Lots of buildings or as they say 'constructs' here. Just east of farside 180 longitude to the south.
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8219/spaceportcityunshapmark.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/spaceportcityunshapmark.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Thank you John. :)
This picture leaves no doubt that there are several buildings there. There are so many "anomalies" that is difficult to point all. :o
I'll put here three areas in the picture that caught my attention among all those "anomalies".
Could this be a control tower?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jf4ee06036.jpg)
Same pic sharpened:
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qo4ee06048.jpg)
A base?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ze4ee05fe8.jpg)
Same pic sharpened (look at the patterns):
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gp4ee0603f.jpg)
A mining machine?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/zw4ee05ff0.jpg)
Same pic sharpened
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gh4ee0604f.jpg)
Below you can see another "strange" formation on moon:
Enhanced photo of crater Moon base taken by Japanese space probe:
(http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005477/images/387.jpg)
Amazing find John... 8)
I must suppose that You can develop an EYE for the anomilies in photos of the moon?
Could I offer a difficult to explain theory about the moon?
You are viewing the moon from earth, whether from the surface or via any device manufactured here.
The earth is alive and contained within it's own unique field geometries.
The moon is alive and contained within it's own field geometries, but closely aligned to those of the earth.
This basically creates a time differential between the earth and the moon.
What We view in photos of the moon are relative to the time and geometries of the earth.
Whilst any view from the moon using earth deviced apparatus will view the earth as it is relative to the time and geometry of earth.
Basically unless We have the technology to alter the field about ourselves , we will view all of universe relative to earth.
This is really difficult to verbalise, as it requires a comprehension of the methods of creation relative to the overall field that dominates.
There is possibly a civilization on the moon that is fractionally out of synch relative to to earth, thus We can barely see it, and could walk straight through their buildings as We are nothing but a compound of signals, as are they but at different settings.
If You built a device made of moons materials, the pictures may be more revealing?
But the two different time fields may be quite dangerous to each other.
sorry for the ramble.
a hobbit trait
This is a Lunar Orbiter photo taken from orbit around the moon in 1966. Not taken from earth.
Most interesting observations Hobbit!
Reminds me of the Apollo 17 Command Module Pilot who stated, "I can see the landing site, and the Astronauts walking around".
Houston must of thought, "gee, this guy is suffering from space madness" ::)
Or, the Astronauts were 70ft tall in the Moon Environment!, allowing the Command Module Pilot to see them clearly.
To the Astronauts on the moon, nothing would be out of the ordinary, as it is 'Relative' to observation. If you are 'in the field', then all your observational transducers are affected in the same way and you don't notice anything out of place.
We all know that an Antenna works by picking up Electromagnetic Radiations and converting them to a dynamic Electric field that can be demodulated to receive the original transmission. And we all should know that it requires an Antenna length of at least 1/4 Wavelength for 'Optimum' reception!
But what most people don't know (And i will probably get in trouble for this :o) that even in the Earth's orbit there is an expansion of mass due to the distance from the Earth's centre, and thereby a change in the local time and space vectors.
Therefore, when a satellite is put into orbit, the receiving and transmitting antennas are manufactured slightly longer to recieve a particular frequency than they would if they were on the Earth!
And don't ever let anyone tell you they stuffed up the Hubble Telescope by grinding the mirror wrong! Then why didn't it work in space, when it worked perfectly on the Earth?? Funny that it passed every optical test here on Earth, but exhibited blurry images in orbit??
Might it have been that the local space/time vector are different in orbit?
I can tell you that because of compartmentalization, that Contractor A ground the mirror to Earth Specs, not knowing that it should be ground to different specs! But because Contractor A wasn't privy to that 'Science' they didn't know that it would be wrong :o
Anyway, keep up the good questions Hobbit!
And remember that the truth is mostly hidden in plain sight ::)
On all counts this has to be one of the best moon threads I've seen for age's.
-Brilliant Pics (John is Thee Moon Man) ;D
-Interesting discussion about magnetic shielding :o
John I know this is not the Q and A section! But have you watched TV with Zorgon of late ?
Quote from: starwarp2000 on December 09, 2011, 04:34:26 AM
Most interesting observations Hobbit!
And don't ever let anyone tell you they stuffed up the Hubble Telescope by grinding the mirror wrong! Then why didn't it work in space, when it worked perfectly on the Earth?? Funny that it passed every optical test here on Earth, but exhibited blurry images in orbit??
Might it have been that the local space/time vector are different in orbit?
I can tell you that because of compartmentalization, that Contractor A ground the mirror to Earth Specs, not knowing that it should be ground to different specs! But because Contractor A wasn't privy to that 'Science' they didn't know that it would be wrong :o
Anyway, keep up the good questions Hobbit!
And remember that the truth is mostly hidden in plain sight ::)
Remember now, there were 2 Hubbles, count them 2. When the second, the public one was launched, the stereo photos (when combined with the first) were so fantastic that the Military wanted both for themselves.
So they cooked up a hoax that the second one had a flaw and couldnt be used. There was no regrinding, no fixing, no nothing done to the public Hubble. The contractor made out like a theif because he got paid for nothing. Its possible that a third Hubble was launched to replace the public one for the stereo views but the public eventually got theirs back.
And please remember when anybody brings up the word 'mass'. There is no basis for Newtons assumption that gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity and density of matter. F=m1m2/r^2 is just rot. And Newton didn't even come up with that equation. It was insertied into his theory after he died.
And that is the 'rest of the story'. John Lear
Quote from: starwarp2000 on December 09, 2011, 04:34:26 AM
Most interesting observations Hobbit!
Reminds me of the Apollo 17 Command Module Pilot who stated, "I can see the landing site, and the Astronauts walking around".
Houston must of thought, "gee, this guy is suffering from space madness" ::)
Or, the Astronauts were 70ft tall in the Moon Environment!, allowing the Command Module Pilot to see them clearly.
To the Astronauts on the moon, nothing would be out of the ordinary, as it is 'Relative' to observation. If you are 'in the field', then all your observational transducers are affected in the same way and you don't notice anything out of place.
We all know that an Antenna works by picking up Electromagnetic Radiations and converting them to a dynamic Electric field that can be demodulated to receive the original transmission. And we all should know that it requires an Antenna length of at least 1/4 Wavelength for 'Optimum' reception!
But what most people don't know (And i will probably get in trouble for this :o) that even in the Earth's orbit there is an expansion of mass due to the distance from the Earth's centre, and thereby a change in the local time and space vectors.
Therefore, when a satellite is put into orbit, the receiving and transmitting antennas are manufactured slightly longer to recieve a particular frequency than they would if they were on the Earth!
And don't ever let anyone tell you they stuffed up the Hubble Telescope by grinding the mirror wrong! Then why didn't it work in space, when it worked perfectly on the Earth?? Funny that it passed every optical test here on Earth, but exhibited blurry images in orbit??
Might it have been that the local space/time vector are different in orbit?
I can tell you that because of compartmentalization, that Contractor A ground the mirror to Earth Specs, not knowing that it should be ground to different specs! But because Contractor A wasn't privy to that 'Science' they didn't know that it would be wrong :o
Anyway, keep up the good questions Hobbit!
And remember that the truth is mostly hidden in plain sight ::)
As a dowser.....
I find a dual circulating field about all, and it has a heart centred point( alpha and omega) where the spin passes through and loops out to its maximum diameter where it returns spinning in the opposite direction.
The torroidal field thus has geometry relative to the heart centre and it's overall diameter.
The moon has a smaller diameter, but it will be overall larger in comparison to it's mass than earths, and that is what will cause so called lower gravity, and a time differential with here, the smaller the mass the mor powerfull is the field.
Gravity is TIME....john Worrall keely.
Are you familier with david Barclays book called UNITY?
http://www.gravitycontrol.org/unity-book.html
There bright up in canada, and David has been given a trip.
It grates against current ASSUMED so called laws of science, but basically gravity is a consequence of opposing field interactions, thus TIME is also.
Watch the moon tonight and tomorrow morning....lunar eclipse.
hobbit
The moons gravity is 70% that of earth so its mass is not what you think it is. Its atmosphere at the surface is equal to about 18,000 above sea level here on earth.
The population of the moon is between one and one point five billion.
Hobbits line of BS, measured in miles is equal to or greater than the distance of the Earth-Moon neutral point as measured from the moon which is 43,495 miles.
Tell us about tidal lock Hobbit. Surely you don't believe in that also?
Quote from: johnlear on December 09, 2011, 10:50:59 PM
The moons gravity is 70% that of earth so its mass is not what you think it is. Its atmosphere at the surface is equal to about 18,000 above sea level here on earth.
The population of the moon is between one and one point five billion.
Hobbits line of BS, measured in miles is equal to or greater than the distance of the Earth-Moon neutral point as measured from the moon which is 43,495 miles.
Tell us about tidal lock Hobbit. Surely you don't believe in that also?
Perhaps I am not explaining myself too well?
And You will have to better explain what You are reffering to as "BS"
hobbit
Quote from: hobbit on December 09, 2011, 11:06:51 PM
Perhaps I am not explaining myself too well?
And You will have to better explain what You are reffering to as "BS"
hobbit
For starters:
The earth is alive and contained within it's own unique field geometries.
The moon is alive and contained within it's own field geometries, but closely aligned to those of the earth.
This basically creates a time differential between the earth and the moon.
What We view in photos of the moon are relative to the time and geometries of the earth.
Whilst any view from the moon using earth deviced apparatus will view the earth as it is relative to the time and geometry of earth.
Basically unless We have the technology to alter the field about ourselves , we will view all of universe relative to earth.
This is really difficult to verbalise, as it requires a comprehension of the methods of creation relative to the overall field that dominates.
There is possibly a civilization on the moon that is fractionally out of synch relative to to earth, thus We can barely see it, and could walk straight through their buildings as We are nothing but a compound of signals, as are they but at different settings.
If You built a device made of moons materials, the pictures may be more revealing?
But the two different time fields may be quite dangerous to each other.
Pure, unaldurated crap. Its like NAZA coming up with a reason why we see houses, build
ings and factories on the moon. Using earth deviced apparatus? What like my eyes?
You are not explaining yourself too well? You are explaining yourself just fine.
Take a hike Hobbit.
Hi John ;D good to see you again after such a long time apart... is there any newer raw footage in high res of this same area that you are aware of?
Definitely an interesting photo to ponder and my thanks for sharing with us...
hopefully more are forthcoming...
seeker
Quote from: johnlear on December 10, 2011, 12:41:55 AM
For starters:
The earth is alive and contained within it's own unique field geometries.
The moon is alive and contained within it's own field geometries, but closely aligned to those of the earth.
This basically creates a time differential between the earth and the moon.
What We view in photos of the moon are relative to the time and geometries of the earth.
Whilst any view from the moon using earth deviced apparatus will view the earth as it is relative to the time and geometry of earth.
Basically unless We have the technology to alter the field about ourselves , we will view all of universe relative to earth.
This is really difficult to verbalise, as it requires a comprehension of the methods of creation relative to the overall field that dominates.
There is possibly a civilization on the moon that is fractionally out of synch relative to to earth, thus We can barely see it, and could walk straight through their buildings as We are nothing but a compound of signals, as are they but at different settings.
If You built a device made of moons materials, the pictures may be more revealing?
But the two different time fields may be quite dangerous to each other.
Pure, unaldurated crap. Its like NAZA coming up with a reason why we see houses, build
ings and factories on the moon. Using earth deviced apparatus? What like my eyes?
You are not explaining yourself too well? You are explaining yourself just fine.
Take a hike Hobbit.
I don't know You at all, but I am quickly forming My own little opinion/s.
If You can't listen to a different perspective without resorting to verbals, then nobody is ever gonna listen to You.
Are You OK??
hobbit
I haven't much time just now, some of us have to work .
I have been told to,
"TAKE A HIKE HOBBIT"
In England that would mean ..clear off...leave etc.
As there may be differences between England and American English??, could that be clarified.
Is this a typical example of how this forum will operate?
Have I scratched a nerve?
Hobbit.
Hobbits never back down.
Hobbit,
I am a little suprised at Johns remark to you.
" Shove off" in my neighborhood would never be considered friendly and this is odd from a man who is able to say of the moon
"The population of the moon is between one and one point five billion.......and somehow not be challenged here.....
Surely that remark has been met with unfriendly responses and yet it is valued here..... am I right?
I should think that your dowsers way of regarding the moon should be given the same courtesy.
Now what in Johns statement can be verified by anyone.
Anyone? Anywhere?
So it seems there is a different set of expectations operating here?
I was told once by John Lear that Townsend Brown was responsible for opening a portal in space/time that is going to eventually mean the demise of the human race.
John now says that he can't remember saying that.
Perhaps when he realizes that you are quite serious about what you are saying too he will rethink the " Shove off" comment..... Just as he wants others to rethink the comments about Townsend Brown?
Surely there is room for gracious conversations?
Linda Brown
old age + scotch + irritable bowel syndrome = cranky snarling fingers.
Like all gods, they have their days.
QuoteSurely there is room for gracious conversations?
Linda Brown
One would hope so :D That is after all why we opened this place. Unfortunately the very topic creates extreme views on both sides and sooner or later the sides will clash. I hope we can continue and play nice... but that doesn't always work.
So all we can do is ask all players to play nice so us mean and nasty Admin and Mods don't have to bring out the axe. :D Too much of that happening at the other forums. Sometimes one just has to agree to disagree.
Also about that dimensional portal... there are many that believe the Philadelphia Experiment did just that... opened a Pandora's Box of time related issues that they have been trying to fix. They even made a very good movie about that idea... with the ending being that to fix it they had to stop trying to fix it :D
I Plan to do a thread on the time issues soon... in fact I have tried three times to do one... and each time odd things happened that I will detail in that thread... when I have some free time :D
To Hobbit: Yes one can be trained to spot the anomalies... but some people just never see anything but blurry rocks. Those that can, can get a job with the Air Force in satellite image analysis. Many skeptics will toss around the word 'pareidolia' as an excuse to explain why some people 'see what they want to see' But over at ATS right now there is an object in a Martian photo that looks like a horse. about half can see it plain as days, the others see only blurry rocks. The opposite of pareidolia is 'prosopagnosia' the inability of people to recognize patterns.
There are many other factors as well... personal vision is one, the monitor you are using is another, but most important is SCALE. Until you wrap your mind around the scale, it is difficult to understand what we see. One mod at ATS one day spotted ONE of the items I was showing in a Copernicus image... when he did, it opened his mind to the scale and soon he found others that we had missed.
To give you an idea here is an old WWII photo of Peenemunde taken by the RAF
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Peenemunde_test_stand_VII.jpg)Royal Air Force reconnaissance photograph of V-2 rockets at Peenemünde Test Stands I and VII
See the two objects labeled "rocket" and "trailer"? This photo was used to plan bombing missions. So there are many who can see things that others can not.
As to John... he takes a little warming up to :P When first met him I did not believe everything he was showing... but over the years I have learned there is a lot more truth than fiction in what he says...
If we need to air some laundry lets do it via PM... I hate deleting posts :P
Quote from: zorgon on December 11, 2011, 06:06:35 AM
Also about that dimensional portal... there are many that believe the Philadelphia Experiment did just that... opened a Pandora's Box of time related issues that they have been trying to fix. They even made a very good movie about that idea... with the ending being that to fix it they had to stop trying to fix it :D
I Plan to do a thread on the time issues soon... in fact I have tried three times to do one... and each time odd things happened that I will detail in that thread... when I have some free time :D
I don't seem to have the knack for this quote thing so forgive me that my message is enclosed like this... not the most technical person here..... :-[
Zorgon....I am looking forward to your " time issues" thread. And to hear what others believe about the " Philadelphia Experiment" and what you feel might be " ongoing programs"
And regarding Johns reaction to the view presented by Hobbit. Hobbit is Hobbit. Only one like him that I know of.... and what he sees very few others can. I have said once that he is a bit like a flying fish who catches sight of a black and white cow grazing in a pasture by the ocean. Of course when that flying fish tries to report back to the rest of the school of fish... he gets very odd reactions. Doesn't mean that he didn't see that cow. Its just hard to describe a cow to fish. Nobodys fault.
John.... I send you my best. I could learn much from your experiences from Forums I think. I understand a little of what you are feeling sometimes. Agendas are everywhere, arn't they?
Linda Brown
To,
John Lear,
I can't help understanding what I do, and You have every right in a free world to scoff and snarl all You like.
I could easily reply with equal skeptism with the content of Your posts, but I won't as I fully realise that there are more things in heaven and earth than meets the eyes.
I also consider that there is a natural change occuring in the condition about this planet, and that many will change and become differenent in their attitudes and thoughts, and that is showing itself with Alzhiemers and dementia rising fast.
You have put Your chin on the line to be punched, very bravely sir, therefore expect to be punched, but not how you may be able to percieve.
I KNOW that all in creation is held in it's own memory field and I am a hobbit that can interact with those memory fields, large and small.
But watch out for little hobbits as they have huge memory fields, and can and will resist the manipulation of such by beings that are far far more advanced than our physical bodies are here on the surface of this planet.
Thats because they have huge fields, and it's all by field.
Biefeld brown.
Hugs to Linda who has been tested by such strange behaviour changes in people close to her, and stood tall.
Hobbit .
from the shires.
John when you have time could you please post some more moon pictures. Theres nothing like the moon pictures they are fantastic you made me a believer thats for sure. There a bucket excavators strip mining and Vapors coming out of the moon in the one picture its absolutely fascinating that was my favorite forum on OMF The case for the civilization on The Moon. Once you realize what your seeing Its truly incredible. It was absolutely 100% appreciated by the vast majority of truth seekers. :)
BigPappy51 8)
Quote from: Bigpappy51 on December 12, 2011, 10:42:12 AM
John when you have time could you please post some more moon pictures. Theres nothing like the moon pictures they are fantastic you made me a believer thats for sure. There a bucket excavators strip mining and Vapors coming out of the moon in the one picture its absolutely fascinating that was my favorite forum on OMF The case for the civilization on The Moon. Once you realize what your seeing Its truly incredible. It was absolutely 100% appreciated by the vast majority of truth seekers. :)
Not the greatest of resolution but a few really interesting 'artifacts' if you enlarge it. Maybe I'll rescan if there is enough interest.
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7267/farside40n120eaa.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/farside40n120eaa.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: hobbit on December 11, 2011, 08:33:24 AM
Hugs to Linda who has been tested by such strange behaviour changes in people close to her, and stood tall.
Hobbit .
from the shires.
Hugs to Linda?
Well hugs to Zorgon back at you! <snarl>
Quote from: johnlear on December 12, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
Hugs to Linda?
Well hugs to Zorgon back at you! <snarl>
Linda Brown, a member of this forum.
You seem to do a lot of snarling, darling.
hobbit
Hugs back to everybody. Like they say... one size fits all...
Regarding Zorgon
John.....I had asked him how you came to the figure of X billion of people living on the moon ....Its a straight out question.... offered respectfully.
Your pictures do not interest me half as much as your own personal experience of how you came to this information.
Maybe you could snarl that answer back to me here. I do OK with snarls..use them myself sometime, maybe its our age? Or maybe its what we are experiencing?
not to worry.... I generally prefer hugs but you can snarl back all you want. Myself? I haven't gone to biting quite yet.
Can you answer me here?... because thats the kind of exchange that this Forum is all about, isn't it? Linda Brown
Quote from: Linda Brown on December 12, 2011, 03:59:15 PM
John.....I had asked him how you came to the figure of X billion of people living on the moon ....Its a straight out question.... offered respectfully.
Moon population based on visitors comments (Menger, et al), number of cities, Damoiseau, Petavius B, Lomonsov, T. Mayer to name just a few, mining operations, and general common sense of a planet with 70% earths gravity and surface atmosheric pressure of about 14.94 in/Hg and time of development, 20 billion years (manufactured inside Jupiter, date towed to Earth (unknown) but estimated to be 12,000 to 15,000 (this time around).
Classic example of NAZA obfuscation. Over expose the top 7/16th, underexpose the bottom 7/16ths and airbrush whats left to see, 2/16ths or 1/8th. Sometimes I feel like the airbrushers were intentionally leaving us clues, ones that would get by the supervisor.
(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/2962/farside20n130epegasus.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-12
John,
May I ask you what year or time in your life that you started reaching these conclusions. I admit I have not read much of Menger and probably do have alot of studying to do just to catch up with you.
I had an odd dream when I was nine years old. It was 1955 and I remembered the dream distinctly because it featured the forms of " visitors" and their ships... which I remembered quite vividly. Long dream real short.... the last part of it included a visit to the moon and " Mining operations" there. Now this is not unusual perhaps for a kid.... but I have a witness who was with me when my Dad admitted to having basically the same dream the same evening..... and in the years since I have had a person very much " in the know" step forward and tell me that " It was no dream" ???????
The reason that I contacted you is that somehow.... someway.... your Dad and mine seem to be linked in the development of some sort of " mining machine" HERE on earth. A quick Google of Electrohydrodynamics, Townsend Brown and Bill Lear will dump you right in that information.
What I want to know is..... what the heck is going on here?
You have been always very outspoken and a lightning rod for critics I am sure.... but none of them had the dream I had so many years ago and your Dad was closely associated with mine. I have FBI papers that prove that.
What were they doing and what kinds of things do you and I know.....????? I have a feeling that you are WAY ahead of me in the conclusions that you have already drawn.
Any comments you can send in my direction which might shed light on this would be appreciated. I submit that you have a stronger tie to this information than simply gathering what people like Menger had to say...is this possible? Linda Brown
What I find interesting is that with all the developed technologies NO "KNOWN" satellite or probe has been sent to take CLEAR well lit pictures of the far side of LUNA. It seems this would allow lots of closure about moon activities ect. As shared here I think its a busy place up there, its just wild we cannot interact on a cool intelligent level with whoever is up there... the secrecy of the whole situation kind of TELLS there is something more going on up there.
