe me? I just need couple of my scientists to come up with some outlandish theories (that will magically become facts) and publish them. Since there is no peer review process it should be a smooth sailing (remember because no one else has gone there we don't have to worry about the facts). Yes I know there's also physical "exploration" but that's a long subject to itself.

I suppose I missed a train to get me couple of Nazi scientists for KAKA, they were all snatched by NASA.

And while on that subject, do you skeptics and hard core science "parrots"...err believers, honestly take the words of ardent nazis just like that, on faith alone? The word from the very same people who spent their lives before that perfecting weapons so they could exterminate the rest of us? Or the very same people who for example bombed the hell out of London then ironically re-used the same rocket design to go into Space (and then pollute our orbit with junk, irradiate the belts with nuclear explosions and who knows what else).

I suppose I ranted enough. Mods and OP sorry I sort of digressed here. This world is in a pretty sad state when lies are facts and facts are ridiculed or covered up. We are all truly pathetic creatures and deserve what begets us.

(/RANT)

Originally posted by amigo


Instead keep posting for those of us who are willing to look, or at least wonder, what's outside the box. It is really unnecessary to try to prove anything to people who are not willing to think beyond their indoctrination, or question their "experts" whom they admire, praise and blindly believe without question.

Care to name names. Who is a "blind believer?" Are people who are trained to look deep into factual claims and study evidence skeptically "blind believers?" In my view, that's a shameless slur.

the trails are far too linear to be natural, look at the surrounding terrain, its all curved and bumpy. If you look at the original then the closeup you can see it looks like a structure on the left with either a path or print to the right, as well as a shadow being cast off the left side. Comparing the size of the shadow to some of the terrain it looks as if it could be quite large. If there was anyway to get another angle that would really help out.

Here is an enlargement of Kepler (LO-III-162):

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by disownedsky

First, I see no evidence of airbrushing in the first image.
Second, I see nothing anomalous in the amateur astronomer's image.

I know of 2 other members here at ATS that would agree with you.

Surely there are more than just 2 members who apply critical thinking and denial of ignorance here at ATS!!

Originally posted by torsion

Surely there are more than just 2 members who apply critical thinking and denial of ignorance here at ATS!!

No... there are many skeptics. But John is highly respected on this site, and we do not just rudely dismiss his comments and images offhand. If you have a disagreement, ask him questions courteously! I personally see anomalies in the first photo and what looks like gray squares laid in spots on the second photograph.

While you may try to discredit Mr. Lear, you must realize, that he has earned the trust of this site and its member enough to not question as to whether he would have photo shopped these images. John Lear certainly would not do such a preposterous thing. While I cannot speak for a representative of the site, let me state that (in my opinion) John Lear can be taken for his word (at least when he has photos...)


Coven


P.s.

JOHN!!!!

Please if you have pics of suspected soul towers (I believe that is what you called it) on the moon? I have always been a wee bit lost when it comes to that idea... since your posting pics... got any of the tower?????

Originally posted by coven

JOHN!!!!

Please if you have pics of suspected soul towers (I believe that is what you called it) on the moon? I have always been a wee bit lost when it comes to that idea... since your posting pics... got any of the tower?????

This is a portion of NASA Lunar Orbiter photo LO-III-84M known to many as the "tower". This photo was taken sometime between February 15 and February 23, 1967. It rises approximately 6 miles above the lunar surface. It is made a some kind of transparent material so that it is virtually invisible except when the viewer or camera has the sun somewhere behind it so as to cast a shape by reflection. In this case as Lunar Orbiter came around in Lunar Orbit, the sun, although not visible, was just behind the object enough to give it definition.

The object has been measured and determined to be about 6 miles high. You can barely see the tripodal legs that support the main structure.

The structure supported by the tripodal legs is, according to Riuchard C. Hoagland, cubical in shape. RCH has promised me a first generation photo on the tower but it has never arrived. So I can't confirm that it is cubical but I have no reason to doubt RCH but I can't describe it from my own visual interpretation. However I don't have to see a first generation photo to imagine standing in awe under and looking up at the magnificence of a structure 21 times as high as the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur.

On the horizon where the base of the legs of the tripodal structure stands there is a 'fuzziness' just above the horizon. This could be due to the suspected dome that covers the 'tower'. Whatever the object is and whether or not there is a dome over it the fact is that Surveyor 4 instantaneously stopped transmitting July 17, 1967, two and a half minutes before touchdown in the exact area of the tower. It is possible that Surveyor 4 hit the tower itself or a dome covering the tower.

But Surveyor was never heard from again or found or recovered. And according the the final telemetry data Surveyors death was instantaneous.

So how do you come to the fantastic (and rather hilarious) conclusion that it is a 'Soul Tower' and not the outgassing from a small meteor impact or the like.

Originally posted by coven
While you may try to discredit Mr. Lear, you must realize, that he has earned the trust of this site and its member enough to not question as to whether he would have photo shopped these images.

John doesn't need me to discredit him. He does an admirable job himself. Nor does he need you to scurry to his defence (you won't get any points for doing so), he also does a good job of that by himself too.

I'm sure there are some people on this site who trust his every word - I'd guess that you are one of them. However, as I see it, most of what John tells us is bunk. But he is an entertaining story teller, which is why I like him and his posts!

Check out the picture of the soul tower (note the photoshopping that is required to force you into seeing what isn't there).

We have a suspected cube on a suspected tripod covered by a suspected dome! Brilliant analysis!

Source of photo, it seems, is Richard 'Face on Mars' Hoagland. That says a lot about the credibility of the image!

Originally posted by Chorlton

So how do you come to the fantastic (and rather hilarious) conclusion that it is a 'Soul Tower' and not the outgassing from a small meteor impact or the like.

Outgassing into a vacuum is unlikely to be able to receive, contain, sort and transmit billions of souls. Check Bad Astronomy for a good thread on outgassing on the Moon.