There has to be some $$$rich private owners who could just get Virgin air to design a craft to take pics like LRO of the hidden side.
nice thread johnlear ;)
Quote from: OPHI13 on December 12, 2011, 05:29:21 PM
What I find interesting is that with all the developed technologies NO "KNOWN" satellite or probe has been sent to take CLEAR well lit pictures of the far side of LUNA. It seems this would allow lots of closure about moon activities ect. As shared here I think its a busy place up there, its just wild we cannot interact on a cool intelligent level with whoever is up there... the secrecy of the whole situation kind of TELLS there is something more going on up there.
There has to be some $$$rich private owners who could just get Virgin air to design a craft to take pics like LRO of the hidden side.
nice thread johnlear ;)
Yeah its nutz huh ? :o
The space agencies keep sending "Rovers" to Mars right ?
Yet we get screwed up moon missions that don't work, along with Google giving us images here on earth "to wonder and amaze upon" whilst frothing over a, "Grey Scale Moon".
We could save a lot of money and send a Moon Buggy as was "Advertised" during the Apollo missions. With new technologies its the cheapest option to send a buggy to the Moon and at least collect HE3.
?
Nasa = No Appropriate Sense Applied (which then equates to the great scam)
So can we figure out the Phase/time differential between Earth and Moon and then use a computer controlled digital telescope to view the moon in sinc with earth? Sort of a multi-dimensional viewing port hole. lol
Quote from: Captain Dave on December 12, 2011, 11:03:37 PM
So can we figure out the Phase/time differential between Earth and Moon and then use a computer controlled digital telescope to view the moon in sinc with earth? Sort of a multi-dimensional viewing port hole. lol
Howdo?
If You puzzle out how the system of universe operates, instead of been hampered by little Earth thinking, then YES.
hobbit
QuoteSo can we figure out the Phase/time differential between Earth and Moon and then use a computer controlled digital telescope to view the moon in sinc with earth?
You mean like recording it with a high speed camera and slowing it down to 30 frames per second??? What makes you think the moon is out of sync? If that were the case how do you know you would even see it at all? ::) How do you know it is not your conciousness that is out of sync with the reality perceived? :P
Are we trying to compare the speed of light to the speed of conciousness here?
I don't think there is anything preventing us from taking perfectly clear hi-res images of the moon (technologically speaking) except for the will of those with the equipment to release the images.
Quote from: hobbit on December 12, 2011, 11:28:34 PM
Howdo?
If You puzzle out how the system of universe operates, instead of been hampered by little Earth thinking, then YES.
hobbit
(1) Do you believe that Newton's Second Law F=Gm1m2/r^2 is valid?
(2) Have you read my 15 page essay on Debunking Einstein?
Thank you.
???
John and those of you posting some moon images..
could i respectfully make a request, please
for me and maybe other optically impaired by scale or other things
could you who are posting and know stuff. please consider the novices in here
and add maybe one or two more pieces of info
i can see faces in trees, images in rocks, info in the earth air..so i am not calling false any who see things i don't
but , damn it , i am mostly at a loss to see what you guys do
so could ya just put a little more info with the pics....
pleasssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
thank you
In the newly released ART OF THE HOBBIT, J.R.R. Tolkien's original artwork for the HOBBIT is on display and bears and uncanny resemblance to the Lunar Landscape and the odd/anomalous/artificial looking moonbases/buildings that have been making the rounds on the web for years.
http://io9.com/5855406/art-of-the-hobbit-never+before+seen-drawings-by-jrr-tolkien (http://io9.com/5855406/art-of-the-hobbit-never+before+seen-drawings-by-jrr-tolkien)
What do you think John? ;D
Quote from: sky otter on December 13, 2011, 01:37:33 AM
???
John and those of you posting some moon images..
could i respectfully make a request, please
for me and maybe other optically impaired by scale or other things
could you who are posting and know stuff. please consider the novices in here
and add maybe one or two more pieces of info
i can see faces in trees, images in rocks, info in the earth air..so i am not calling false any who see things i don't
but , damn it , i am mostly at a loss to see what you guys do
so could ya just put a little more info with the pics....
pleasssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
thank you
I'll put some more info but it won't help. I have been looking at moon images for 22 years now and things just leap out. It doesn't come easy or quickly. I know the near and far side of the moon as well as I know earth. You can show me partial segment of any place on the moon and I can tell you where it is. But, as I say, it takes hundreds of hours looking at the photos. But when you first catch something that is obviously man-made is a chilling thrill.
One night I was over at Zorgons house looking at AS8-12-2209 and he started picking out a road, then streets lights, then a town square, then a parking lot. It was really spooky. It didn't take Zorgon hundreds of hours, he picked it up very fast. He was the first one to catch on to the Copernicus photos which showed the huge ramp on the side of amount and then the bucket wheel excavators. He is the one who picked out the 'keep' with the buildings an roadways.
Once you see your first image it is addicting beyond all possible belief. Until then it is just faces, numbers, straightlines and rocks.
When i did my first atempt at modeling the spaceport, all i saw was the spaceport. Now that i have a better pic, i'm starting to pick out more and more items. Sometimes it's hard to get your head around that there are actual structures and constructs on the moon. For me it's taken awhile, but i keep going back for more. I'm having a great time. Beats modeling piping systems, wellheads and caverns ( my day job).
Quote from: johnlear on December 13, 2011, 04:11:03 AM
I'll put some more info but it won't help. I have been looking at moon images for 22 years now and things just leap out. It doesn't come easy or quickly. I know the near and far side of the moon as well as I know earth. You can show me partial segment of any place on the moon and I can tell you where it is. But, as I say, it takes hundreds of hours looking at the photos. But when you first catch something that is obviously man-made is a chilling thrill.
....
The same drill on Mars images. And I agree, the first time to hit "the jackpot" yourself, its a chilling thrill:)
Quote from: johnlear on December 13, 2011, 12:58:36 AM
(1) Do you believe that Newton's Second Law F=Gm1m2/r^2 is valid?
(2) Have you read my 15 page essay on Debunking Einstein?
Thank you.
Thank You for "thank You"
No to both points.
I consider that all so called movement is actually switching in a solid universe.
That mass is created by the accumulation of multiple memory fields that compound into their dominant memory field.
The moon is such and is within the memory field of the earth, which is within the memory field of the sun.
Those memory fields are dual whorl toroidal shaped with polarity and equator.
It is those fields that produce the relative to each field electromagnetic and electrogravitic occurances.
All fields interact with all other fields and cause local variations in each relative to the complex positionings of each, thus the tides and the mythical effect called gravity.
All vision is via those fields, and there is no light speed as such because light is not travelling it occurs relative to the opposing field interactions.
As I suggested all in a perfectly packed solid universe, where current so called LAWS of physics are only partially relevant , and vary relative to the respective field memory .
Any craft wanting to SWITCH about in this solid universe needs to have it's own field capable of over coming whatever dominant field it is within, then the total content within that field simply switchs to wherever , and then modulates towards the field it encounters.
It is very difficult to think in terms of a solid universe, where all actions and consequences are not by mass, as mass is a mere local collection of memory.
hobbit
Quote from: hobbit on December 12, 2011, 11:28:34 PM
Howdo?
If You puzzle out how the system of universe operates, instead of been hampered by little Earth thinking, then YES.
hobbit
Hypothetically lets say this happened...
You experienced being "out of sinc" with "normal" Earth space time. It was like being sped up thousands of times faster. Everything around you remained at "normal" speed. (You could also say that everything around you slowed down thousands of time.)
During this experience, everything around you was standing still. You walked around and other objects such as those on the hwy were not moving. Everything was silent. However your own actions & functions still seemed normal to you.
On a smaller scale, it's kind of like when a TV commercial posts subliminal information during a commercial. Most people would never see the split second image flashed across the screen. To me it was like it was there for say... a good 5 seconds. I could clearly see the message while others did not.
The faster you "speed up" - the more everything else around you slows down - so you as an object are "out of sinc" with "normal" space time; and the other ojects around you.
Is the Moon out of sinc with the Earth? I guess thats a matter of perspective. Could we see into another dimension of time and space by using an image capturing system programmed to capture images at an extremely fast calculated speed, and interpolate it to a normal speed in real time? I suppose then if "something" on the moon was out of sinc with our own phase/time, it might show up? Like focusing a lens, I suppose the speed at which we capture images at a certain point would create the "focus" aspect?
However the human mind as a biological machine controlling the device might add to it's abilities. ???
Captain Dave,
Excellent post.
The devices been employed to take pictures of the moon are made on Earth, from materials of Earth, they are therefore still part of earth and within a self similer memory field.
Thus anything been sent out into space is in effect a mini earth, and will thus SEE and record relative to the Earths field.
At an extreme of this thinking it may be that there is life on the sun, to our senses and sensors the sun is as relative to the earth, but from the sun the Earth may appear as a star?
I can appreciate how difficult this thinking is to consider, but it is from a universe perspective, not the surface area of Earth perspective.
Modulation will be required to as You say FOCUS onto different field geometries involved with all other mass in universe.
IMHO( in my hobbit opinion)
The universe is a perfectly packed crystal of geometric lattice STUFF, that geometry enables different dimensions to be , and those dimensions will be on different faces of the geometry of the STUFF that composes universe( think of star dodechedrons)
This is how so called flying saucers operate, in that they modulate their fields to FIT a different field geometry, and thus they are there, as they cannot then be in this dimension, they don't fly as such, they are basically time machines that can modulate .
The moon is the biggest clue as it SWITCHS about within the earths field, it is situated in the field geometries created between the sun and earth, there is no gravity force, it's all by field.
Biefeld Brown.
hobbit
If I could recommend this site to all.
http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/126/134anuqa.html
The ANU dual whorls shown combined together is what YOU look like to My dowsing .
AS ABOVE,SO BELOW.
So does all in creation, just to variable scale.
The physical YOU is held within those dual whorl fields, and YOU are remembering to be.
TO BE, OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.
YOU and all else are simply memory, You are what You are, but not how You thought You are.
Everything created where the moon is located is within the specific memory field of the moon, if anything is taken from there and brought here it will need to modulate to FIT the memory field of here, as will anything made here and taken there.
If materials are brought from deep down within the earth, they too will need to modulate to the different geometric condition they suddenly encounter, same as will anything from higher up in the atmosphere if it comes rapidly back to the surface.
Most of nature utilises all of this, only the arrogant humans try to fight it.
Thank goodness I am a,
Hobbit
I'm really, really, really sorry, but I just don't understand what all this (insert description), has to do with examining/discovering FARSIDE BUILDINGS ON THE MOON.... :o ::).....just saying....Peace 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 13, 2011, 03:22:53 PM
I'm really, really, really sorry, but I just don't understand what all this (insert description), has to do with examining/discovering FARSIDE BUILDINGS ON THE MOON.... :o ::).....just saying....Peace 8)
Then I need to explain far clearer, My fault.
Matter and mass are relative to the field they are created in.
The earth is the earth, and all created here.
The moon is the moon and all created there.
The two are different.
Your eyes and devices to improve Your visual are products of the earth, that does not mean they can readily SEE what is on the moons surface, though those practised at adjusting to the moons surface will possibly develope a better EYE that modulates to what is on the moons surface.
For this reason I consider only low quality pictures of the moon are ever released, as finer quality and different ( infra red) may reveal a better definition .
Your eyes pick up signals they are made to pick up, then those signals create a holographic image inside Your sealed head, but your eyes are programmed to detect signals relative to the field condition You were created in, here at the surface of earth.
The surface of the moon is different, but because You have been indoctrinated to think that mass is mass, and no matter where it origonates from it's all the same, you are EASILY veiled from actually viewing universe.
hobbit
Ok, I'm not being a smartass, but is this (your post) an actuallity a accepted norm or something you made up?
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 13, 2011, 03:49:07 PM
Ok, I'm not being a smartass, but is this (your post) an actuallity a accepted norm or something you made up?
Tell Me, is everything in the ACCEPTED not simply what someone once MADE UP???
Has everything in YOUR reality to be accepted by others before You accept it???
That is the indoctrination at work, You are submissive to what You feel are superiors, instead of THINKING for Yourself.
I have had to dismiss all the ASSUMED laws and regulations of so called science, thus I am able to access information of universe, and am not confined by the indoctrination .
I did say,
IMHO(in my hobbit opinion)
This is a FREE world isn't it????
Hobbit
Dude, you can think whatever, believe whatever you want. It's your opinion. I was just trying to find out if it was your opinion or some scientific actually, theory, assumtion, dream, or just bad dope....No harm, or ill feelings are meant...just some understanding...Please, have a nice day...as allways....Peace... 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 13, 2011, 04:39:35 PM
Dude, you can think whatever, believe whatever you want. It's your opinion. I was just trying to find out if it was your opinion or some scientific actually, theory, assumtion, dream, or just bad dope....No harm, or ill feelings are meant...just some understanding...Please, have a nice day...as allways....Peace... 8)
I never thought there was any ill feelings, just the normal reaction towards something that doesn't compute to what You have been downloaded with.
I was exactly the same, but something happened to Me in an instant, and I suddenly KNEW things I had never heard of , or should have any understanding of.
The only dope I ever indulge is DMT, and I appear to over dose on that whilst awake at times, I can position Myself very preciselly upon a none visual matrix because of My dowsing abilities, which I cannot find anyone to compare Me with, I wish I could.
I am therefore of the opinion that We are capable of contacting ourselves in alternate dimensions, and there We KNOW all.
The here and now is to experience whatever and report that via DMT enabling a TRIP onto a different geometry due to the DMT enlarging your personal field.
I can follow with ease the alterations the moon causes to the twin serpents that flow about upon the matrix, and can PICK UP information relative to what I concentrate upon.
verything written is just assumptions recorded.
I think Myself.
http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html
See if You can see the serpents depicted here by people 10,000 yers ago, before any such laws or assumptions had been written.
hobbit
There is a simple method of nullifying that field :P
Hobbit can you tell us what you see on the moon ?
I get your drift, but at the same time Other's here are on the right track too ;)
Quote from: Somamech on December 13, 2011, 05:12:48 PM
There is a simple method of nullifying that field :P
Hobbit can you tell us what you see on the moon ?
I get your drift, but at the same time Other's here are on the right track too ;)
I am confident they are, that's why I am here.
The true reality will be beyond any science fiction ever written.
I have not attempted to really view the moon, I have a telescope but just see what is visable.
I am equally confident that many on here have developed an EYE relative to what is presently allowed to be seen on the moon.
I am attempting to break down the very deep rooted indoctrinations that prevent an understanding of what the moon is, and that indoctrination does have as it's god einstein, who I consider embelished the indoctrination with false information, and anyone trying to push against such are peer reviewed out of existance.
hobbit
Quote from: hobbit on December 13, 2011, 05:00:02 PM
I never thought there was any ill feelings, just the normal reaction towards something that doesn't compute to what You have been downloaded with.
I was exactly the same, but something happened to Me in an instant, and I suddenly KNEW things I had never heard of , or should have any understanding of.
The only dope I ever indulge is DMT, and I appear to over dose on that whilst awake at times, I can position Myself very preciselly upon a none visual matrix because of My dowsing abilities, which I cannot find anyone to compare Me with, I wish I could.
I am therefore of the opinion that We are capable of contacting ourselves in alternate dimensions, and there We KNOW all.
The here and now is to experience whatever and report that via DMT enabling a TRIP onto a different geometry due to the DMT enlarging your personal field.
I can follow with ease the alterations the moon causes to the twin serpents that flow about upon the matrix, and can PICK UP information relative to what I concentrate upon.
verything written is just assumptions recorded.
I think Myself.
http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html
See if You can see the serpents depicted here by people 10,000 yers ago, before any such laws or assumptions had been written.
hobbit
WOW, JUST WOW...... :o ::)
That's it for me....time to move on.... ;)
Quote from: hobbit on December 13, 2011, 05:32:41 PM
I am confident they are, that's why I am here.
The true reality will be beyond any science fiction ever written.
I have not attempted to really view the moon, I have a telescope but just see what is visable.
I am equally confident that many on here have developed an EYE relative to what is presently allowed to be seen on the moon.
I am attempting to break down the very deep rooted indoctrinations that prevent an understanding of what the moon is, and that indoctrination does have as it's god einstein, who I consider embelished the indoctrination with false information, and anyone trying to push against such are peer reviewed out of existance.
hobbit
View the Moon my dear little Hobbit and report back ;)
The serpent is everywhere in history. A conclusion I have come to is this, we are prisoners of the triangle brotherhood of the serpent. They have been here since a time we no longer can remember. Perhaps thousands of years, or more. Then again, maybe a few hundred years, which would mean they erased our past, induced amenisia, and created a false protected history telling us we are primitives that suddenly acquired technology.
Think like a scholar, expert or leading scientist from books and you fail seeing the world, moon and stars, as it is.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 13, 2011, 05:44:46 PM
WOW, JUST WOW...... :o ::)
That's it for me....time to move on.... ;)
Why? no one attacked you or called you out on anything you believe in. thinking differently is what human beings are about.
Quote from: Gigas on December 13, 2011, 06:03:26 PM
Why? no one attacked you or called you out on anything you believe in. thinking differently is what human beings are about.
No one attacked me, I attacked no one...just stating that it was beyond me and I was flabbergasted at the answer. An expression of amazement. Peace... 8)
I took " time to move on " as meaning you were ripped by something written and your headin south, done, gone, outa here.
Whats your opinion on those moon weapon blast areas where the weapon zero point force caused lateral spiddering of debris in a 360 pattern.
Edit to add moon link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Full_Moon_Luc_Viatour.jpg
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 13, 2011, 06:23:24 PM
No one attacked me, I attacked no one...just stating that it was beyond me and I was flabbergasted at the answer. An expression of amazement. Peace... 8)
Good,
I certainly have no agenda/s to insult or disrespect anyone, and if i do I most humbly apologise.
Words are a trap.
hobbit
The Rock is bending low ;D
Gigas,
I would highly recommend this site,
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/
This is an electric universe.
the craters on the moon and similer on many other planets and their moons are said to be causd by mass hitting them ...metiorites etc, instead try and think of plasma discharges from the surface of the moon causing what is identical to plasma discharges seen in labs.
If You really think it out clearly, any craters caused by incoming mass will demonstrate elongated craters relative to their trajectories, not circuler, though the odd ones may impact direct.
I have absolute confidence in the people who run the thunderbolts site, and they will soon break through the ridiculous thinking of how universe is said to be.
The craters are discharge areas of huge birkeland currents that transfer about in universe.
hobbit
Here's some comparisons to show how plasma discharges match craters.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toaaj/articles/V004/SI0162TOAAJ/185TOAAJ.pdf
hobbit
So are there buildings on the moon currently? Quite possible. If so:
Possibilities:
Ancient buildings - Uninhabited by original occupants
Ancient buildings - Currently inhabited by original occupants
Ancient buildings - Inhabited by people from Earth
Ancient buildings - Inhabited by people from Earth & Original occupants
Modern buildings - Currently inhabited by people from Earth
If the first is true - Well lets go there.
If the rest are true - Well then "they" aren't advertising it.
Quote from: hobbit on December 13, 2011, 05:00:02 PM
I am therefore of the opinion that We are capable of contacting ourselves in alternate dimensions, and there We KNOW all.
The here and now is to experience whatever and report that via DMT enabling a TRIP onto a different geometry due to the DMT enlarging your personal field.
DMT does allow us to access other realities/dimensions/frequencies. I also think that some of your ideas on here are interesting and worthy of their own thread so that they can be assessed on their merits. If it is worth knowing I think it is worth your time to expound them clearly and carefully for us all.
Just advice. It's free, take it if you like....
Quote from: Somamech on December 13, 2011, 05:12:48 PM
There is a simple method of nullifying that field :P
Hobbit can you tell us what you see on the moon ?
I get your drift, but at the same time Other's here are on the right track too ;)
How to nullify that field might also be worthy of its own thread too. ;)
Thanks Captain Dave for getting this back on topic.
On page 4 of this thread there was no discussion of Lunar far-side buildings at all, apart from Somamech asking Hobbit to take a look. I know this is a conversation and they drift and some of it is kind of related but we don't want every thread to just turn into a general chit chat. I for one am genuinely interested in what folks are seeing and want to hear more.
Sorry to be a party-pooper. ;D
If there is a society living on the moon currently; and say they are not out of phase/time with earth; I would think most structures might be subterranean if they did not wish to be detected. (aside from having devleloped cloaking tech) The Chinese for instance have developed over 3000 mile of tunnels here on the good ole Earth...
If they didn't want to be seen in the first place, I imagine it would be easy enough to design buildings shaped like craters for instance.
Supposing there are undetectable subterranean structures, why would they need an above ground complex; and then of course, if given an unnatural geometric shape from the lunar surface, they wouldn't exactly be trying to hide very well. ( but hey, people make mistakes too so that is possible )
I would suspect any geometric anomaly non conforming to the lunar surface might be:
Ancient buildings from a past occupation where the residents are no longer living. ie: past annihilation of most biological entities with only some visable structures survivng. This would suggest that the moon once sustained abundant life and some action caused this to change. ie asteroid/nuclear...
A past expedition from Earth as yet unknown by the public.
If these are old photo's, this could suggest we had greater ambitions with our space programs than was ever released publicly. (psh well that sounds plausible)
However if thats the case then these area's would probably be hidden or removed by now if the operation is ongoing.
More possibilities:
Crashed probes/experiments fired from Earth.
Crashed probes from "Elsewhere".
If this is the case, someone might have left a probe that once activated might let them know Humans have reached a certain given point. A beacon that transmits a signal. Could also be a seed device that creates life over billions of years.
Unexploded ordinance from a previous war.
(on a side note, if you spun a sphere fast enough, would it disappear from view?)
(Cropped image from original post and magnified - no other enhancements) This does look similar to a mechanical device though... I suppose it could also be left over fragments of the original meteor.
Could be something similar to a satellite dish if using the background crater? (click image to enlarge)
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Captain Dave on December 14, 2011, 10:35:27 AM
(Cropped image from original post and magnified - no other enhancements) This does look similar to a mechanical device though... I suppose it could also be left over fragments of the original meteor.
Could be something similar to a satellite dish if using the background crater? (click image to enlarge)
I'm working on a 3d model of that right now. The more I look at it the more I'm thinking it's not a satellite dish or communication structure but more of a craft/vehicle. IMO... 8)
We just need some Privates, a Major, Colonel and General and we have a chain of command here. Will you be issuing orders to Sgt, Captain?
This seems to be in the spirit of the thread. This is a good one to look at in my opinion, I'm not sure what John thinks. What I'm saying below assumes that the anomaly is NOT an artefact, which in my opinion it clearly isn't.
First of all that thing is massive and we need to work out it's size so we need a scale. Secondly, a 3D model would be super cool Sarge. Thirdly, judging by the shadow, that thing is clearly only supported by a relatively thin column and appears to practically defy gravity. There might be some supports we cannot see or as Sarge says, it may be an enormous craft.
(http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n582/Pimander/Earthly%20Material/550brimham.jpg)
QuoteThe Brimham Rocks near Nidderdale, Yorkshire Dales, England are said to have been carved by druids, but they date back to around 320 million years ago when the Yorkshire area formed from sand and other materials washed down from Norway and Scotland, leaving an area known as the Millstone Grit. Later glaciers carved the land down, leaving the strangely-shaped stones exposed, in the period from roughly 73,000 BC to 10,000 BC. The rocks now stand at a little less than 30 meters tall
SOURCE: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/40827
On Earth, the Brimham rocks (picture above) are about as gravity defying as I know of. By comparison that thing in Captains cropped image is huge and even wider relative to its support. It is possible for something of that nature to free stand but rare.
I'm looking forward to Sarge's 3D model, mainly to see if it shows what I think I see - as I expect it to.
If it's an Imperial Destroyer then I hope the moon isn't the Death Star. :D
(http://images.wikia.com/starwarstech/images/0/0d/Imperial_Star_Destroyer_by_MasterofIntelligence.jpg)
SOURCE: http://starwarstech.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Star_Destroyer
Cool! We are back on the Moon 8)
;D
Oh, I forgot to add. If glaciation leads to the formation of rocks like that, then that would indicate the presence of vast amounts of water on the moon (glaciers being composed of mainly ice). It would also require an atmosphere capable of lifting water up onto mountains before it froze and then flowed down the glacier forming the rocks. Glaciers would also have effected the crater and cut through it which has not happened in this example. 8)
EDIT: The above would lead to wind being the only natural process that forms structures like that on earth. Similarly to above, that being the case, there would have to be a significant atmosphere and weather, on the Moon, capable of making a wind carry dust that erodes rock. Wind would also have eroded the crater which, again it does not appear to have done. 8)
This is anomalous in my opinion. Does anyone know different? Any dissenters?
With respect,
And my last post on this thread.
What causes the wind( don't say beans)
The wind is a consequence, not the origonater.
The atoms of atmosphere are responding to zones of opposite attraction...implosion and emmittance.
try to think of huge flows of these zones of attraction and emmitance been active....with or without atmosphere.
Then think of what holds mass together ...atom to atom.
In the blink of an eye...no-thing, not nothing...no-thing.
like me out of this thread,
hobbit
I mean that for wind or ice erosion there has to be a significant atmosphere capable of harbouring(?) weather. I agree that there would certainly be forces present that would cause said weather.
However, erosional processes like that seem unlikely to have created the object under discussion as they would have eroded the crater in the same way and, from the evidence of the picture, haven't done so.
The above means there has to be an alternative explanation for the presence of the object. Candidates include:
- An artificially constructed building
- A possible craft perhaps with anti-gravity capability
- An extraordinarily large machine/technological device (mining or communication?)
- Building or other construction
- Natural rock formation formed by a largely unknown process as Hobbit suggests
- A combination of the above?
I'd be interested to hear John, Exuberant1 and others opinions.
Quote from: hobbit on December 14, 2011, 06:04:31 PM
With respect,
And my last post on this thread.
What causes the wind( don't say beans)
The wind is a consequence, not the origonater.
The atoms of atmosphere are responding to zones of opposite attraction...implosion and emmittance.
try to think of huge flows of these zones of attraction and emmitance been active....with or without atmosphere.
Then think of what holds mass together ...atom to atom.
In the blink of an eye...no-thing, not nothing...no-thing.
like me out of this thread,
hobbit
Yes a new thread would be good! As I said before what you say mate is sorta running the realms of other stuff I've been looking into!
I'm very interested to hear your experience!
Likewise people forget that John has been around the remote viewing program folk.
Theres a place for all :)
So natural erosion around an original piece of an asteroid would seem to make the most sense. Given the lunar surface contains alot of dust; it would seem logical that dust could easily be moved away from around the object over time by some force; ie wind...?; leaving the object elevated. Given the slightly offset nature of the object within the crater it would also suggest the object might have come in at a slight angle during impact.
However if somebody left the Millennium Falcon parked up there with the keys in it... I want some flight time! ;D
(Hobbit, I think your theories are great - expressing new idea's is the foundation for new discoveries.)
Pimander, I'm more like "Captain Ron" than "Captain America" so I'm not responsible enough to give orders. lol
Sgt.RocknRoll, can't wait to see the 3D mockup, that's awesome!
Captain, I have listed a number of possibilities but ruled out glacial or wind on the basis that they would have had a more dramatic effect on the crater.
Quote from: Pimander on December 14, 2011, 08:25:51 PM
Captain, I have listed a number of possibilities but ruled out glacial or wind on the basis that they would have had a more dramatic effect on the crater.
Well... Whats under the dust? I mean what is the composition of the moons surface under the dust?
"The moon is composed of rock and soil, not unlike earth. And there are some similarities. But the nature of the rocks and soil over the moon isn't that well documented. We only have a few samples, and this limited supply of stuff to study originated in only a few areas - those where we landed to investigate. It isn't like we have samples from all over, as there were only a few missions to the lunar surface."
Samples of lunar soil have revealed that it is composed of the following:
42% oxygen
21% silicon
13% iron
8% calcium
7% aluminium
6% magnesium
3% other elements
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_moon_made_of#ixzz1gXsiBo4N
Given the weight of soil compared with dust, isn't it possible that some lighter weight elements might blow away while heavier elements would remain in place over millions of years?
So could say, relatively gentle solar winds blowing regularly over Billions of years move some elements; a little at a time; while leaving behind the heavier elements?
"Dust Storms
Unlike Earth, Mars is covered with sand and dust. In fact, the dust is so pervasive it has created sand dunes throughout the planet. The same solar wind striking Mars can cause a dust storm. Though solar wind can move along planet Mars as only a hot wind, it can also whip up enough dust to create clouds of moving dust over the planet, or even dust devils. These storms can become so volatile and powerful that they add to the wind already circulating on the planet."
Read more: What Are the Causes of Wind on Planet Mars? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8565294_causes-wind-planet-mars.html#ixzz1gXvMlqcb
So if the Crater and Asteroid within it were composed of rock or "some other heavy element", the solar winds would have far less affect on them over time.
Personally, I'd rather just go up there and check it out. Set up a nice little subterranean out post. Send high speed drones carrying parts and supplies back and forth between Earth and Moon. Couple satellite signal relay stations so we can still get Internet. Build a nice little indoor greenhouse...
Probably but that doesn't bring us any closer to determining whether the anomaly is a building.
Is it possible that we could get some of these pictures in higher resolution? Zooming in to most of these yeilds little more than pixelated distortion for me. :-\
Quote from: Captain Dave on December 13, 2011, 09:36:54 PM
So are there buildings on the moon currently? Quite possible. If so:
Possibilities:
Ancient buildings - Uninhabited by original occupants
Ancient buildings - Currently inhabited by original occupants
Ancient buildings - Inhabited by people from Earth
Ancient buildings - Inhabited by people from Earth & Original occupants
Modern buildings - Currently inhabited by people from Earth
If the first is true - Well lets go there.
If the rest are true - Well then "they" aren't advertising it.
It appears that a great deal of imagination and care has been taken to disguise, onfuscate and toherwise hide current, inhabited structures. We might consdier that the obfuscation is due to airbrushing but it is too wide spread and there are virtually not more than one right angle in a building.
When Europeans began showing up in the 'New World' the 'natives' were not able to 'see' the sips altough anchored a sort distance offshore. They noticed the 'different looking' people but not the ships.
And the reason was that they had never seen a large ship before, had notohing to compare what they were seeing to so then mentally dismissed the objects.
Earth humans looking at mon photos can easily see 'faces', 'numbers', 'straight lines', 'rocks' and so forth because that is what we are used to seeing. But we simply cannpt see house, buildings, factories and the like because they are generally missing the second right angle.
If I knew how to do it I would construct a program too add he second right angle to all of the artificats to see what we could see. Probably 30% would instantly look like buildings.
The Lunar Orbiter photo below was never released by NAZA because they we not willing to risk the obvious missing 2nd right angle. But if you disregard the second right angle and look at roads, driveways and craters that were obviously airbrushed into the shape of a crater you will be a city.
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4311/3123h3majorianunsharpma.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/3123h3majorianunsharpma.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/6083/apollohoaxiii123h3a2cit.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/36/apollohoaxiii123h3a2cit.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4038/iii123hfactory.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/iii123hfactory.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2180/llov13ep.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69/llov13ep.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8673/buildingsflip.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69/buildingsflip.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7213/controltoweraa.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/844/controltoweraa.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Mining camp lower half of photo. Check road turnarounds and crater interior for spray.
(http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2646/lo1unknownalearab.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/lo1unknownalearab.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Quote
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4311/3123h3majorianunsharpma.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/3123h3majorianunsharpma.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
So we might be looking at the moon wearing a "Ghillie suit" or possibly a phase/time shift where we're seeing the present and past mixed?
Quote from: johnlear on December 14, 2011, 11:30:39 PM
(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/6083/apollohoaxiii123h3a2cit.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/36/apollohoaxiii123h3a2cit.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I took this picture and tried to enhance it in photoshop hoping to see something. I hope I did this picture some good with my amatuer skills. :D
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/6083/apollohoaxiii123h3a2cit.jpg)
To me it does look like there is some sort of mining complex or a base in the bottom left...is anyone else seeing this?
The City Life...? (possible roads enhanced)
[attachment deleted by admin]
Ok, here's a short one of a simple model of the structure/vehicle? in the crater.
It's just some simple shapes and it's a short vid, but I wanted to post something and get some feedback..
http://youtu.be/k0MM4yncLxo (http://youtu.be/k0MM4yncLxo)
More possible road/object enhancements... Notice the reflection in the "Solar Panel"? Sorry, I would need to upload a larger pic to see all the building possibilities more clearly Etc but this site is restricting me to 128k. This gives a general idea though. I could enhance it alot more, but I don't want anyone getting "mad" at me. ;)
BTW Sgt.RocknRoll, saw the 3D model, that is killer!
[attachment deleted by admin]
WOW! WOW! AND WOW! Rock, your work is simply SPECTACULAR. Many thanks.
You are just what me nd Zorgon have bee looking for.
Rock,
The oval in the right background of IMG 0250 is a saucer that has been airbrushed out.
Rock,
This is a spaceport on the far side near Lomonosv. See what you can do with it.
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9363/as8122209graham72aaaroc.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/442/as8122209graham72aaaroc.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1993/spaceportfantasya.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/408/spaceportfantasya.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Rock,
Here is what the spaceport look like to me. Control tower on left.
Look like the terminal has 3 gate ways.
Best,
John
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3390/farsideterm172westcontr.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/farsideterm172westcontr.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Rock,
When you have a spare minute please take the structure in reactor.wmv, turn it upside down, then put a shallow dome on top that is glowing just a little bit.
Here are a few notes I made about the photo.
(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1484/aristarchusoutlinea.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/aristarchusoutlinea.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Here is a photo of an explosion on the moon taken in 1946 by the Yerkes Observatory. Other than
the fact that this shows that the moon has a thick enough atmosphere to support a dust cloud what else do we see in this photo? Oh, by the way, that is Endymion to the right.
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6003/explosionax.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/39/explosionax.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
John, thanks for the kudos, and wow I really like the notes and your thoughts on what you see. It really helps a lot. When I was modeling the 'vehicle' in the crater, I showed my son and asked him what he thought. The first thing out of his mouth when he was looking and the object in the crater was 'that thing has landing gear'..I then showed him my work on the 'spaceport' and he started picking out things that I hadn't noticed, more buildings and a tunnel maybe...This sure is fun ;D...I'll get to work on the images as soon as I have time. The wife has to work this weekend so I'll have plently of uninterupted time to 'play' ;). I have a new piece of software for purely viewing 3d models. I'm taking a little time to learn the tricks and operation..It's slow sometime. These 61 yr. old eyes get tired sometimes. ::) anyway it seems one benefit to the viewing software is that the raster moon pics look a little clearer. I'll try to use that and see if I can get sharper image resolution. Anyway that's it. I'll try and post some more...Once again and comments would be extremely welcomed. Peace.... 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 15, 2011, 01:22:35 PM
John, thanks for the kudos, and wow I really like the notes and your thoughts on what you see. It really helps a lot. When I was modeling the 'vehicle' in the crater, I showed my son and asked him what he thought. The first thing out of his mouth when he was looking and the object in the crater was 'that thing has landing gear'..I then showed him my work on the 'spaceport' and he started picking out things that I hadn't noticed, more buildings and a tunnel maybe...This sure is fun ;D...I'll get to work on the images as soon as I have time. The wife has to work this weekend so I'll have plently of uninterupted time to 'play' ;). I have a new piece of software for purely viewing 3d models. I'm taking a little time to learn the tricks and operation..It's slow sometime. These 61 yr. old eyes get tired sometimes. ::) anyway it seems one benefit to the viewing software is that the raster moon pics look a little clearer. I'll try to use that and see if I can get sharper image resolution. Anyway that's it. I'll try and post some more...Once again and comments would be extremely welcomed. Peace.... 8)
Outstanding. Please send me the name of the softwares you use and where to get it. Thanks.
The modeling software is Autocad 2011. It's a drafting and design software that can produce drawings and 3d models. The software produces a 'dwg' file extension and unless you know how to draft or model, it won't be any good to you. It cost around $4000.00. The viewing software I mentioned is Bentley View. Bentley produces 3d software that sits on top of Autocad and has several different products,..i.e. Piping, Structural, Equipment, Electrical and numerous other design packages for Civil, Mapping etc... The 'Bentley View' is a free download from the Bentley site and anyone can download it. But unless you have a 'dwg' to load to look at, it probably won't do you any good. I did use it last night to load the 'vehicle' model and the raster image that I attached to the dwg loaded with it. which as I said seemed to me to be a little clearer. I don't know, it might be my imagination, but my son was looking at it and he thought the image was clearer in Bentley View. I still have to play around with it though. Anyway I hope this helps... ;D More models to come..Peace 8)
They keep getting better Sarge ;D
At the rate your working at... A scale model is quite possible, especially if we could get a few more involved 8)
Yes scale is a problem. Most moon photos are at an angle and at that the objects/structures produce angular shadows. In most cases shadows or the lack of shadows is the only thing you have to go on. I have to imagine/decide what the object in the picture looks like 'top-down' that produces a shadow that we're seeing in the pictures. I then have to orbit/rotate the model to fit the picture. Sometimes it works out just right but mostly it takes a bit of doing. I was thinking of creating a full size moon and mapping all the tiff images to it to give me a better idea of where everything is and to produce a top-down effect. The creation is simple, but the mapping is a little more difficult. I've done it in the past, but it's been awhile. There are commerically 3d moon models but none of theme suits my purpose. A lot of times the models are in another software and produce different file extension than I'm use to working with.
This ain't the farside but why is this so clear looking down on Aristuchus and whats with the tunnel looking thing.
(http://vaudio.info/Aristuchus/Aristuchus2.jpg)
(http://vaudio.info/Aristuchus/Aristuchus3.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0MM4yncLxo
This is great stuff, Sarge. You and your 3D image processing (and your son) saw what I thought I could see.
So has anyone worked out the scale? How big is that thing?
As I said, it looks just like an imperial destroyer.
(http://images.wikia.com/starwarstech/images/0/0d/Imperial_Star_Destroyer_by_MasterofIntelligence.jpg)
Out of interest, do any members think that does not look like a craft?
Quote from: johnlear on December 15, 2011, 08:32:44 AM
Here is a photo of an explosion on the moon taken in 1946 by the Yerkes Observatory. Other than
the fact that this shows that the moon has a thick enough atmosphere to support a dust cloud what else do we see in this photo? Oh, by the way, that is Endymion to the right.
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6003/explosionax.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/39/explosionax.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Speaking of atmosphere John, that photo reminded me of one from Fred Steckling's book - We Found Alien Bases On The Moon.
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/04.gif)
Sorry if it's hard to see any buildings what with all that... cloud cover! :o
I'm Sorry guys, I don't want to rattle any cages but could that photo be a fake... After looking at it for awhile and seeing dual drill heads etc I also noticed another similar shape... (It's all in the name of the truth right, so don't hate me lol) Here goes,
Pimander,
The main image is originally from the first page of this post (First image) . After I cropped it and blew up the smaller "space ship" image and took a good look at it... well it dawned on me that it might be an old "pedal plane" from the 50's (before my time, but I've been around haha) So I grabbed an old image of a 50's pedal plane off the net for comparison sake and did a super quick/ super impose to create the following image. Not saying all photo's are Fake, just suggesting the original this was taken from might be one of them.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Of course it could be a fake or modified. Any image can be.
You've lost me a bit.... Where did you crop this new similar shape from? Is it cropped from the original image file John posted?
See, looks just like a Pedal Plane from the 1950's. This photo is not enhanced. Simply the original photo from the first page with the background shadows removed. Hey Sgt.RocknRoll, I think your 3D model was a little off. 8)
John, gonna back me up?
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/spaceship3.jpg/
Quote from: Captain Dave on December 16, 2011, 05:01:03 AM
I'm Sorry guys, I don't want to rattle any cages but could that photo be a fake... After looking at it for awhile and seeing dual drill heads etc I also noticed another similar shape... (It's all in the name of the truth right, so don't hate me lol) Here goes,
Pimander,
The main image is originally from the first page of this post (First image) . After I cropped it and blew up the smaller "space ship" image and took a good look at it... well it dawned on me that it might be an old "pedal plane" from the 50's (before my time, but I've been around haha) So I grabbed an old image of a 50's pedal plane off the net for comparison sake and did a super quick/ super impose to create the following image. Not saying all photo's are Fake, just suggesting the original this was taken from might be one of them.
My wife says I need my cage rattled from time to time just because I'm such a know-it-all ;D
For me the first time I looked at the picture I thought vehicle, not building or crane or rocks. In fact the more I've studied the pic I'm sure that I know nothing at all ;).. The shadows are what do it for me. That's the first thing I look at. 'What could produce such a shadow?..Not just the projected shadow but the shadow which defines the object. I may be on the wrong path here, but it's the one that's got me where I'm at...A know-it-all.... ;D ;D ;D..Peace 8)
Ok, here's the completed video..I see one...wait not one but two vehicles...Yes two... ;D...Peace.. 8)
(and I'm still working on the ever expanding spaceport. more work today)....
http://youtu.be/RHm9H3LqkXs
Quote from: Captain Dave on December 16, 2011, 09:39:41 AM
See, looks just like a Pedal Plane from the 1950's. This photo is not enhanced. Simply the original photo from the first page with the background shadows removed.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=443.0;attach=64;image)
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/6753/spaceship3.jpg)
It looks nothing like a pedal plane to me.... My eyesight isn't perfect but where is the pedal plane? The shadow looks a similar shape to the thing you posted but.... Can someone help me out here. :o
ETA: I might just be being thick here. ;D
Well, back in the early Hollywood days, they tended to take real things and turn them into props. I believe that practice is still in use even today. Given the dates involved in these pics they would only have certain things from their own time period to use as props.
I don't know, maybe the Government would release a photo into the public that clearly shows some obvious anomaly; but I don't think so. Not unless they knew there was nothing to fear from it's release.
How long was the SR-71 flying around before the public even had a clue? They aren't usually forthcoming with info about top secret projects. So given that reasoning, the photo is in all probability a fake. If it's a fake, how can you prove it's a fake? But hey maybe it's real and the Government missed it. ::)
Quote from: johnlear on December 15, 2011, 07:38:01 AM
Rock,
Here is what the spaceport look like to me. Control tower on left.
Look like the terminal has 3 gate ways.
Best,
John
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3390/farsideterm172westcontr.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/farsideterm172westcontr.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I just looked at this thread today John, you beat me to the punch, I was going to point out that there was an big Nasa air brush. When I first saw this image back on OM I saw that shadow underneath of the dark circle and thought ,"thats odd", that dark circle looks like its hovering ,and the shadow under it looks like a ship.And you confirmed my theory, I was hooked from then on .I could look at moon images all day .
Quote from: johnlear on December 15, 2011, 08:32:44 AM
Here is a photo of an explosion on the moon taken in 1946 by the Yerkes Observatory. Other than
the fact that this shows that the moon has a thick enough atmosphere to support a dust cloud what else do we see in this photo? Oh, by the way, that is Endymion to the right.
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6003/explosionax.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/39/explosionax.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
It looks to me like Endymion is not cloaked or hidden as it usually is 8).
Quote from: Gigas on December 15, 2011, 09:17:42 PM
This ain't the farside but why is this so clear looking down on Aristuchus and whats with the tunnel looking thing.
(http://vaudio.info/Aristuchus/Aristuchus2.jpg)
(http://vaudio.info/Aristuchus/Aristuchus3.jpg)
Here's what I thnk we see here. Those two craters are energy weapon blast areas and aristarchus is a plasma energy device crater that failed to go off and blow out the tunnel system. Both the craters are on a mound with an entrance that has a pathway leading out to flat terrain. We don't see the glow of aristarchus because plasma only glows when the sun hits the plasma sheild generated by the failed detonation of the active weapons delivery system.
Its star wars in the moon. I'm sure george lucas knows all about it. Those ships parked up there are the transports that brought humans to the prison planet called earth.
Has anybody found a label on any of these things that say "Intel Inside" yet? :o ;D (Sorry)
Yep guys look out for the PIGS or "People In Government Systems"... They will run off with your thoughts and idea's - make billions of dollars and forget you even existed while they drink champaign on the moon.
Here's an update on the Spaceport with added buildings and some structure south of the port. I also added a vehicle in the port based on the shadow that I think they forgot to take out....Peace 8)
http://youtu.be/T5C7luhOv28
Just singin the same old tune... 8)
You can look at the menu but you just can't eat
You can feel the cushions but you can't have a seat
You can dip your foot in the pool but you can't have a swim
You can feel the punishment but you can't commit the sin
No one, no one, no one ever is to blame
You can build a mansion but you just can't live in it
You're the fastest runner but you're not allowed to win
Some break the rules
And live to count the cost
The insecurity is the thing that won't get lost
No one, no one, no one ever is to blame
You can see the summit but you can't reach it
It's the last piece of the puzzle but you just can't make it fit
Doctor says you're cured but you still feel the pain
Aspirations in the clouds but your hopes go down the drain
No one, no one, no one ever is to blame
No one ever is to blame
No one ever is to blame
Hello, that's for my friend the Hobbit :
do you know this site,Sir , http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_fr.htm
it give some lights on "ancien art and astronauts " ...
Parts of it are in english.
Each one of us got a part of truth, don't you think ?
All the best
Guerande
This is not a building nor is it on the far side. Its, what looks like a huge arch, 8 miles high. I call it the Arch de la Rue as it is located near a crater named Arch de la Rue. The first frame below is a colorized version of the arch.
The second frame is an enlargement of the area, with Endymion center, right. The arch is to the south of Strabo.
The photo I am using was a moon photo taken by the Yerkes Observatory in 1952.
I originally worked on this several years ago so I don't remember why I named the arch "Lander". Might have been from one of the real detailed maps I have referring to a nearby crater. Anyway that is the arch in the square labeled Lander.
Endymion is 78 miles in diameter. The base of the arch is about 18 miles in length and the height is about 8 miles. Imagine what that would look like standing under it.
The second frame is the local area with Endymion center right.
There is one of those 'golf ball' craters to the north west of the arch.
Some of you may remember all of the work we did on Endymion showing what it would look like without the holographic image that hides all of the activity. In this early photo (1952) they didn't have very many options to hide all of the buildings, spheres and cranes but you can see here they used a simple, black, thick pen to cover up the cool stuff. To the southeast of Endymion there are 4 huge black blobs. The blobs are covering up the cranes.
The last photo is the original Yerkes photo with the position of the arch located by a yellow arrow at the top right. You may have to enlarge that photo to see the yellow arrow which points to the arch.
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/4280/arch01c.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/arch01c.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2222/endymion031dec2011.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/502/endymion031dec2011.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/1407/lickobs9archdelaruearro.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/847/lickobs9archdelaruearro.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Very, very cool John. Think I'll take a shot at this one.
The arch is a cracking image. This is one of the reasons we're so happy to have you here.
John, have you seen an unedited image of the "Arch de la Rue" in colour?
Quote from: Pimander on December 21, 2011, 01:26:55 AM
The arch is a cracking image. This is one of the reasons we're so happy to have you here.
John, have you seen an unedited image of the "Arch de la Rue" in colour?
Hello Pimander,
What is a 'cracking' image?
Also, what is an 'unedited' image in color?
Thanks.
Sorry John,
British informal/slang use of the word. Cracking means excellent on this side of the pond.
Quotecracking [?kræk??]
adj
1. (prenominal) Informal fast; vigorous (esp in the phrase a cracking pace)
get cracking Informal to start doing something quickly or do something with increased speed
adv & adj
2. Brit informal first-class; excellent a cracking good match
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cracking
Highlighted definition
I mean have you seen an image of the arch on one of the colour shots of the Moon, like from Clementine?
Quote from: Pimander on December 21, 2011, 12:09:02 PM
Sorry John,
British informal/slang use of the word. Cracking means excellent on this side of the pond.
Highlighted definition
I mean have you seen an image of the arch on one of the colour shots of the Moon, like from Clementine?
Does my ego good, thanks. We Colonists always have trouble with the mother slang.
No, I don't think I have looked at the Clementine or other images probably because I know how thoroughly they are checked and deleted. It might be difficult for 'them' to say it was a natural formation, chiseled to a fine sculpture by meteors over the years.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 20, 2011, 04:07:18 AM
Very, very cool John. Think I'll take a shot at this one.
Now that is a welcome ego boost. When Rock decides to 'take a shot at this one' you know you have arrived.
Quote from: johnlear on December 21, 2011, 12:22:55 PM
Now that is a welcome ego boost. When Rock decides to 'take a shot at this one' you know you have arrived.
Well John, you post so many great pic's, it's just hard to decide which one to work on...There are sooooo many 'items' of interest. I've seen the arch before but didn't really know where it was. I'm still working on the spaceport and Aristarchus reactor. Now that the holidays have arrived, I'll have a lot of time to sip my Crown-n-7 and model my little fingers off... ;D
This Sketch is from a Russian RV program ;)
(http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/14/10/80/81/russia10.jpg)
The line indicates above ground structure and below ground :P
This is a section of the Valley of the Kings on the farside. You can see the
cliffs and huge boulders with the foliage growing in between. There are number of
interesting 'artifacts' in this photo one of which appears to be in up in the air.
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9775/bouldervalleya.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/201/bouldervalleya.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
This is the photo (AS10-30-4356) the above image was taken from.
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8248/valleyofthekingsb.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/683/valleyofthekingsb.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
There is so much going on in this photo its hard to keep track of it all.
(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1522/spaceportcity0001partia.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26/spaceportcity0001partia.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Tonight George Knapp interviews Ken Johnston the NASA whistleblower about the NASA alien artifact coverup. Listen to the live interview tonight on Coast to Coast AM...it should be interesting.
Johnston, a good friend of Hoaglands, promotes the 'ancient' civilzation instead of 'current'.
Hoagland, as you know, has always promoted the 'no stars visible from the moon' theory, whining that they were too dim and that they needed an 'atmosphere' to show themselves.
Now that the recent suttle photos showing big, bright beautiful stories have blown that theory to smithereens it will be interesting to hear what, if anything, Hoagland has to say about that.
Let me guess:
Special space shuttle camera built to see stars. (So why no press extravaganza?).
That was easy.
This is a photo of a generator allegedly the size of the Bronx to the west or north west of Lubiniesky. Supposed Ken Johnston will be talking about it on the C2C show tonight with George Knapp.
The photo below has a circle drawn around where it is supposed to be. I looked for it but couldn't find it.
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4523/lunarjunkyarda.jpg)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us/)
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/7672/bigasbronxpegasus.jpg)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us/)
Here are a couple of big scans of AS10-30-4356:
http://www.holyconservancy.org/images/PLAN/MOON/AS08/AS10-30-4356B.jpg (3mb)
http://www.holyconservancy.org/images/PLAN/MOON/AS08/AS10-30-4356zLARGE-WOW.jpg (3.2 mb)
Now I gotta go grab that knapp show.
Here's a little model of something I found on AS10-30-4356
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezzb3vDz4Qs
[Edit by Pimander: Embedded video - Just click quote to see how the video is embedded.]
Excellent Rock..you found it! Zorgon and I call it 'The Thing'' I added just few lines where you moved the pointer which bring the whole construct together. There are cables or roads that wind up and down. It looks to us like a very elaborate camouflage effort. But too extensive to be an NAZA attempted' camouflage. It looks like it was designed and built to be camouflaged.
Thats the alien guarding it down on the left. It looks like he is getting ready to throw rock.
Please tell me what you think.
(http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/7456/as10304356zlargewow3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/as10304356zlargewow3.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Nice job John, but I don't think he looks like an alien. I think he looks more like a spaceman guarding the area..lolol...
Yes there is a lot going on in this photo but as I said in the video, I'm having a hard time with that area just trying to make out the correct shapes. Oh well, at least I think I got 'The Thing' right. ;D
P.s. I'm uploading some work I did on the 'arch' near Endymion. I'm using an LRO photo and I need your comments on it when I post it.
Peace 8)
P.s.s. Thanks Pimander for the tips on how to embedd properly...lol
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/AS10-30-4356zLARGE-WOW-spaceman-1.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMRSwNfmYhE
Here's a little study of the Arch near Endymion. Let me know what you think John...
Peace 8)
The only trouble with trying to spot an arch wit the LRO is that the shots are taken from overhead. An arch will not be visible from overhead. I don't want to throw you off what you are doing but images from a different perspective would be useful here, in my opinion - like the one John posted previously....
Of course you're right. Trying to find a decent resoluton photo is the problem. It's a matter of perspective, with a top-down view get a better location and size. But it's a work in progress. Thanks for the input.
Anybody see anything in this Apollo 16 photo?
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1116/townbridgesaucersa16m24.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-26
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 27, 2011, 12:25:44 AM
Here's a little study of the Arch near Endymion. Let me know what you think John...
Peace 8)
WOW!! That was fun. How come all of your buildings are sharp and crisp
and mine a slag heap???
Heads Up!!! The Thing is a tracked vehicle.
Quote from: johnlear on December 27, 2011, 01:39:34 AM
WOW!! That was fun. How come all of your buildings are sharp and crisp
and mine a slag heap???
I guess its my youth and vigor...?...lololol
The mining operation that exuberant 1 found is the largest I have ever seen.
This is just a section of it.
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9656/larrym.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-27
Quote from: johnlear on December 27, 2011, 05:11:46 PM
The mining operation that exuberant 1 found is the largest I have ever seen.
This is just a section of it.
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9656/larrym.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-27
This is the first time I have been able o identify abunch of tall buildings in
several different places. There is also huge machinery. WOW!
This must be part of the bumpy terrain NAZA has found on the farside
of the moon.
Christ me a Christian... I'm meant to be on holidays from work and also the tin foil hat but heck Exe and John that last image is nutz :o
Ok back to the garden :o
Nice find! :)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 27, 2011, 02:27:07 AM
I guess its my youth and vigor...?...lololol
I know this is about the farside of the moon 8) So, I will post this also in the Mars section.
But if you have some spare time:D Maybe you could take a look at this one from Mars. You might like it. John what do you think?
I see two sort of "canon" like features on the left. And some "radar" like device(s) on the right...
(http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z333/Lunica-Pegasus/Structures/S0301365overview.jpg)
(http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z333/Lunica-Pegasus/Structures/S0301365overviewoutlined.jpg)
http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z333/Lunica-Pegasus/Structures/S0301365overview.jpg (http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z333/Lunica-Pegasus/Structures/S0301365overview.jpg)
Cheers Lunica
ps: Please, just remove this post if its dirtying this thread to much ;D
btw: Those Moon pics are quiet revealing! I like it. Wonder who's there and with what purpose. Apparently its not for us earthlings.. ?:)
Quote from: johnlear on December 27, 2011, 05:11:46 PM
The mining operation that exuberant 1 found is the largest I have ever seen.
This is just a section of it.
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9656/larrym.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-27
John, it's very interesting but is there an original version without any crops or text or high-lights?
I can clearly see a large mining excavator with a large cutting wheel, but the rest looks like it's been chopped up and re-pasted.
Quote from: Lunica on December 27, 2011, 08:15:25 PM
I know this is about the farside of the moon 8) So, I will post this also in the Mars section.
Thanks
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 27, 2011, 11:34:40 PM
John, it's very interesting but is there an original version without any crops or text or high-lights?
I can clearly see a large mining excavator with a large cutting wheel, but the rest looks like it's been chopped up and re-pasted.
Uh Oh. Tell me more. A few months ago there was a spectacular looking valley with any houses. The size of the houses didn't match the size of the valley.
I going to question all of the separate cuts.
I guess I''d better take another look at someting that look too good to be true.
Thanks for the smelling slats.
Np, i ran a couple of filters & effects on the photo & there appears to be different size pixles inside the areas that have artifacts. A clear indication of tampering.
Hey Folks,
Here are the two versions of as10-33-4989- get 'em before they're gone:
6.5 mb http://www.holyconservancy.org/images/PLAN/MOON/NASA/Orbiter/LarryAS10334989.10mb.jpg (looks like some kid got ahold of this one)
and http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/photos/33-t/as10-33-4989.jpg
data: Oblique view of target of opportunity 45. 122.3° E, 5.0° S. 250mm.
This might reveal some interesting hidden anomalies on the moon -
Recently Dr. Sarah Parcak has been using infrared satellite images to see what lies just beneath the surface in Egypt -
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52989000/jpg/_52989046_tanis624x289.jpg)
Do we have access to any infrared images of the moon?
I would think underground bases and housing would be the norm most anywhere in the universe for advanced cultures. It's just logical and more efficient on all fronts.
Signs of such construction might be visable. (Unless they have hangar doors painted with a sand texture coating to blend in with the mountains 8) )
Anyway it seems to be working quite well in Egypt by displaying various densities of mass, i.e. sand vs stone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCJQkZah7WE
In watching the full BBC special I was struck by how normal daylight satellite images or standing on the ground you could see nothing but dirt, yet with infrared images you now see the artificial structures just below the surface.
This is the fake.
(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5401/larryfakepng.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-27
This is the real photo.
(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3259/as10334989reala.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-28
I should have easily spotted the fake by all of the different frames.
Yeah John, I'm using this one. I still see the excavator and what looks like a structure next to it. I've scanned and scanned but that's all I see clearly.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 28, 2011, 03:43:06 PM
Yeah John, I'm using this one. I still see the excavator and what looks like a structure next to it. I've scanned and scanned but that's all I see clearly.
Yeah, you called it first. I am on the downhill slide.
What about this:
(http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9559/a15m2611png.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-28
Do you see nything in this crater (center of frame)?
here's the excavator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9f_7cykdk
I'll look at the other one later...replacing the starter on my truck right now.... :o
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 28, 2011, 03:43:06 PM
Yeah John, I'm using this one. I still see the excavator and what looks like a structure next to it. I've scanned and scanned but that's all I see clearly.
What about this one. Can you detect any fakery?
(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1116/townbridgesaucersa16m24.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-28
John I looked at this and I didn't find anything that jumps out at you. Although it would be better if I had the original file that this was cropped from. I ran a contour gradient on the file and did notice something in the 'black' area above the horizon. It may be nothing, maybe a faint star, but something is there hidden from regular view.
Quote from: johnlear on December 28, 2011, 09:44:02 PM
Yeah, you called it first. I am on the downhill slide.
What about this:
(http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9559/a15m2611png.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-28
Do you see nything in this crater (center of frame)?
the pic is so small it's hard to see anything clearly, but it looks like a crane or appartus in the crater.
This is a beautiful shot of Mare Humorum: CCD mono camera Unibrain-702
Filters: Astronomik Planet IR Pro (IR-pass 807nm+)
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5682/moon20090113humorumcolo.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/moon20090113humorumcolo.jpg/)
Another shot. This time Aristarchus.
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9943/moon20080725aristarchus.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/moon20080725aristarchus.jpg/)
OOps! I hate it when i forget to include the most important info! These images are part of a gold mine I found at:
http://objectstyle.org/astronominsk/Moon/Moon_en.htm (http://objectstyle.org/astronominsk/Moon/Moon_en.htm)
I was searching for IR Images of the Moon. I know Clementine used Near and Deep IR Imaging but most of those images aren't available to the public.
That got me thinking that there are 1,000's of AMATEUR Moon Photographers using IR Filters.
Could be a bonanza!
Enjoy ;D
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 29, 2011, 12:28:25 AM
John I looked at this and I didn't find anything that jumps out at you. Although it would be better if I had the original file that this was cropped from. I ran a contour gradient on the file and did notice something in the 'black' area above the horizon. It may be nothing, maybe a faint star, but something is there hidden from regular view.
Here is the entire photo. Look at top right outlined in yellow: fake or real?
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1116/townbridgesaucersa16m24.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-28
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 28, 2011, 10:05:29 PM
here's the excavator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9f_7cykdk
I'll look at the other one later...replacing the starter on my truck right now.... :o
Very cool. Thanks for the effort.
Quote from: johnlear on December 29, 2011, 03:54:44 AM
Here is the entire photo. Look at top right outlined in yellow: fake or real?
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1116/townbridgesaucersa16m24.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-28
:D
Looks kind of funny to me like the front lip is perfectly true on that crater which seems rather weird considering the rest of the terrain.
I took this photo and ran every kind of filter/effects from pixelation to contour gradients and couldn't find anything that said it was tampered with. What I DID find was some of the most unusual shapes and items I have seen in a long time. The lighting seems to be coming from various sources and cast some strange shapes. The crater in the upper right that John hi-lighted was indeed 'different'. At first while I was looking at it I thought that it look almost like a saucer sitting out in mid air. But with no shadow casting I decided that it was indeed a crater. But why the strange shadows. Upon digging down into the pixels, I decided that it was a landing with a step. ::) I know, I know, it could be anything but that's what I came up with. There are also some very strange 'structures' or rock formations just to the left of the crater that peaked my interest. But I really like what was down in the lower left corner. Very odd looking formation that could be anything from a ship, to a lava flow to I don't know what. Anyway folks, that's my take on it. Let me know what you think.
Peace... 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYRa2jGhJOs
Hubble Shoots the Moon - NASA Caught in Yet Another Lie.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hubble.htm (http://www.enterprisemission.com/hubble.htm)
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3298/9914z.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/407/9914z.jpg/)
Makes me wonder how much integrity that NAZA has left? :-\
QuoteTo the shock and amazement of many in the planetary science community, the Space Telescope Science Institute (STSI) on April 16th, 1999, released the first Hubble Space Telescope images ever taken of the Moon. What was shocking to so many of these scientists and researchers was not what was on the images, but rather that the images themselves even existed. You see, for more than 5 years, the STSI and NASA have been consistently claiming that the Hubble flatly could not image the Moon!
Using the ostensible reason that the Moon was "too bright" to image with the sensitive telescope's instruments, employees of both agencies have been publicly and privately suppressing any efforts -- especially those of this investigation -- to "Shoot the Moon." Once we had determined that there were numerous anomalies and potential artifacts on the Lunar surface, Enterprise principal investigator Richard C. Hoagland began an effort to use the Hubble's exquisite instruments to get close up views of some of these suspect areas. The response at the time was the "too bright" argument.
SOURCE: http://www.enterprisemission.com/hubble.htm
Starwarp, athough relevant here, I reckon you could make this a thread of it's own if you were so inclined.....
Quote from: Pimander
Starwarp, athough relevant here, I reckon you could make this a thread of it's own if you were so inclined.....
Thanks for that suggestion Pimander :)
As John is our resident Moon Expert, i will leave it up to him to comment on the validity and/or significance of that post.
I just found it most interesting that NAZA seems to speak one thing and is shown to be doing another!
Holy Shit, Man walks on Trucking Moon.
Tranquility Base: This is Tranquility Base. The Eagle has landed. Jesus H. Christ, Houston. We're on the trucking Moon. Over.
Houston: Roger, Tranquility, we copy you. We cannot believe you are on the trucking moon. Repeat: Cannot trucking believe it. Over.
History needs to be rewritten :P ::)
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rlongpre01/moon.html (http://www.members.shaw.ca/rlongpre01/moon.html)
This is a photo of a generator allegedly the size of the Bronx to the west or north west of Lubiniesky. Supposed Ken Johnston will be talking about it on the C2C show tonight with George Knapp.
The photo below has a circle drawn around where it is supposed to be. I looked for it but couldn't find it.
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4523/lunarjunkyarda.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/249/lunarjunkyarda.jpg/)
Dang problem with Hoagland and Ken Johnston is they never give us the source image... kinda pisses me off actually because it means to much work to track them down. That object is a good one... even ArMaP at ATS is puzzled by it and that is saying a LOT
So here is the source image
Apollo 16
AS16-116-18603HR
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS16_116_18603/AS16-116-18603HR_sm.jpg)
Now it wasn't Ken Johnston or Hoagland that found this one....
Here is the story:
This enigma was first brought to our attention by Papajake, a member of ATS and Pegasus Group... thanks for the find! This one is most spectacular indeed.
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Though this is a case of 'rediscovery' or perhaps independent observation, credit for first discovery on this anomaly rightly belongs to Keith Laney. In the search for anomalies in old images it is always going to happen that there will be a cross over of discoveries, but it is our goal at Pegasus to be in the lead giving credit where credit is due... In my opinion that alone goes a long way to establishing both credibility and good rapport with other researchers...
Note from Keith...
"Which is pretty much a cut out copy of this anomaly's original release at my site I discovered it back a several years ago. Yeah- the gear looking thing and the seat back etc. The guys at photovni did not discover these, they've been freely available at both my old and now new sites for YEARS Notice the similarities."
http://www.keithlaney.net/Apollo-digs/apollo_digs2.htm
Machine Parts found on the Moon:
The skeptics are going to be hard pressed to call this one a "trick of light and shadow" or "its just a rock" In the main anomaly detailed below you can see two round cylinders with a serrated but symmetrical edge. One is partially buried. In the second one (B) you can see a very obvious gear on a shaft, with a flat flange or mounting bracket at the top. The overall impression is that of two pieces that belong together, with the gear shaped object being on the inside of the cylinder.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS16_116_18603/Gears001a.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS16_116_18603/Gears001b.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS16_116_18603/Gears001c.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS16_116_18603/Gears001label.png)
Original Comments of note:
Comments:
posted by Papajake on 16-3-2007 at 05:50 PM(ATS post id: 3036386)
"I found a French web site that was displaying an anomaly that I had to share here. Hope they don't mind. Here's a link to their web site for credit:
http://photovni.free.fr/anomalie%206/apollo.htm
Here's the anomaly. If this photo doesn't get you thinking, nothing will... "
posted by ArMap on 17-3-2007 at 08:16 AM (ATS post id: 3037884)
"That does not look like a common rock, it looks like a dirt filled tube."
posted by The Borg on 17-3-2007 at 03:48 AM (ATS post id: 3037525)
Did I just see what I thought I just saw?
I'm beginning to seriously wonder what things might be going on on the Lunar surface. If we all remember, I was one of the staunchest protestors to this idea some 110 pages ago. Now, I'm not so sure...
posted by The Borg on 17-3-2007 at 03:54 AM (ATS post id: 3037531)
zorgon,
It's quite possible that that could be the remnants of a previously failed mission to the moon. It may be the crash debris from the craft, if it crashed.
Just some thoughts... TheBorg
posted by Zorgon on 17-3-2007 at 11:25 AM (this post)
Now that would be something I would easily accept. And if true it would be simple to verify that... However NASA calls that photo simply "House Rock", a name unusual in itself... but there is no mention of this being debris of another spacecraft.
I think that THIS image might indeed be one that we should send to NASA and ask them what they think it is.
Quote from: zorgon on January 02, 2012, 03:40:47 AM
I think that THIS image (the "pipe" in the post above) might indeed be one that we should send to NASA and ask them what they think it is.
No doubt about it for me. ArMap threw it into an ATS thread full of "experts" and was summarily ignored. There are some seriously dishonest attitudes to evidence on ATS. The more I learn about that place the more scary it gets! ::)
Note to self: I really must try to avoid making it my mission to put the "ATS experts" straight on every point - time is too precious.
P.S. If we send pictures to NASA and want answers, perhaps we should make it an open letter and post it on ATS, here and try to get it onto other news sources. It makes us much harder to ignore. Let me know what you think.
"The Pipe" is certainly an interesting piece. As suggested previously, I have always wondered about the possibility that the pipe and gears may have come from a machine built by humans. So maybe off of a craft or booster, or even off old satellites or early stages of mir or something. Anyway, it looks "too human made" to be natural or of potential alien origin (not that I know what things of alien origin actually look like).
A French site, but pics and drawings are worth to see !
Unfortunately the author doesn't replies , his mail box is dead .
I'll try to contact him, for knowing if he is still working on the Moon !
Here : http://philippe.cosmidis.pagesperso-orange.fr/Face%20cachee/Accueil.html
All the best
Guerande
4 year lurker on ATS, OMF, here. Much respect to all posters.
John Lear:
QuoteThe population of the moon is between one and one point five billion.
With the Earth at 7.0 mil population, the moon having a quarter the diameter of Earth and 1?81 its mass, yet somehow supporting biologically 1/6 (roughly) the population with miniscule atmosphere and little if no surface evidence - I'm having a VERY difficult time keeping an open mind to this. One thing humans do is leave a trail. We always do. Everywhere. Socially, politically, culturally, militarially, enviromentally. We're messy and have been since the dawn of humanity.
If there's 1 billion humans up there, there's a few bad eggs. We are our own worst enemy. A few hundred. A thousand+. Bad eggs who break rules, leave tracks, destroy things, make big marks, break free and do their own thing regardless of consequences.
OK, there's some anomalies up there. But nothing JUMPS out. Not evidence of 1 Billion people or even small signs of them.
John Lear:
QuoteMoon population based on visitors comments (Menger, et al), number of cities, Damoiseau, Petavius B, Lomonsov, T. Mayer to name just a few, mining operations, and general common sense of a planet with 70% earths gravity and surface atmosheric pressure of about 14.94 in/Hg and time of development, 20 billion years (manufactured inside Jupiter, date towed to Earth (unknown) but estimated to be 12,000 to 15,000 (this time around).
The age of the Earth is 4.5 Billion years. The entire solar system is calculated out to be 4.6 billion years from a molecular cloud condensing. 20 billion years ago... Jupiter... some kind of ET moon manufacturing... inside a ultra turbulent super gravity... what?
I keep an open mind. I want to understand. Outside the box is always interesting and a worthwhile exercise. But you need to cite some references here for constructive critisisim and support. I've always enjoyed your posts, but I need more meat here. My Google-Fu is not supporting the claims. Perhaps I am simply behind the curve. Please help me.
Much respect,
WarToad. (Ret.)
Quote from: johnlear on December 29, 2011, 03:54:44 AM
Here is the entire photo. Look at top right outlined in yellow: fake or real?
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1116/townbridgesaucersa16m24.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2011-12-28
I'm no pro, but given the apparent direction of the light corresponding to the shadows, the entire photo appears faked. Most of those clean crisp craters also look like someone used a cloning tool and just randomly dotted the surface.
So it seems either someone is faking the entire photo or throwing in relatively obvious distractions on a real photo.
If it's a real photo, I would think those "clean crisp craters" might be hiding some obvious geometric shapes that might give away the secret.
There is sooooooo much evidence that humankind has risen multiple times to a height of technology, in our ancient past, not unlike the one we are in now, and then been mysteriously almost wiped out of existence.
The moon in all probablity holds many of the answers to our ancient past and therefore quite possibly our future. If we are "started over" again, we will be right back here in thousands of years asking the same questions. What I'd like to know is how do we get it right this time?
Quote from: WarToad on January 05, 2012, 02:19:34 AM
4 year lurker on ATS, OMF, here. Much respect to all posters.
John Lear:
With the Earth at 7.0 mil population, the moon having a quarter the diameter of Earth and 1?81 its mass, yet somehow supporting biologically 1/6 (roughly) the population with miniscule atmosphere and little if no surface evidence - I'm having a VERY difficult time keeping an open mind to this. One thing humans do is leave a trail. We always do. Everywhere. Socially, politically, culturally, militarially, enviromentally. We're messy and have been since the dawn of humanity.
If there's 1 billion humans up there, there's a few bad eggs. We are our own worst enemy. A few hundred. A thousand+. Bad eggs who break rules, leave tracks, destroy things, make big marks, break free and do their own thing regardless of consequences.
OK, there's some anomalies up there. But nothing JUMPS out. Not evidence of 1 Billion people or even small signs of them.
John Lear:
The age of the Earth is 4.5 Billion years. The entire solar system is calculated out to be 4.6 billion years from a molecular cloud condensing. 20 billion years ago... Jupiter... some kind of ET moon manufacturing... inside a ultra turbulent super gravity... what?
I keep an open mind. I want to understand. Outside the box is always interesting and a worthwhile exercise. But you need to cite some references here for constructive critisisim and support. I've always enjoyed your posts, but I need more meat here. My Google-Fu is not supporting the claims. Perhaps I am simply behind the curve. Please help me.
Much respect,
WarToad. (Ret.)
Welcome WarToad,
You seem to be a little behind in the physics of the moon but allow me to bring you up to date.
The surface gravity of the moon is 70% that of earth based on the Newtown-Bullialdus Law of Inverse Square using standard figures of distance and a neutral point of 43,495 miles given to us by Werner von Braun. This calculation was made as a three body problem (the sun being the third) to pacify the Obergs of the world, who gasp at three body calculations.
As proven by mathematical genius Pari Spolter in her 1993 book, "The Gravitation Force of the Sun" there is no basis for Newton's assumption that gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity or density of matter.
So any calculation using Newton's Second law is flat out wrong. In fact, Keepers Third Law trumps Newton's second law any day of the week.
Of course with 70% gravity of the Earth means an Apollo moon landing, which we all know anyway, was faked. Not enough fuel to deorbit, land, takeoff, re-attain orbit and dock. Certainly not with 22,000 pounds of it anyway.
The 70% of earths gravity allows the moon to have a surface level atmosphere equal to 18,000 feet here on earth. Takes a little getting used to for us but for 1.5 billion people that were born up there, no problem.
The size of the universe is infinite. The moon is about 16 billion years old and the earth about 25 billion. You can throw any carbon dated calculated material out the window as these calculations are little better than using Ouija board.
Although the humans on the moon are identical to us except for being sociologically and technologically advanced they have very, very clean practices and habits and that is why you can't see their atmosphere even if it was dusty and dirty, 3 or 4 miles above the surface would be difficult to detect. Not impossible though, because both Pickering and Firsoff saw glimpses of it. (Strange World of the Moon, Firsoff).
As to your 'jumping out anomalies' every light you see up there and there are hundreds on the near side are cities. How NAZA has been able to ignore this amazing to me.
Most of the cities on the near and far side have been air-brushed out of any NAZA photos but a few remain such as Damoiseaux, Petavius B, Tobia Meyer, Lomonosov are clearly visible with houses, buildings and factories.
Enormous mining operations such as in the photo Lunar Orbiter 1-102 are readily visible with roads, buildings and something being sprayed out of the craters.
The mining operation on the north interior face of Copernicus in the photo LO2-162M is the granddaddy of them all with bucket wheel excavators, buildings, roads, bridges and what look like trestles.
The photo Zorgon and I posted years ago of Aristarchus show what may be a nuclear reactor of some sort 25 miles in diameter with a blue glow. The blue glow is similar to the Cerenkov effect of radiation coming in contact with air. Of course it may be a gigantic structure of something else.
You say nothing jumps out. Correct it's YOU what needs to jump out of the box you're in. You will also need years of photo surface feature identification and a keen eye to separate what humans expect to see most: numbers, straight lines, animal figures, facial figures, that sort of thing, from what's really there. Once you get past that you are well on your way.
The 'infinite universe' is also something that will take a little while to wrap your brain around. There was no beginning, no big bang, and there will be no end. You need to think in terms of a billion times a billion earths similar to ours. Billions upon billions of different species of aliens.
Many of these alien races have robots so technologically advanced they can walk through concrete or brick walls with disturbing the dust. Can look deep into your eyes and see the very depths of our soul and let you know it.
Robots who spend their days and nights abducting humans for 3, 7 and 13 year checkups. Like 3000 mile checkups for your car, they check fan belts for wear, battery fluid and radiator fluid for proper level. Spark plugs not all carboned up, wires secure and air filter replaced if necessary. Tire pressures, backup lights, all that sort of thing but human stuff.
All these things while we sit in our lawn chairs looking up at the stars on a warm summer night, wondering whether or not this will be the night that SETI makes contact with an alien race who is tapping out Morse code, "Is anybody out there?"
Just remember this: whether or not you climb, leap, step, hurtle, jump or flip out the box...you will never ever be able to get back in. Why? Because there is no box. Everything has been there for infinity.
Again, thanks for joining us.
Quote from: Pimander on January 02, 2012, 10:37:06 AM
Note to self: I really must try to avoid making it my mission to put the "ATS experts" straight on every point - time is too precious.
But if you have fun doing you shouldn't stop. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 08, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
But if you have fun doing you shouldn't stop. :)
Oh I have loads of fun ArMap, but mainly when I don't get too carried away. But you know what I'm like, some days I go through every post on UFO and Aliens and try to correct all the stupid posts.... Those days are when it becomes obsessive and not particularly healthy - I have plenty to do as it is.
I should learn to keep my mouth shut and let go. Like Isaac says, it isn't somebodies personal mission to correct everyone. :-X
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tjRbp1akCT0/R_LOVcqpHpI/AAAAAAAAAAw/I20NcsEppKg/s1600/xkcd-SomeoneWrongOnInternet.png)
Quote from: johnlear on January 08, 2012, 07:07:02 AM
Welcome WarToad,...
Again, thanks for joining us.
Thank you John to the time and thought into that reply. Let me put a little mental and intestinal fortitude into digesting, self researching, and a meaningful worthwhile reply.
Cheers,
Wartoad. (Ret)
QuoteFilmed January 5, 2012 @ 7 pm ....Tall water tower looking structure on the horizon of the moon. 4 clips in one. I filmed this using a celestron 130 telescope and a panasonic camcorder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUeMU5XrTDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KUeMU5XrTDA
Just look there, the first 7 pics, all with coordinates; I think it's quite
interesting !
Maybe SgtRock can give an idea ?
http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/topic/18650-lune-objets-eclaires-ou-sources-lumineuses/
All the best
Guerande
Quote from: micjer on January 20, 2012, 02:35:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUeMU5XrTDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KUeMU5XrTDA
A wide angle view of this would be helpful in determining where this was taken.
Quote from: guerande on January 21, 2012, 06:39:01 PM
Just look there, the first 7 pics, all with coordinates; I think it's quite
interesting !
Maybe SgtRock can give an idea ?
http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/topic/18650-lune-objets-eclaires-ou-sources-lumineuses/
All the best
Guerande
Guerande you link isn't working very well, but I did manage to find a cached version in text form that allowed me to look at the pictures. They seem to come from I guess Google Moon?
Quote from: johnlear on January 21, 2012, 08:43:13 PM
A wide angle view of this would be helpful in determining where this was taken.
I agree John, that a little more info would be nice. I'm surprised no one else has noticed such a large tower on the nearside, for everyone to see!
Here is another video by a different uploader of the same tower..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL4RayOQfqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL4RayOQfqQ
Not sure what it is, but it must be huge if you consider geometry, and the curvature of the moon. Not calling it a hoax......Optical illusion perhaps.
Quote from: johnlear on January 21, 2012, 08:43:13 PM
A wide angle view of this would be helpful in determining where this was taken.
Someone on ATS figured it out to be as shown on the pic he posted over there...
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t68/IronDogg/towerlocation.jpg)
Right, we need ArMaP now! In fact he will have seen it on ATS.
Which ATS tower thread was this on IronDogg? Has ArMaP found any decent snaps of the area yet?
I believe this photo is the exact area that the towers show up.
It is just to the west of Mare Crisium
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2861/towerphotopegasus.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-01-26
Quote from: Pimander on January 26, 2012, 04:35:05 AM
Right, we need ArMaP now! In fact he will have seen it on ATS.
Which ATS tower thread was this on IronDogg? Has ArMaP found any decent snaps of the area yet?
Yeah, Ill try and find it and post a link here. In that same thread there is another guy that correlates the tower with the old "shard tower" pics of old. It looks similar! :0
These are the relative positions of the Shard, in the Sinus Medii, and the Tower, up to the west of Mare Crisium.
(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9777/moonmosaic802pe.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-01-26
Quote from: RUSSO on December 08, 2011, 07:11:44 AM
Thank you John. :)
This picture leaves no doubt that there are several buildings there. There are so many "anomalies" that is difficult to point all. :o
I'll put here three areas in the picture that caught my attention among all those "anomalies".
Could this be a control tower?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jf4ee06036.jpg)
Same pic sharpened:
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qo4ee06048.jpg)
A base?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ze4ee05fe8.jpg)
Same pic sharpened (look at the patterns):
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gp4ee0603f.jpg)
A mining machine?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/zw4ee05ff0.jpg)
Same pic sharpened
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gh4ee0604f.jpg)
Below you can see another "strange" formation on moon:
Enhanced photo of crater Moon base taken by Japanese space probe:
(http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005477/images/387.jpg)
Amazing find John... 8)
This one looks similar to some type of Ultralight "aircraft"?
I wonder if that new "Graphene" material could be used to make some type of new space age Ultralight?
(http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7378/lunarplane.jpg)
Wonder if this one is some type of Ozone Generator? The Spheres remind me of Nikola Tesla's Plasma Spheres which as I understand create ozone...?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jf4ee06036.jpg)
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/6753/spaceship3.jpg)
These are 2 photos of LO-1-102, the first photo taken after coming around the moon with earth in view. It appears that this area is one huge mining camp as there are roads all over the place, buildings, and craters with sprayers of some sort. The photo immediately below is the entire photo. I have marked what look like a control tower with a yellow circle to the left of center/center.
The photo below it is a closeup on the control tower with what appear like, as ridiculous as it might sound a long white strip that could be a runway. Of course, it could be anything else.
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/57/lo1102fullabcircled.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-02-03
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/751/controltowercircled.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-02-03
Something new. 1102-h1 mining operations..Just some outlines of what I think I see...well as a Sgt. used to tell me..."They're ya go, thinking again"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FraoLwQkXBY
Outstanding clip Sgt R&R . Before John, I didn't have the eyes to see stuff.
I am a rock hound, fossils, sharks teeth. Also a hunter.
I collect coins and have searched close to a million bucks in change to date.
All these things take training of pattern recognition.
After a while, after you have looked enough, something in the brain takes over and stuff starts to pop out at you.
I thought this was a tremendous effort and the music was well chosen.
Thanks for your posts!
0CD
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on February 11, 2012, 06:20:57 PM
Something new. 1102-h1 mining operations..Just some outlines of what I think I see...well as a Sgt. used to tell me..."They're ya go, thinking again"....
http://youtu.be/FraoLwQkXBY
Very good, sarge; I am curious as to what the perfect circles as you outlined on the ramp to the mine are, for I see quite a few of them scattered throughout that particular area; been trying to find a pic I saved that zorg posted on ats that shows quite clearly a craft of some sort; perhaps he will dig it up for you to analyse also...
seeker
Quote from: zerocd on February 11, 2012, 11:04:46 PM
Outstanding clip Sgt R&R . Before John, I didn't have the eyes to see stuff.
I am a rock hound, fossils, sharks teeth. Also a hunter.
I collect coins and have searched close to a million bucks in change to date.
All these things take training of pattern recognition.
After a while, after you have looked enough, something in the brain takes over and stuff starts to pop out at you.
I thought this was a tremendous effort and the music was well chosen.
Thanks for your posts!
0CD
Thanks Zerocd for the kudos...yeah sometimes you can look at something in a photo that other people see and damn for the life of me, I can't see what they're talking about..then other times it's right there!!!! I scan a photo someone posts for hours at a time, using different filters and effects to try and determine if that's a rock or something else....thanks again.. 8)
Quote from: the seeker on February 12, 2012, 01:04:04 AM
Very good, sarge; I am curious as to what the perfect circles as you outlined on the ramp to the mine are, for I see quite a few of them scattered throughout that particular area; been trying to find a pic I saved that zorg posted on ats that shows quite clearly a craft of some sort; perhaps he will dig it up for you to analyse also...
seeker
Thanks Seeker, i appreciate it...I know what you're talking about...I've seen a few of these 'spheres' as I like to call them, on many photos. Sometimes they turn out to be concave craters and my eyes are playing tricks on me. But as I said, I've seen some that are definitely spheres. They almost have a 'shine' to them. I can reproduce them in 3d and using lighting techniques can reproduce them easily. I was thinking about them last night and thought maybe they are camofluage generators...lol...I don't know.... 8)
Hey Rock,
The last one you posted of LO1-102 was sheer genius. I have looked at that photo for 5 years and didn't see what you were able to pull up.
I came across this LO photo of the exact middle of the far side and in looking at it I don't think I have ever seen a single photo with so many artifacts, doodads, buildings and whatever.
Please take a look and see if you see the same thing as me.
Thanks
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/9294/middleoffarsidenew.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-02-26
Thanks John for the Kuddos. I take it this is a scan of a picture you have?...Do you know what the file number is? I can see all sorts of areas of interest but when I try to use my software to zoom in, everything turns into a mess of blobs...If I have a better resolution photo I might be able to do something with this. :(
Quote from: johnlear on February 26, 2012, 10:00:56 PM
Hey Rock,
The last one you posted of LO1-102 was sheer genius. I have looked at that photo for 5 years and didn't see what you were able to pull up.
I came across this LO photo of the exact middle of the far side and in looking at it I don't think I have ever seen a single photo with so many artifacts, doodads, buildings and whatever.
Please take a look and see if you see the same thing as me.
Thanks
Well, John I got the photos that Zorgon sent me as you requested. I've been taking my time on this, some due to health issues and mostly because I really don't want to rush this. I've look at it for several days off an on and at first nothing really jumped out at me. But on the 3rd or 4th viewing things started to appear and as you said they're are all sorts of doodads out there. ;) Right now I'm in the process of just hilighting the areas that are most obvious and then later I'll put more detail in. I will say I haven't seen so many ramps and large (equipment) items on any other photo. I've also noted that they're are of a lot of shadows that don't match the surrounding topography which really peaks my interest.. This was just a heads up that I'm working on this and more to follow. (BTW, Klingon Warbirds don't really exist, do they?)(I think I might have found one.....or not ;D)
Peace....
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/9294/middleoffarsidenew.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-02-26
Quote from: johnlear on December 26, 2011, 03:01:48 AM
This is a photo of a generator allegedly the size of the Bronx to the west or north west of Lubiniesky. Supposed Ken Johnston will be talking about it on the C2C show tonight with George Knapp.
The photo below has a circle drawn around where it is supposed to be. I looked for it but couldn't find it.
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hello John, and all! Well, I have been stumping around on Mars since early last year, and have found a few clear anomalous signs of intelligent/civilized intervention, that have given the "skeptics" a bit of a challenge. But, I haven't done anything really regarding the moon.
Now it starts!! :D I started reading through this thread, again. There is just a lot of interesting information throughout this discussion, especially with what some of the modeling brings to the table. I have made it to page nine, and saw something there that I just have to stop and post.
It is relative to the posted pic of the "Bronx sized generator" - the which you said, " I looked for it but couldn't find it". Well, I do see something in your pic - I can't say what it is, but it is absolutely (IMHO) a very large artificial anomaly. Maybe even could be the generator, but if it is, it will stretch our imagination relative to generators.
I have looked through this thread through page 14, and I did not see this anomaly mentioned by anyone else. When I first looked at your pic, this feature is what caught my eye, at the unmagnified level. Even then, I thought "this has a different look". Then, when I did magnify it, WOW, "it is different", and very very clear.
This anomaly has at least eleven pretty much identical sections, in a well defined row, with every section being a different size. In the screenshot I am posting, you will see that starting from our left, the first section is very large, and each of the subsequent sections gets smaller, as we look "down the row". And , at our far left end, there is what appears to be a very large structure of some sort (may include a "dish), which maybe is the control area for this entire project. This place does have a very intelligent design and manufactured "look"!!!!!!
Each section is composed of identical pieces - don't know what the pieces are, but maybe some of you do. If this has to do with power generation, I suppose, going from large to small, or small to large, might be a way to handle the power produced???
I still am somewhat in awe, as I look at, and study this anomaly. I am very interested in hearing what some of you think about this. To me, it is almost "unbelievable", to see something like this, on the Moon, and not airbrushed away.
I will post a screensshot of John's posted pic, to point out this anomaly, in place, relative to the "generator" he circled.
I will also post a magnified screenshot of the anomaly, with boundary box, to make it a positive area of focus.
Let me know what you think! If this is just rocks and sand, well, tell me that too!! ;)
Just a note - something I did not notice initially, there appears to be a significant shadow at the far left of the anomaly installation, which is likely caused by the height of the structure, at that end.
One problem with the anomaly I posted just above is, it is difficult to know its size. So, I have gone to Google Moon, to try to find this specific Moon area, so I could use Google's measuring tool. I did find the coordinates for the Lubinisky Crater (17.8S 23.8W), and used that to get to the general area. After much looking. I finally found what I think to be the anomaly area.
On the basis of this measurement, the anomaly is about 30 miles long. This "anomaly" is just a huge installation of some sort. Maybe it is the power generator that John mentioned! It really does look strange - strange, but it also looks very specifically designed, enlarged and repeated, with each section.
Did I say 30 miles long??? ;D
As I said, I have just started into the Moon stuff, but if any proof is needed to show that there is absolutely civilized activity on the Moon, then this right here should do it. As much as I might look more, I just cannot imagine finding any better proof than what is shown in this photo that John posted for us. If this anomaly "stands" the testing, then somewhere, somebody at high levels should open up the "whole of Pandora's box", to the public, regarding the Moon!!!
As the same 'structure' is in many of the photos I thought that it was the communications antenna of the spacecraft.
I'm a little skeptical of this photo. Does anyone have the original file name without it being cropped or highlighted? I'd really like to run a few effects and scans on it to check it out....
Quote from: johnlear on March 06, 2012, 11:37:54 PM
As the same 'structure' is in many of the photos I thought that it was the communications antenna of the spacecraft.
Hi John! I assume you are talking about at the least eleven multiple ground installations/structures shown in this pic?? I have no way of knowing yet, if you are seeing what I am seeing. Are you seeing the identical separate sections, that go from large to small, over that approximately 30 miles distance? Each individual section also has a very bright piece, and all of these bright pieces are pointing in the same direction, for whatever reason. Do you see these?
In my view, this seems to be definitely a huge ground installation..
Now John, if you have seen multiples of these, just like or similar, is there any way to point me to a photo where you have seen another one?? i would really be interested in seeing another one of these, on the Moon.
Thanks!!
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 06, 2012, 11:47:45 PM
I'm a little skeptical of this photo. Does anyone have the original file name without it being cropped or highlighted? I'd really like to run a few effects and scans on it to check it out....
Sgt. I don't have anything, other than the photo John posted. I think some skepticism with what we can see here might be natural, just because this is pretty absolute. Almost anyone should be able to see this, at least in the photo we have to look at. While, obviously, it could be a "doctored" photo, it is such a "totally different"
presentation from any recognizable form, one would almost automatically think it to be real, even on the moon! :).
I am very interested in seeing how this plays out. I did think your modeling might help with this at some point. I do appreciate any help you can give us on helping to confirm, or deny, the voracity of what we have here!!
(http://a.imageshack.us/img9/1336/nearbullialdus2.png)
Here are a few others I have collected.
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
(http://a.imageshack.us/img263/1117/nearbullialdus.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
(http://a.imageshack.us/img715/6149/image1xe.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
OK Rocky, here is one for a guy with your talent in making mountains out of images.
Jack Swaney was one, if not the first, to draw images of artifacts on the moon. In 1981 he rendered a number of artifacts on the moon of which the Pipes of Bullialdus was one. In the first photo here which I think is A15M2606 you get the long shot of Bullialdus which is all the way at the back.
Second photo is Swaney's drawing of the Pipes of Bullialdus.
The third photo is my attempt to show where the pipes belong. NAZA has done a lousy job of completely eliminating the pipes. They left a few clues for those with extraordinary talent in making pipes out of dots.
But it can be done and Rocky, this is your moment to shine.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img339/8370/bullialdussmallfinal.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
(http://a.imageshack.us/img19/6453/bullialduspipesswaneyfi.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
(http://a.imageshack.us/img402/9278/pipes2final.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
Thanks John, I'll give it a shot....It might be awhile before I can get to this as I have to go into the hospital on Friday for an Angiogram due to some heart issues....should be back up on Saturday though.....Peace...
Quote from: rdunk on March 06, 2012, 11:57:36 PM
Hi John! I assume you are talking about at the least eleven multiple ground installations/structures shown in this pic?? I have no way of knowing yet, if you are seeing what I am seeing. Are you seeing the identical separate sections, that go from large to small, over that approximately 30 miles distance? Each individual section also has a very bright piece, and all of these bright pieces are pointing in the same direction, for whatever reason. Do you see these?
In my view, this seems to be definitely a huge ground installation..
Now John, if you have seen multiples of these, just like or similar, is there any way to point me to a photo where you have seen another one?? i would really be interested in seeing another one of these, on the Moon.
Thanks!!
All of these photos are of an antenna pointing down from the spacecraft. For the ones that do not come up, they have been airbrushed to make it appear they are ground objects.
Quote from: johnlear on March 07, 2012, 12:56:44 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img9/1336/nearbullialdus2.png)
Here are a few others I have collected.
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
(http://a.imageshack.us/img263/1117/nearbullialdus.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
(http://a.imageshack.us/img715/6149/image1xe.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-06
John, thanks for the additional examples of somewhat similar anomalous features, to the anomaly we have been discussing from your earlier pic. A couple of points on these photos, that you are probable aware of - the first pic, and the lower right pic are the same feature, and the second pic, and the lower left feature are the same, except the lower left pic must be reversed.
I still don't see this objects as a part of the spacecraft comm. system, as they do seem to be on the surface. However, after more looking at all of these, there is another possibility, howbeit optically illusional.
In one way at looking at all of these, they can be seen as "standing vertically", from the surface. That is a more obvious possibility in the anomaly, that I have described, as stretching across the surface for 30 miles.
What really makes this a possibility, is, that the anomaly features go from large at one end to small at the other. Now, are the sections manufactured that way? Or, are the larger-looking sections much closer to the camera, and the sections just begin to look smaller as they get farther down and away from the camera, as would be the case if it were a vertical installation??
It really is hard to tell which is right - just depends upon how it is visualized.
When he is able, maybe Sgt.Rocknroll can enlighten us a little on this.For simplicity, I am posting my screenshot of the anomaly again here, to help us with our review, along with John's other pic features.
Quote from: johnlear on March 08, 2012, 08:46:20 PM
All of these photos are of an antenna pointing down from the spacecraft. For the ones that do not come up, they have been airbrushed to make it appear they are ground objects.
John, I think you posted your reply while I was working on my last post on this subject. I am sure you have better "moon eyes" than I, but, this anomaly in your pic that we have been discussing certainly looks awfully long, bulky, and complicated to be dragged around with an orbiting spacecraft, especially if it were going to be in full time/part time interference with the camera's view.
As I said, maybe Sgt.Rocknroll can help us a little with this, if he is well!
yeah you right John. In my attempt at finding a decent '72-h-1387' photo (which I haven't been able to), I found numerous photos with the antennae and I was going to post that as part of my 'look' at the photo. It's not a ground station or a crawler or a mining machine, It's an antennae with a cable wrapped around it down to the pod on the end.....BTW if you know where I can download a decent resolution 72-h-1387 without someone's marks on it, I'd appreciate it.
It's an antenna alright.
Somewhere there's a photo where it fell off the (russian?) probe, which instigated loads of ATS threads........
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 08, 2012, 09:36:40 PM
yeah you right John. In my attempt at finding a decent '72-h-1387' photo (which I haven't been able to), I found numerous photos with the antennae and I was going to post that as part of my 'look' at the photo. It's not a ground station or a crawler or a mining machine, It's an antennae with a cable wrapped around it down to the pod on the end.....BTW if you know where I can download a decent resolution 72-h-1387 without someone's marks on it, I'd appreciate it.
I wonder if we know what "orbiter"took the pic I have been discussing. I have looked at the basic Lunar Orbiter, and it has no exterior antenna like this that I can see, if we know what took the pic, we can probably find out pretty easy if it is a craft antenna or not.
A Lunar Orbiter pic FYI.
I'm assuming it was a 'drop down' antenna, that was deployed when they got there (it needs gravity to work) Hence the coiled wire...hence, you won't see it in this pic.
Just a guess, tho... 8)
When i get back from the hospital, i'll post what pics i have of the antennae. Some will have two of them on the same photo but if you look closely you'll see it's two photos cropped together and you can see where the antennae is cropped also so that it looks like one of them is in the middle of one photo. I'll even model it for you so that you'll see its an antennae!
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on March 08, 2012, 10:48:27 PM
I'm assuming it was a 'drop down' antenna, that was deployed when they got there (it needs gravity to work) Hence the coiled wire...hence, you won't see it in this pic.
Just a guess, tho... 8)
Well, the experts on the Lunar Orbiter - Wiki - ;) - only mentions two antennas, a high gain boom, and a low gain boom, with both of these being shown in the pic as sticking straight out horizontally.
Don't know it it was a different orbiter taking the pic that John posted?
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 08, 2012, 10:56:11 PM
When i get back from the hospital, i'll post what pics i have of the antennae. Some will have two of them on the same photo but if you look closely you'll see it's two photos cropped together and you can see where the antennae is cropped also so that it looks like one of them is in the middle of one photo. I'll even model it for you so that you'll see its an antennae!
Sgt.Rocknroll, we all wish you the very best, as you go through the tests, and will look forward to seeing you back soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: rdunk on March 08, 2012, 10:27:42 PM
I wonder if we know what "orbiter"took the pic I have been discussing. I have looked at the basic Lunar Orbiter, and it has no exterior antenna like this that I can see, if we know what took the pic, we can probably find out pretty easy if it is a craft antenna or not.
A Lunar Orbiter pic FYI.
These are all Apollo photos. Lunar Orbiter photos have lines in them where the strips are put together.
Quote from: johnlear on March 10, 2012, 02:33:49 AM
These are all Apollo photos. Lunar Orbiter photos have lines in them where the strips are put together.
Thanks John, that is good info for neophytes like me - lines vs no lines - that's good! Next, we just need to get some engineering/systems info on the Apollo orbiter spacecraft, to find out about their comm antennas. If/when I find such info, I will post it here.
This is what I have found so far on the Apollo antenna which we see in several photos of the lunar surface. As yet I have not found a good photo or drawing of the S-band antenna which is the one we are looking for.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img20/5975/antenna26x8final.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-10
(http://a.imageshack.us/img440/4269/anetennaapolloantenna6x.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
This is a possible drawing of the antenna (blue rectangle).
(http://a.imageshack.us/img802/498/antennadrawing7x9final.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
This is possibly the antenna (yellow circle) which, when taking photos would be visible from the window (blue circle). Apollo 15.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img714/1926/apolloantennae6x8final.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-10
This in an enlargement of the antenna (yellow arrow) on the Apollo Spacecraft. A yellow arrow points to an anomalous white spot.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img838/6096/apolloantennaenlargeb4x.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
Going to look for a photo of the antenna and have already looked through 450 pages.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img3/401/csmhg.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
Fig. 4 - The high-gain S-band antenna array on the Apollo 15 service module. (NASA: AS15-88-11974)
Here is another photo of Apollo 15, apparently taken at the same time as the above photo but even allowing for a different sun angle seems to have a different paint scheme.
Below is another Apollo 15 photo, look at the bell housing coloring. I assume that where I put the yellow circle is the antenna.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img855/747/apollo151a.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
http://youtu.be/dS7Q-NeECyA
A quickie on the antennae...
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 11, 2012, 04:08:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS7Q-NeECyA
A quickie on the antennae... 8) :o
Quote from: rdunk on March 08, 2012, 09:19:00 PM
I still don't see this objects as a part of the spacecraft comm. system, as they do seem to be on the surface. However, after more looking at all of these, there is another possibility, howbeit optically illusional.
I think that was the gamma ray spectrometer boom.
See this (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/ch2.htm) (look for photo AS16-0729).
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 08, 2012, 09:36:40 PM
BTW if you know where I can download a decent resolution 72-h-1387 without someone's marks on it, I'd appreciate it.
Do you have more information about that photo? With that type of name I can only find pre-flight photos from Apollo missions.
Thats all i have and i got that from the sketch of the pipes that John posted.
Thanks much to John, Sgt.Rocknroll, and ArMaP!!! Sorry for causing a lot of extra work over what I thought was a serious anomaly----NOT! Just a little bit strange-looking Apollo antenna.
ArMaP, your link really has the definitive antenna object in the photos. Wish I had seen those first! ;)
Anyway, I will post a screenshot of what I got from ArMaP's photos for everyone to see. Looks just like that ground installation I was so excited about!!! ;D
Thanks again everyone!
ArMaP is correct...again. But located midway in service module. Considering the view out of the windows its difficult to see how the antenna got in the photo.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img843/1691/gammarayspectrometer.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
(http://a.imageshack.us/img406/3351/grsa.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
(http://a.imageshack.us/img717/3351/grsa.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
(http://a.imageshack.us/img823/8314/grs3.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
(http://a.imageshack.us/img528/306/grs4.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-03-11
Rdunk: Don't worry, you're not the first one to be fooled by this, these pictures get posted every couple of years, i remember this 'antenna' scare has cropped up several times in the past.
John: Thanks for posting the details, it helps to show people what they are looking at :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aPUhQ7t9w
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 24, 2012, 10:19:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aPUhQ7t9w
amazing work, Sarge; I wish I had the software and computer setup you are swinging ;) does lead one to believe that sooo much has been hidden from us...
but I have also spent many years following JL and looking at all he has posted for us to examine...
seeker
Thanks Seeker, John is the Man!....
Hi John,
i have just seen my " copernicus fingers " on CTC site .
It would be very nice if sgt;Rockn' can enlight them, don't you think so ?
And it would be better if the image on CTC was rotated 90° right, to get the
fingers vertical ...
up to you anyway :)
All the best !
Guerande
If I knew what original photo that was cropped from I'd take a shot at it.
Going to post a video later tonight of the Lo-125-h2a photo that was mentioned in "Topic: NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?"
There's a lot more than the tower in that photo.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on April 08, 2012, 12:27:59 AM
If I knew what original photo that was cropped from I'd take a shot at it.
Going to post a video later tonight of the Lo-125-h2a photo that was mentioned in "Topic: NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?"
There's a lot more than the tower in that photo.
Fantastic work Rock. See if you can find anything in these 2:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img96/3442/terrinator99wgfinarockl.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-04-08
(http://imageshack.us/a/img641/978/58n150wrockfinallate.png)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-04-08
John just sent you a PM concerning these two photos. I'm currently working on LO5-125-h2a that Mike Singh posted on here. I'm converting it from an MOV to an MPEG4 to upload it to my youtube account. It will be up later....Would like to look at those two photos you posted though... 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBMerWdwG4g
Just a short vid to look at the tower area on LO5-125-H2A...
8)
For John...from a photo 58N 158W...... A few highlighted structures I've found...Some apparent some not so..But interesting just the same....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXN03gAG_XE
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on April 17, 2012, 02:11:15 AM
For John...from a photo 58N 158W...... A few highlighted structures I've found...Some apparent some not so..But interesting just the same....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXN03gAG_XE
Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. You have an eye to catch the buildings. This particular video represents a lot of work. More photos coming.
Thanks John, i also uploaded it to 'OUR' site but i don't know if it made it or not. Funny thing though, as I watched the replay on youtube, i saw a whole bunch of stuff I missed! Guess I'll have to re-visit this photo again.
I increased the dpi from 600 to 2000, then scaled it up 2 times. I might do something different next time. Btw did you get my last email where i revealed something to you? Just checking. Anyway can't wait to get some more stuff from you...As always ...Peace... Rock... (lol)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQjCNshH_OA
This is V13H-1. Just wanted to post some outlines of a few things I think I see. This is a work in progress because there is so much there.
See my other videos go to:
http://sergentrocknroll.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdvTz-Ws6pM
V-13H-1 CONTINUED...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdzKsU4IS6Q
You do great work Sarge. Always help me reset my eyes. So many interesting shapes. I wonder if we will ever see better resolutions for themoon in our lifetime.
I see one foot resolution photos for Mars (http://news.yahoo.com/monolith-object-mars-could-call-163032172.html), and the LRO (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9129450/NASA_s_LRO_satellite_will_offer_bird_s_eye_view_of_moon?intsrc=hm_list) is capable of 30cm per pixel, but then we see that 1 meter is what's available. Why is that?
(rhetorical)
Thanks for the kudos...it's always appreciated....I couldn't agree more about the resolution....it's the 'we've been there done that' attitude.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 05, 2012, 05:49:38 PM
V-13H-1 CONTINUED...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdzKsU4IS6Q
Wow! John, another masterpiece. Its amazing how you find so many artifacts!
Can you please highlight the 'refinery' outlined in yellow?
Again, FANTASTIC!!!!
(http://imageshack.us/a/img99/7842/learfinal5refinery.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-05-06
Liking it a lot Sarge! 8)
Somamech, thank you.
John, thanks a bunch,,,I'll see what I can do...
(keep em' coming if ya got more..)
Hi John and all.
I am ver impressed with this compete thread so far, a lot of info. to be digested for sure, especially for you Sgt.RockandRoll!! very talented to say the least with your software. I have studied Mechanical Engineering and was introduced to AutoCad back in the early 1980's, has advanced for sure.
I have a photo of a few thing's I would like to offer for observation and translation. I woul dhave had many more, but had a crash and those are now gone, but managed to retrieve a few of some potential importance.
this first one is of a supposed "Bridge" though I am not sure it is a bridge as depicted, the actual location is listed at the bottom of the photo for locating original if this one is to rough for analysis.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/bridge11.jpg)
This next one is of a supposed "Star City" it does not have the actual lunar location associated with it, but I am sure John has ran across it a few times.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/star_city_lg.jpg)
This one is of a supposed "Ancient Structure Remains" it does have some info on it and once again, John has more than likely the exact location of it. The thing that makes this so odd to mee is it's right angle configurations, not readily made by any form's of natural causes. May have location associated with emblazened number in center of the collague of photo's, not sure.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/laonmoon1.jpg)
This is a side by side I rendered of the "Obilesk on the Moon" I pain stakingly drew all the artifacts by hand, but the original is there for the reassesing of this photo, was widely discussed anomoly.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/obileskonthemoon.jpg)
This next one is a satelite shot of "Lunar rectangular Object" once again for location, John probably knows the exact locale of this, what appears to be a structure that is a "Building" .
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/rectagledanomalywpassageseverywhere.jpg)
Same thing zoomed in natural color:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/MOON-TEST-21.gif)
Now enhanced for structural visibility:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/MOON-TEST-2C1.gif)
this one was titled 144Cafe, not sure what that means, but a very wide view and original in it's format.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/144cafe01-1.gif)
I have others I can share, but this is enough seeing how Sgt. has enough on his plate at any given time.
Well, I hope these contribute to the Moon base theories, I have been awakened to these thing's with help from Mr. Lear just as many have been.
Thanks for the Thread John, and your excellent contribution Sgt. it is a fascinating topic..
1Worldwatcher
Thanks 1Worldwatcher, it's appreciated. I've been using Cad software since 1979. When I got out of the Army I went to a technical school to learn Process Piping. I had drafting in high school in the 60's and the tech school helped me reaquaint myself with drafting. Of course this was all board drafting, 'spreadin' lead' as we use to call it. The first job I applied for after school was Cad Drafting on the Auto-trol AD380 system. It was a large mainframe system using CRT'S. The industry started using Autocad and Microstation on pc's in the early 80's and I've been doing that ever since. (For John: one of the first 3d models I ever did was a model of a Lear Jet!)..lol....
anyway, I have a copy of AS16-121-19438..it's pretty low res, only 72 dpi...I see the bridge though, but it's kind of blurry.
The 'Star City' I have seen before, but I would like to know what the original file name is so I can search and download an original.
I have the 'LA on the Moon' photo and it's on my list of things to do.
The Cafe144 is very interesting and I would like to get the original file name so I can also search and download it.
Once again, Thanks to everyone for the Kudo's.... I just find this so interesting and I'm amazed when I start search these photos, just how much stuff is sitting there in plain site. Just glancing at a photo is not good enough. Some of the stuff John has turned me on to, at first search I couldn't see anything. But with a little determination and understanding from my wife (lol)..and a few hours, things just seem to appear to me. I usually have to go back again and again to a photo.
Anyway enough about that...
Glad everyone likes the work...:)
8)Peace.
Well guys here's what I think is a Crane Structure on 111-85M, which I got from John...
It's only a small part of what I think is a large mining area.....There'll be more to follow on this photo...just wanted to share and see what you guys think....Peace 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1pDVxG2tlo
Hey Sgt.Rocknroll, thanks again for your effort. Some of it is a little hard to see, until you are able to pinpoint I for us.
I have wondered whether you ever switch between black vs white display screens. Sometimes I have wondered if maybe the "powers that be" might do that with the photos, before they are released, just to make things look different. I do that frequently, and sometimes, the different screen can bring out some details that were not easily seeable with the other screen. One situation when I do that is when the photo seems to have so many "bulging" round mounds - which when the display is changed, these mounds change to craters, and the entire landscape look is changed.
One of the recent photo postings above, by 1Worldwatcher is like that. it photo of "Star City" has many such mounds, and other raised features. When I go to the darker screen, and get the changes with the craters, and etc., to me, what is there does look more natural - more like could be some type of possible city. Of course, I am not much of a Moon person yet, so what do I know?
Just wondering! ;D
Thanks for the reply Rdunk, it's appreciated.
As far as changing the color of my monitor screen, no that doesn't help me. Here's what I do.
I first try to get the original file. Usually people copy stuff off of a website and try to look at it, but the resolution is usually crappy and probably at 70 dpi. Or they've copied it and then hi-lighted areas they think they see and then re-save it and that adds to the problem.
Once I get an original file I load it in a software package called "Zoner photo studio". It a free photo managing package that also has a real good editor with all kinds of different effects. It's free just google it.
If I'm lucky, the photo might be 300 dpi. I usually bump up the dpi to 1200 or 1500 depending on the effect. I'm looking for that Goldilocks area where the pixels are not to messed up.
I also sharpen up the resolution a little but not too much. Again the Goldilocks effect.
I then adjust the photo with a Gradient Map effect to lighten or darken the photo..just depends on the photo.
I then scan the photo looking for areas of interest. I also rotate the photo every 90 deg or so and look at the photo from a different perspective. Nasa and others have intentionally, I think, released photos upside down or reversed just to throw you off.
And that's it...that's all the modifications I do. The rest is painstakingly scanning and re-scanning a photo...Sometimes I'll take some time off and come back and look at it with a fresh set of eyes...
Peace
8)
Hey Sgt. thanks for the info! I now what you are doing takes a lot of work and your time. I did use the wrong term in my prior comments re: black to white screen. I should have asked about whether you ever looked at the photos with a "negative display screen"., as that does change some of what can sometimes be seen in a photo. But, you said you didn't change the screen anyway, so fine!
Look forward to seeing more of your findings!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4lKdOYsE_0
Quote from: johnlear on May 06, 2012, 05:57:26 PM
Wow! John, another masterpiece. Its amazing how you find so many artifacts!
Can you please highlight the 'refinery' outlined in yellow?
Again, FANTASTIC!!!!
(http://imageshack.us/a/img99/7842/learfinal5refinery.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-05-06
John can you give me the file name of this photo or is it one you already sent me?
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 09, 2012, 12:28:53 PM
John can you give me the file name of this photo or is it one you already sent me?
Thats the one I sent you and that you have been working with. It is V-13H.
Lolol sorry John I thought it looked familar.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 10, 2012, 02:21:10 AM
Lolol sorry John I thought it looked familar.
Remember?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img13/7649/rockyrefinery.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-05-09
Rocky, did you work with these other 2?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img11/2175/rocky2nearrefinery.jpg)
By johnlear (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/johnlear) at 2012-05-09
John, I've worked on 111-85M, 111-123H, V-13H.
I haven't worked on LO-Page 26, LO-Page21 & V-124M...
I'll get back to work on V13H in the areas you pointed out..
Hope I can do it justice...
OK. I meant the other 2 yellow circles on V-13.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 10, 2012, 03:04:29 AM
John, I've worked on 111-85M, 111-123H, V-13H.
I haven't worked on LO-Page 26, LO-Page21 & V-124M...
I'll get back to work on V13H in the areas you pointed out..
Hope I can do it justice...
;D John we seem to be having a a hard time communicating....of course you meant the 2 yellow circles....I knew that... ::) Lololol...
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 11, 2012, 12:17:35 PM
;D John we seem to be having a a hard time communicating....of course you meant the 2 yellow circles....I knew that... ::) Lololol...
Its my fault. I am not reading your messages carefully.
Since there are so many items to look at in this photo (provided by John). I've decided to explore small portions and outline the items I see. This is part one of a series I plan on doing. In this part I see an Arch and some other very interesting structures and an area that I believe has been air brushed out to hide something of interest. Anyway, enjoy and comments are always welcomed..
Peace 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAuGqs4ifiM
Here are a few more Sgt. of the Apollo missions. Pay very close attention to the anomoly located at the upper left hand of the shot, don't know what it is, but it seems too be a physical object. (This pertains to the first picture posted.)
APOLLO201520AS2015-91-124031
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/normal_APOLLO201520AS2015-91-124031.jpg)
APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119831
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/normal_APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119831.jpg)
APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119801
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/normal_APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119801.jpg)
Very clear photo's, the Apollo 20 mission is highly debated, but Zorgon and Mr. Lear and I have pretty much concluded that the mission didn't happen.
Thanks for all the great insight and excellent rendering's Sgt. hope to hear from or about these photo's soon, very detailed, just not the 1200-1500dpi I was hoping for...lol
1Worldwatcher
The activity in here has really came to a Halt. I was wondering if thing's are all right with everyone associated with this thread, or is there some kind of issues with our member's preventing further posts of picture's and information?
Sgt., John and the rest "Are you still here?" :o
As far as preventing posts of images goes, I haven't experienced any of that and I don't think it would happen here. As far as activity coming to a halt, I can't speak for anyone else but I'm at work at 6:00 am CST which means I'm up at 4:30. I then drive 1/2 an hour through New Orleans traffic to make it to the SPR. I then sit at my computer for 10 hours creating 3d models and managing/checking drawings for the SPR. I then drive home, see my wife for a couple hours before she goes to work the night shift at the local hospital. If I have time after that to search/download/view/create/question Moon Anomaly photos, then I do. But Hey! sometimes I'm just too damn tired. :o ;)
(plus I have a lot of crawfish boils to attend) ;D
Yes I wish there were more people looking at/questioning and posting here in this thread. But there are other interest people have such as Foo Fighter Tech, or whatever....
I will say this, on this forum I've expericened more tech info and generally interesting info than anywhere else on the net...AND THE PEOPLE ARE JUST SO DAMN NICE..... ;D
I will be posting a short video on the 'Alien Spaceship from the Apollo 20 (?) mission....
As you will see, I downloaded the best possible image of 'the spaceship' in photo AS15-P-9625 & 9630. I then found a full size high resolution of the same photos from the LRO.... one is 3 mb the other is 275 mb..... I believe after checking the pixel ratio on both photos, that the spaceship is faked on the 3 mb photo...too many smaller pixels in boxed patterns for my liking and you only get that if the photo has been altered. IMHO ::) Plus all the photos of the spaceship that you find, have been cut/cropped/repasted and never an original. They give you just enough to make it seem like there's something there. One other thing, the topography of the spaceship photo is very rocky and rough. But the other is not. They're suppose to be from the same source?...I don't think so....
Anyway that's it....I'll post the video later this morning...(I'm off on every other Friday)..(WHOO HOOO)...
PEACE... 8)
As promised..Again this is just my opinion
Peace.. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY8jumjHH94
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 18, 2012, 03:43:12 PM
As promised..Again this is just my opinion
Peace.. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY8jumjHH94
Not sure but I think there is something wrong with the video!! I am going to try the link.
Don't know, it works for me. :o
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 18, 2012, 01:29:04 PM
As you will see, I downloaded the best possible image of 'the spaceship' in photo AS15-P-9625 & 9630. I then found a full size high resolution of the same photos from the LRO.... one is 3 mb the other is 275 mb.....
The image named AS15-P-9625_CENTER_LRG.png (found here (http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/data/pancam/AS15/png)) has twice the resolution of that 275 mb image. :)
As for the difference between the two images you show on the video, it's easy to make the photo look different. Using photo AS15-P-9625_FULL_LRG, I chose the area below. As you say in the video, the terrain looks smooth.
(http://i.imgur.com/RM8oevZ.png)
Some levels tweaking in Gimp...
(http://i.imgur.com/jNA7zTQ.png)
... and we end up with rought terrain.
(http://i.imgur.com/9Jurcm3.png)
And no, it doesn't look like a spaceship to me.
PS: here is a list of photos that show that "spaceship"
AS08-13-2256
AS08-14-2446
AS15-M-1037
AS15-M-1038
AS15-M-1039
AS15-M-1040
AS15-M-1041
AS15-M-1333
AS15-M-1334
AS15-M-1335
AS15-M-1336
AS15-M-1337
AS15-M-1338
AS15-M-1579
AS15-M-1580
AS15-M-1581
AS15-M-1582
AS15-M-1583
AS15-M-1720
AS15-M-1721
AS15-M-1722
AS15-M-1723
AS15-M-1724
AS15-P-9625
AS15-P-9630
AS15-P-9632
AS17-P-2806
AS17-139-21284
AS17-M-2170
AS17-M-2171
AS17-M-2172
AS17-M-2805
AS17-M-2806
AS17-M-2807
AS17-M-2808
PPS: the video works. :)
Yes there are better resolution files than the 275 mb one i used. The one you quoted is over 500 mb and i found it difficult to maneuver around so i used the smaller one. Any photo can be manipulated. That was my point! The one with the spaceship, IMO, has. The other was not.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on May 18, 2012, 01:29:04 PM
Yes I wish there were more people looking at/questioning and posting here in this thread. But there are other interest people have such as Foo Fighter Tech, or whatever....
Hello Sarge, I just got to this thread, so many to read to catch up. I see above what might be a request for others to help out. ( we are working on Foo fighters on another thread ) I just finished reading all 19 pages and what a read that was. I am not sure if the Deuem program can shed any light so I will try it several times and not post till I am sure. I grabbed about 10 shots John posted. What you have not seen me post is any work I also do with CAD. I am not a modeler but there are other things to figure out. Size, shape, area, angles, shadows, sun angle and so on. It takes a long time but the results can be fascinating. For instance, last year I used cad and the lunar camera lens to figure out if the Earth in the photo was the right size. That took some time. So I hope I can help. Zorgon has a nice site going here.
Deuem
Thanks for the post Deuem, it's appreciated. Nice to see someone else here with some Cad experience. The problem I find is that so many photos have been copied and manipulated in some way shape or form that's it difficult to get an accurate measurement on anything. Cad can help. But I use it as a means to illustrate what I see in the photos be it outlines of simple plines or physically modeling something. I welcome yours and and other criticisms, suggestions and or input....
Peace 8)
Sarge, just for fun, I just ran this photo below in Deuem. I am not going to post the work up, just the ideas. Similar to when you guys read photos, I try to read deuem. When I ran it, there were sections that pooped out to me. They would not to anyone else. I have circled the areas in green. If any one can do their thing on those areas and let me know if I am am just seeing things or truly seeing things it would help. The little round crater on the left bothered me the most and two of the other circled areas seemed to have been brushed. So this is my first test, I hope I pass. If not back to the cad.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Moontry1.jpg)
Till later,
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on May 20, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
Sarge, just for fun, I just ran this photo below in Deuem. I am not going to post the work up, just the ideas. Similar to when you guys read photos, I try to read deuem. When I ran it, there were sections that pooped out to me. They would not to anyone else. I have circled the areas in green. If any one can do their thing on those areas and let me know if I am am just seeing things or truly seeing things it would help. The little round crater on the left bothered me the most and two of the other circled areas seemed to have been brushed. So this is my first test, I hope I pass. If not back to the cad.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Moontry1.jpg)
Till later,
Deuem
No your not seeing things. There are all kinds of stuff going on here. John sent me some pretty good photos of this and I've started to work on it but got pulled away on something else.
here:
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/jtf.jpg)
and here:
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/jtf1.jpg)
Ok Sarge, but so far the area you have is not the same as the area I circled. Maybe it is best If you finish what you see and then circle the photo with your areas and I will run it again and see what I missed. This is not easy with such a large B&W photo. If there is anyway I could figure it out I could pin point everything in one pass. But don't hold your breath. It might mean Deuem 5 or call it Deuem Moon or B&W. Hey, you try, I try. We both try.
Deuem
Hello everyone.
Deuem,
Have you ever used your method with video? I am not sure how that would work, but there seems to be some very strange video's of anomalies on the moon as well.
Though I do not fully understand what I am looking at or looking for with your technique, I think it would be pertinent to ask you if you can perform this technique with video for furthering our thread here.
I am asking you the same thing Sgt. If it is possible, what steps can we do as contributors to get the evident shots to to bring to the table for discussion, or can we do this at all with current set up of CAD applications?
Just a pondering thought guy's and gals....
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: deuem on May 20, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
Ok Sarge, but so far the area you have is not the same as the area I circled. Maybe it is best If you finish what you see and then circle the photo with your areas and I will run it again and see what I missed. This is not easy with such a large B&W photo. If there is anyway I could figure it out I could pin point everything in one pass. But don't hold your breath. It might mean Deuem 5 or call it Deuem Moon or B&W. Hey, you try, I try. We both try.
Deuem
It's from the same photo. I just showed you the area I was working on. The circled areas you posted are below what I posted. John pointed the area out to me to take a look because he saw something there. I plan on moving down to the areas you circled later....
Good hunting...
to 1Worldwatcher
I have no expertise in video editing and I believe that's whats needed in what you're talking about.
I just draw what I 'think' :o I see... ;D
PEACE 8)
@1watcher, My problem with video is that every frame when processed is over 80mb. Now times that by 30 for a second then 60 for a minute. As you see it gets very large very fast. The only thing I have been able to do is to caputre a frame or frames out of a video, maybe every 10 seconds, Work them and then gif them. I have also done more frames but it takes about 100 hours to do even the shortest videos. I have 1 now on UT for Bill UFO. That vid took my life for a week+. If I lowered the quality for the work it would be better for Size problem but the same time for me. Until tech or money catches up with me I am stuck with doing one frame at a time. Hence my signature! The only thing I thought I could help with here, is spotting. If Sarge can circle the areas of interest maybe, just maybe I can re-write a new version that goes after those areas. If that worked, it would narrow things down a bit. If it does not work I just lose time in trying. But that is why we are all here, No?
You might have seen another vid I did on the girls helmet. The entire section where it looks like a movie or looks like slow motion is not video. It is frame by frame in power point set to run at a certain rate. That we can do. I do a lot of frame work in CAD and I have to talk with Sarge to see if he is doing it the same way. It would be easy for us to generate frame grab movies using CAD, just add time. I think, I push powerpoint to its limits sometimes. Every video I have ever done is PPT is then converted to AVI or Flash.
Let me sum that up. It is very possible to frame grab accurately every frame from a video. Work with it. Align it, stabilize it, color it, size it, rotate it, and skew it, what ever you want on a frame. When done Save it as a photo, then put it in ppt as an album and set the speed accordingly. Add forward and rear presentation work. When done convert to AVI. The frame count is the question.
This process took me months to figure out but I am willing to share it with you guys if you want to try it. You have to expect a lot of work so be prepared. One of the things I pride myself on is the ability to make pin point gifs. Locking a point to within a mm or so. Most people just gif some photos and they bounce all around. I lock them down in cad first. Sarge should love this.
John, sorry if I went off topic a little. If Sarge or Wathcher want to do this I will lay it out in my standards thread. Ask there or PM. I have never seen this done on other sites. I am sure someone does it but if adds even a little it is worth it.
Deuem
Thanks so much deuem and Sgt. I was just curious and didn't want to post artifacts and other thing's that would just take up space in this thread.
And it does seem as though there is quite a bit of foot work involved with the method you use. I wouldn't know how too begin doing it myself, I am somewhat computer illiterate when it comes to the really technical thing's. The only system I have to manipulate is my Paint studio. I contracted a nasty virus a few weeks ago and all sound cards and editing areas are fried. $ $ $ is all I can expand on with that issue.
But, back to the task at hand.
Sorry to side track as well John, just a few questions that needed answer's for.. ;)
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on May 16, 2012, 05:32:36 PM
Very clear photo's, the Apollo 20 mission is highly debated, but Zorgon and Mr. Lear and I have pretty much concluded that the mission did happen.
1Worldwatcher
CORRECTION: I, JohnLear, do not believe that any Apollo mission happened. Especially Apollo 20 with the fake spaceship near Tsiolkovsky.
Quote from: johnlear on May 21, 2012, 12:16:17 PM
CORRECTION: I, JohnLear, do not believe that any Apollo mission happened. Especially Apollo 20 with the fake spaceship near Tsiolkovsky.
I would like to ask a question, but first I would like to make a statement so you know what I think also.
I feel very comfortable in saying that indeed the Saturn 5 rockets blasted of from the cape. Millions saw this happen. Once that ship gets out of eye sight anything can happen and we are now left to the PTB to inform us. At that time back in the 60ties a lot of eyes were on this event including Russia and China. So every inch past loss of sight was being tracked by others. One can even question if anyone was inside. So faith tells me what I think and what should be possible. Technically I see no reason why they could not have made the trip to the moon, stayed there for a few days and then came home, Even no problem with the LM doing its pull out and turn around. Rather they actually went to the surface, I can not prove 100%. This is something one either believes or shrugs off.
So my question would be, if you do not believe that any Apollo mission happened, is there any position along the way you would agree with or did they send up an empty Saturn 5 and drop the Apollo re-entry ship from high altitude for splash down.
Thank you,
Deuem
Quote from: johnlear on May 21, 2012, 12:16:17 PM
CORRECTION: I, JohnLear, do not believe that any Apollo mission happened. Especially Apollo 20 with the fake spaceship near Tsiolkovsky.
Sorry John, didn't realize that I said "That it did happen" meant "that it didn't happen"
Please accept my appologies and I will cut that out right now sir. Fixing the problem righ tnow......Sorry guy's, my bad.
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on May 16, 2012, 05:32:36 PM
Here are a few more Sgt. of the Apollo missions. Pay very close attention to the anomoly located at the upper left hand of the shot, don't know what it is, but it seems too be a physical object. (This pertains to the first picture posted.)
APOLLO201520AS2015-91-124031
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/normal_APOLLO201520AS2015-91-124031.jpg)
APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119831
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/normal_APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119831.jpg)
APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119801
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/normal_APOLLO201520AS2015-88-119801.jpg)
Very clear photo's, the Apollo 20 mission is highly debated, but Zorgon and Mr. Lear and I have pretty much concluded that the mission didn't happen.
Thanks for all the great insight and excellent rendering's Sgt. hope to hear from or about these photo's soon, very detailed, just not the 1200-1500dpi I was hoping for...lol
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on May 06, 2012, 11:32:32 PM
This next one is of a supposed "Star City" it does not have the actual lunar location associated with it, but I am sure John has ran across it a few times.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/star_city_lg.jpg)
I was looking through this thread when I saw this, so I don't know if anyone already posted it.
There's no lunar location associated with it because it's on Mars, as you can see here (http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=29.295980&lon=70.570678&zoom=8).
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on May 22, 2012, 05:56:57 AM
Are those supposed to be from Apollo 20? They are all Apollo 15 photos.
Or did I miss something. :D
QuoteQuote from: ArMaP on May 23, 2012, 12:15:14 AM
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on May 22, 2012, 05:56:57 AM
QuoteAre those supposed to be from Apollo 20? They are all Apollo 15 photos.
Or did I miss something. :D
I am sorry ArMap, I had a PC crash sometime ago and lost info on the pics, they were saved to photobucket account, but that is all the info I have, I think my folders were corrupted somehow, this could be on Mars, or Mercury photos, I am not sure, being's we don't have a 'Modify' button on this thread, I couldn't remove it. Sorry guy's, PC is running good now, got everything fixed, except these definite mistakes I seem to have acquired via my info and pics that I had posted.
You were right to question ArMap, and yes, may be Mars, or Mercury, not sure. Intersting pic though. Sorry for the confusion guy's.
As you can see , I haven't poste danything for a while, I am unsure of anything I have, with no topography locations, my posts would be moot and confusing.
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: deuem on May 21, 2012, 12:52:30 PM
I would like to ask a question, but first I would like to make a statement so you know what I think also.
I feel very comfortable in saying that indeed the Saturn 5 rockets blasted of from the cape. Millions saw this happen. Once that ship gets out of eye sight anything can happen and we are now left to the PTB to inform us..
Thank you,
Deuem
Hello Deuem,
It may have looked like a Saturn 5. But it wasn't. They never got the Saturn 5 to work properly. So what they did is disguise what they could get to work as a Saturn 5. To check this out you can look at any of the films of the takeoff and you will see that a second stage never fires. They always clip the film just before when the 2nd stage had fired they could have shown it. This is confirmed by a Russian scientest who searched all films for a second stage firing.
Its the same hoax as 911 where alleged planes were seen 'by thousands' crashing into the WTC. Out of the 53 videos there were several different angles which showed 5 or 6 different trajectories. It was video fakery or video fakery combined with holograms.
No Apollo mission went to the moon mainly because the gravity whichh is .7 of Earths gravity. That is proven by the Newton/Bulialdus Law of Inverse Square which, even using the sun as a third body, equates the moon gravity at .68% at the exact time the alleged Apollo 11 would have landed on June 20, 1969.
The Russian scientest says he has good evidence that rocket landed in the Indian ocean and was recovered by the Russians.
Not to mention the fact that once inside the lunar lander they allegedly opened the door to throw their boots out to save weight. They would, of course, lost all pressurization and suffocated.
Nope. No landing.
Quote from: johnlear on May 25, 2012, 10:05:42 PM
Not to mention the fact that once inside the lunar lander they allegedly opened the door to throw their boots out to save weight.
Is that a fact or just alleged?
I know I never heard of it before.
Quote from: johnlear on May 25, 2012, 10:05:42 PM
Hello Deuem,
It may have looked like a Saturn 5. But it wasn't. They never got the Saturn 5 to work properly. So what they did is disguise what they could get to work as a Saturn 5. To check this out you can look at any of the films of the takeoff and you will see that a second stage never fires. They always clip the film just before when the 2nd stage had fired they could have shown it. This is confirmed by a Russian scientest who searched all films for a second stage firing.
Its the same hoax as 911 where alleged planes were seen 'by thousands' crashing into the WTC. Out of the 53 videos there were several different angles which showed 5 or 6 different trajectories. It was video fakery or video fakery combined with holograms.
No Apollo mission went to the moon mainly because the gravity whichh is .7 of Earths gravity. That is proven by the Newton/Bulialdus Law of Inverse Square which, even using the sun as a third body, equates the moon gravity at .68% at the exact time the alleged Apollo 11 would have landed on June 20, 1969.
The Russian scientest says he has good evidence that rocket landed in the Indian ocean and was recovered by the Russians.
Not to mention the fact that once inside the lunar lander they allegedly opened the door to throw their boots out to save weight. They would, of course, lost all pressurization and suffocated.
Nope. No landing.
Thank you for the response. I will have to go back and view the lift offs where possible. I have never looked into this. I know a lot of people had a problem with the center engine. Too much yellow flame, said to be from Kerosene burning.
If I follow what you wrote, would you then say that every Apollo Command module orbit shot of the moon is what? Are they from other missions, unmanned or just plain out right forged?
John, can you please go a little deeper on the gravity. The difference should change all flight plans, orbit distance, return command module engines and the LEM engines any thing else. For now can we pass on the landed moon photos and film and keep the discussion in space. It one doesn't work, the other doesn't work either. Is that OK?
I had never heard about the boots either, that's a funny story. That would be almost instant death.
I also do Cad math work but different than Sarge. I go after the tech side. How do things match up? One photo vs another. Size, shape and objects out of place. As I see something I will try it. Until then I would like to get used to this great site Zorgon has going.
Thanks, Deuem
Quote from: deuem on May 26, 2012, 12:08:49 PM
John, can you please go a little deeper on the gravity.
Yes, I know I'm not John.... 8)
There is already some information on the forum regarding this.
Quote from: zorgon on September 24, 2011, 08:57:17 PM
Another puzzle in the mystery of the Moon is the so-called "neutral point". The neutral point is that point in space, between the earth and the moon where the pull of the earth's gravity is exactly equal to the gravity of the earth is equal pull of the moon's gravity, hence 'neutral point'. Mainstream science, up until a few years ago maintained that the neutral point was 24,000 miles from the moon and that, according to the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square which states:
- "Any physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
The gravity on the moon would be one sixth that of earths.But there are a few problems with that 24,000 miles figure.
- "At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)
This is Eugene Cernan's book "The Last Man On The Moon" written with Don Davis. Copyright 1999 Eugene Cernan and Don Davis. St. Martin's Griffin, New York. ISBN 0-312-19906-6 (hc) ISBN 0-312-26351-1 (pbk) LOCC TL789.8.U6A52435 1999 629.45"0092-dc21{b}:
(Inbound to the Moon) "It was Saturday December 9 and we were in the moons firm hold only about 38,000 miles out and drawing closer by the moment."
This is Michael Collins' book, "Carrying the Fire An Astronaut's Journeys" Copyright 1974 by Michael Collins. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York LOCCC TL789.85.C64A33 629.4'092'4 {B} 74-7211:
(Outbound from the Moon) "Houston reports the instant at which we leave the lunar sphere of influence. This means that despite the fact we are only 34,000 nautical miles (39,000 statue miles) from the moon and still 174,000 miles from earth, the earth's pull has become dominant, and the mathematical equations now recognize that fact."
Reginald Turnhill "The Moonlandings" Copyright Reginald Turnhill 2003. Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521815959.
(Inbound to the Moon)"Soon after that a new stage in manned spaceflight was reached. Like a ball thrown upwards, the spacecraft had been gradually slowing down, until its velocity was 2724 mph and its position was 202,825 miles from Earth, and 38,900 miles from the Moon. For the first time, men had reached a point where the pull of Earth's gravity was less than that of another body. Now the pull of lunar gravity was greater and the craft's speed began to increase again as it fell towards the moon." Reginald Turnhill "The Moonlandings" Copyright Reginald Turnhill 2003.
No matter how many flip flopping, flap jacking Earth Moon sun 'spheres of influence' paradigm shifting 'non-rotating (or rotating) frames of reference' you throw into the mix the fact is at some point the Apollo spacecraft left the dominant pull of earths gravity and was in the dominant pull of the moon's gravity or left the dominant pull of the moon's gravity and was in the dominant pull of the earth's gravity. That point is the neutral point and that point is approximately 43,495 miles.
And that point using the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square to calculate the 'relative' pull of the earth to the relative pull of the moon is, using earth as '1' is .64 for the moon.
That means that the relative gravity on the moon is .64 of earth's gravity. That is approximately 2/3 of earth's gravity. Now you can talk, sing, dance, play pinochle, play charades, stand on your head, spout nonsense like:
all you want but the moons gravity is at least 64% of earth's gravity.
Von Braun gave us 43,495 miles; Collins gives us "firm hold only about 38,000 miles out"; Cernan gives us "39,000 miles from the moon out"; Turnhill gives us "38,900 miles from the moon". Now it can't get much clearer than that. Let's look at the possibility, however far fetched it may seem and suppose that some incredibly advanced civilization wanted to monitor earth and its start up mankind, the dawn of civilization on Earth.
Continued...
SOURCE: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=64.msg687#msg687
Sorry to jump in there John but there is no need to repeat ourselves.
So, what's the distance between Earth and the Moon?
All of those distances from Earth to some point and from that point to the Moon result in different totals.
The distance between three objects can change a lot, while the distance between two of those remains constant.
I checked as many of the Apollo Saturn 5 launch videos I could and almost all of them cut out right before the second stage fired. I was able to find one that might show it. It is called "As You Remember It: The Lift-Off of APOLLO 11" I found it on Youtube. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OI)
When watching it you will notice at 8min 32sec there is an edit frame to the ground and spectators. So the continuity is lost. When it returns to the separation staging it is very difficult to see if it is the same exact rocket. I would have liked to see this uninterrupted if possible. It leaves me wondering if that was done on purpose or they changes video feeds. If someone could locate the master footage of this film without the insert it should be worth talking about.
I made a simple gif of the insert and a few frames of the separation afterwards. Is the video a slight of hand switch to some other 2 or 3 stage rockets or the real thing?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Apollo11Sat5SSSep.gif)
*****************
On the L-1 point and gravity issue. In the above post added by Pimander from zorgon, there are a lot of starting points from the Moon out and the Earth in. None of them add up to the same number in distance. I can find difference of as much as 39,000 miles. What distance was used to calculate the 0.64 for the moon?
I did some Cad set up work like I would start to draw up a new project. I used Earth @ 7,926 miles dia. Moon @ 2,160 miles dia. and a distance of 250,000 miles center to center. If I was going to fly a figure 8 around them I would calculate the cross point by using the Moon/Earth tangents against where they cross the straight line to each other. That point worked out to 53,540 miles. If one took a string around the earth to the moon in a figure 8, that would be where the string crosses. What would the inversion square number be there? Even higher I would think....
Using the same tech, Earth to the Sun was 844,404 miles. Is that the Earth Sun point?
If none of this is worth while, sorry for wasting your time....
Deuem
Ok back to 'Farside Buildings'...This is my last look at V13H...Time to move on with other things...
There are so many interesting items to look at on this photo, but nothing that says 'hey yeah there it is'...
I think the 'arch' in the middle was really interesting and I think there were a lot of things going on around there...
Once again, All Thanks to John.....
Peace 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtXCcGAQAk
There is a lot of things to digest with this area Sgt.. I don't know how you can stay on it with such constitution without being a bit overwhelmed!! LOL
There was one thing that I caught, seems as if you were pointing this out as well with your cursor, might have been just passing over it with the cursor, bu tit seems as if you paused there for a moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtXCcGAQAk
Ther rectangular object does seem to be a lighted area, it could be an out cropping of stone, but the shadow does not really show well for this assumption.
As you post your video finds and assesment Sgt. , "Is it possible too get your interpretations of what you are seeing first hand and why you find these particualr places of higher interests?" Know you have a lot of research a head of you, but to have your vocal input would help to understand everything you are finding that is of interest.
Thought I had stopped the video in freeze at the proper time, but the time thing didn't work, it is at the 1:16 time line of your video, it is the retangular 'Lighted' area in the center right of the screen. very intrigueing. You put your cusor right on top of it.
Great work as Usual Sgt., very nicely done.
1Worldwatcher
Thanks for the comments 1WW... your observation about me explaining what I'm seeing and why I find it interesting is noted... Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't...(mainly when I play it back I sound very, well, weird.).. :o
Most of V13H are just interesting formations, that may or may not be of intelligent design.
What really jumps out at me are rectangular shapes, one on top of another. Curved items such as the one you pointed out on top of the rectangle. If I see something that appears to be circular in nature, I zoom in on it and look at the pixels to see the different shades of gray. If they end abruptly with no fading to it, I conclude that it's not a physical shape..(don't know if I'm explaining myself very well)..
I'm always interested in what I call these flat plateaus that appear to be shaved off in the middle of some very rocky formations. They appear out of the blue and they usually have one or more interesting angular formations on top. I'm no expert, but I don't think there's much liquid or wind erosion on the moon...
I also look for what I call ramps, that seem to connect one area to another. They're continuous and can and usually do run down to another plateau.
I also look for the typical spaceship, flying saucer, and the usual moon man taking his daily stroll...other than that. that's about it. ;D
Anyway I'll try to be more descriptive in the next video...
Peace
8)
Quote from: deuem on May 26, 2012, 12:08:49 PM
John, can you please go a little deeper on the gravity. The difference should change all flight plans, orbit distance, return command module engines and the LEM engines any thing else. For now can we pass on the landed moon photos and film and keep the discussion in space. It one doesn't work, the other doesn't work either. Is that OK?
I had never heard about the boots either, that's a funny story. That would be almost instant death.
Here is the math for the moons gravity at the exact time Apollo was alleged to have landed.
[/<a href="http://img848.imageshack.us/i/moongravitywithsun1.jpg/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/277/moongravitywithsun1.jpg" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" border="0"/></a>
(http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/277/moongravitywithsun1.jpg) (http://img848.imageshack.us/i/moongravitywithsun1.jpg/)
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/277/moongravitywithsun1.jpg
John, Thank you very much for your time and effort. It will take some time to go over this math. I have to shake out a lot of cobwebs first. Deuem
The only problem with those calculations is that they are based on the assumption that they were in straight line between the Earth and the Moon.
Quote from: ArMaP on May 31, 2012, 01:56:40 PM
The only problem with those calculations is that they are based on the assumption that they were in straight line between the Earth and the Moon.
Who/what do say they assume were in a straight line? Do you mean the N point? Or the Sun, Moon and Earth?
Quote from: Pimander on May 31, 2012, 03:50:09 PM
Who/what do say they assume were in a straight line? Do you mean the N point? Or the Sun, Moon and Earth?
I mean the neutral point, as the text says "Subtracting the NM distance, we get the EN distance of 325,364,060.1 m".
Doesn't that mean that they (whoever they were) that they used the distance between the Earth and the Moon in a straight line? For what we know, the angle between the Moon, Apollo 11 and the Earth could have anything, as there is always a neutral point if we have the Earth on one side and the Moon on the other, even if they are not all three in a straight line.
Wouldn't that change all the values?
Quote from: ArMaP on June 01, 2012, 12:08:12 AM
Doesn't that mean that they (whoever they were) that they used the distance between the Earth and the Moon in a straight line? For what we know, the angle between the Moon, Apollo 11 and the Earth could have anything, as there is always a neutral point if we have the Earth on one side and the Moon on the other, even if they are not all three in a straight line.
Wouldn't that change all the values?
They?
Pari Spolter was born in Tehran, Iran. She did her undergraduate work at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and received her Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Dr. Spolter's numerous research articles have been published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Biochemica et Biophisica Acta and other periodicals. She is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a member of the American Mathematical Society.
Dr. Spolter wrote and published "The Gravitational Force of the Sun" in 1993 (Orb Publishing, Grenada Hills, CA.)
As Apollo 11 made only one mid course correction of 3 seconds from 16:16:58 to 16:17:01, July 17, 1969, it couldn't have been much of an angle and certainly not enough to have added any appreciable distance.
And change all the values?
Whether or not Apollo 11 flew the course upside down and backwards the neutral point and gravity of the moon is not going to change.
I think I will invite Dr. Spolter to join us and clear up some of your misconceptions you borrowed from Jim Oberg.
Quote from: johnlear on June 01, 2012, 07:47:33 AM
I think I will invite Dr. Spolter to join us and clear up some of your misconceptions you borrowed from Jim Oberg.
Mu misconceptions are my own, I don't need to borrow them from someone else. :D
Quote from: ArMaP on May 31, 2012, 01:56:40 PM
The only problem with those calculations is that they are based on the assumption that they were in straight line between the Earth and the Moon.
Hi Armap, I really think TLM should move this topic to a new thread and one of the mods can paste the moon gravity posts there, pg 20 to 21, maybe "Math for the moons gravity" We are un-intentionally derailing Johns nice thread on Far side buildings because of another great topic. I feel sure that Mr. Lear and others would join in again. Deuem
Thank you...lolololol
I'm really interested in the Moon and what may or may not be up there. I'm not one to visit too many other topics because they really hold no interest for me. It would be nice to have one place to look at, discuss, analyze moon structures/facilities and such. The main topic is 'Anomalies on the Moon'. Maybe one of the mods can rearrange things to allow for a better experience for fools like me... ::) :P
If I'm over stepping my bounds please forgive me...
I really love this place... 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 01, 2012, 03:00:23 PM
Thank you...lolololol
I'm really interested in the Moon and what may or may not be up there. I'm not one to visit too many other topics because they really hold no interest for me. It would be nice to have one place to look at, discuss, analyze moon structures/facilities and such. The main topic is 'Anomalies on the Moon'. Maybe one of the mods can rearrange things to allow for a better experience for fools like me... ::) :P
If I'm over stepping my bounds please forgive me...
I really love this place... 8)
Rocky, does that mean you are in agreement with Deuem. Whatever you folks want we can get it done today.
To all: when you get a dedicated professional to do the math on the gravity of the moon then its very likely that the equations are correct.
ArMap,
I can't figure out what you have against the moons gravity being .7% that of earths. That would explain all of the hoaxed photos that NAZA has presented us. It would explain Firsofs and Pickerings observations. It would vindicate Hansson and nail Admiral Newcomb to the cross.
Your argument that they flew a curved fight path is straight from Jim Oberg and is total nonsense. And you did get that from Oberg.
Why can't we allow he truth to seep in? There is a breathable atmosphere on the moon and there are likely 1.5 to 2.0 billion people up there and that is just on the surface.
Have you got something against moon people? Who do you think lives in all those structures up there? Who do you think is doing all that mining? Have you read Howard Mengers book "From Outer Space" about his trip to the moon? Why was Menger then a special consultant to the Pentagon?
Every planet and moon in our solar system has a civilization on it. There are 40 planets in our solar system. The universe is infinite. Both of Einsteins theories, general and special have been debunked. Newton's law of gravitation has been debunked.
Do you do any reading besides punching a keyboard and watching a screen? You do know that the web is purely a disinformation source?
Come on ArMap. Pull your socks up ,lad.
In a sense, the Gravitational variables are of this exact topic, what kind of construction materials that would be required, the availability of said minerals and building materials, the exact dimension's of supposed and alledged structures, etc. etc.
I too truly enjoy this thread, it allows me to contemplate exactly what is and "Can't" be out there that we do not know about, "Exactly". The one problem that seems to be the thorn of the anomalies research on the moon are that the PT B's aren't very up front with offering subjectable and untampered with evidences of such feasibility's of there being structures on our closest satellite planetoids.
If we had access too such viable and potentially earth shattering untouched photo's, or could venture the travel our selves to the surface of the Moon, we would be square in the middle of finding the absolutes of these events being nothing short of miraculous finds.
We are doing this to farther our understanding of the Moon and it's veritable inconclusive anomalies. We search by means of provided for materials and with John coming up with the photo's he has thus far, we get a peek into the realm of theunderstanding of why this topic is so vital to the posterity of our own Human existence and the possible indoctrination of there being 'Others' that have been doing what we are doing currently by way of natural resources and expanding our uses of such by having to travel too distant places too retain such vital natural resources.
I have been following John, Zorgon, Mayatayas and other s over this topic for some years now, some of theinfo too me is mundane at moment's, then there is a light that flickers and "BAM!" I see the importance of the mentioned article of discussion.
With John's insight of these anomalies and his affiliation, one can't just write these incidental structures off as sheer light anomalies or reflective anomalies cast by the Suns rays, it is more complexed and requires critical analogy.
I for one, believe there is something there, and we are looking at too many thing's that resemble what we are looking for that it becomes obvious, "They don't want us too know of these thing's" per Se.
As I would like to contribute more to the pictured area of these anomalies, I am limited by understanding of what is available. I can only access what has been brought to the table for discussion thus far, but there is "Something" too all of it. We are just waiting for the incontrovertible evidence that one needs to directly assimilate these finding's into the public eye as a "Fact" based (No pun intended) scenario that was intentionally avoided to be made public.
With all that has been brought forth, it is hard too not see the importance of these events having taken place for our consumption and deduction's of the matter at hand.
We can all agree that something is there on the moon's surface, and itlooks as if it is remnants or existing structures, adn I am all game for that proposal of the indifferent and out of the box thinking of what has been looked at this far.
1Worldwatcher
Quoteand "Can't" be out there
i don't think there's such a thing as "can't be" in this example. everytime i think, oh that's right, there's no oxygen there, or there's no atmosphere there. or it rains sulfuric acid there or methane lol, somebody proves that some lifeforms have already been shown to exist in not only extreme environments, but completely hostile environments, under the most unlikely conditions.
did you by chance follow john's moon thread on ats?
Quote from: johnlear on June 01, 2012, 03:51:23 PM
Rocky, does that mean you are in agreement with Deuem. Whatever you folks want we can get it done today.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term 'Moon Anomalies'. I was thinking it was the actual buildings/mining ops/towers and otherwise physical items. Maybe 'Moon Anomalies' means all things understood/misunderstood about the Moon.
I'm fine with the way things as they are. But if someone would like to or think it would be better to categorize topics on specific items of interest, I'm down with that too.
I'll say it over and over and over....I LOVE THIS PLACE....
Peace. 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 01, 2012, 04:52:07 PM
I'm fine with the way things as they are. But if someone would like to or think it would be better to categorize topics on specific items of interest, I'm down with that too.
This was one of two threads I was intending to tidy up and move certain posts. However, I won't touch it at the moment as there is too much going on and I don't want to confuse. It will run as it is for now.
Quote from: undo11 on June 01, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
i don't think there's such a thing as "can't be" in this example. everytime i think, oh that's right, there's no oxygen there, or there's no atmosphere there. or it rains sulfuric acid there or methane lol, somebody proves that some lifeforms have already been shown to exist in not only extreme environments, but completely hostile environments, under the most unlikely conditions.
did you by chance follow john's moon thread on ats?
"Can't be" and "Exactly" are sarcasims towards the PT B's Undo11. FYI
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on June 01, 2012, 07:07:03 PM
"Can't be" and "Exactly" are sarcasims towards the PT B's Undo11. FYI
Ahhh, okay. :)
i really like this topic. been lurking on it cause i find it interesting.
Keep in mind that there is no bigger, greater, more important secret than the fact that there is a civilization on the moon.
The U.S. Navy has known about it since the 1870's which is why Admiral Simon Newcomb went to Paris in 1870 to trash the reputation of Peter Andreas Hanson, a highly decorated Danish astronomer because Hanson, at the 1856 Astronomical Society meeting in Paris, proposed that there might be life on the moon. Since then (or before) these astronomers have agreed with him:
William Herschel
Mestrius Plutarchus
Nicolaus Copernicus
Aristarchus of Samos
John Wilkens
Hans Kepler
Peter Andreas Hansen
William Leitch
John Herschel
William Whewell
Asaph Hall
Mikhail Vasin
Alexander Shcherbakov
Johann Hieronymus Schroeter
You, as human beings, have been consistently lied to for your entire life.
I can't think of one major discovery concerning space that wasn't filtered through the MSDG
Mainstream Scientists Disinformation Group, who gave it a spin more in line with the cover story.
Zorgon put this forum together so that we can discuss things without being attacked by a mob of sock puppets throwing disinformation and pure nonsense into the mix.
There should be no doubt in anybody's mind now that the Apollo missions to the moon were HOAXED. They never went. It was a scam. And the scam was perpetrated SPECIFICALLY to reinforce the idea that the moon was just a cold, black, airless void. Thats what the mission was for.
There is no possibility that NAZA or the government will ever release any facts or information related to the civilization on the moon. No more than there will ever be a disclosure of ET's. It's a secret and they mean to keep it that way.
And oh,btb, the way that they will keep it a secret is to appeal to the common sense of the average moron who still thinks Neil Armstrong and crew went to the moon. And why are these morons so sure we went to the moon? Because they saw it on TV.
Quote from: johnlear on June 01, 2012, 03:51:23 PM
I can't figure out what you have against the moons gravity being .7% that of earths.
I have nothing against, if it can be proved.
QuoteThat would explain all of the hoaxed photos that NAZA has presented us.
What hoaxed photos? I have seen hoaxed photos but I have mostly seen photos that people say are hoaxed for some reason, with no real signs of being hoaxed.
QuoteYour argument that they flew a curved fight path is straight from Jim Oberg and is total nonsense.
I didn't say that. So, how did they got to the Moon, did they moved in straight line from the US to the Moon?
QuoteAnd you did get that from Oberg.
No.
QuoteWhy can't we allow he truth to seep in? There is a breathable atmosphere on the moon and there are likely 1.5 to 2.0 billion people up there and that is just on the surface.
I would like to see the truth, but I just don't accept anyone's word as the truth just because they say so.
Wouldn't a breathable atmosphere be visible when the Moon passes in front of the Sun?
QuoteHave you got something against moon people?
I don't have a thing against them, regardless of them being real or not.
QuoteWho do you think lives in all those structures up there?
Even if those structures exist as inhabitable structures, that doesn't mean they they are inhabited.
QuoteWho do you think is doing all that mining?
That supposed mining can be done by machines, if it's more than just imagination.
QuoteHave you read Howard Mengers book "From Outer Space" about his trip to the moon? Why was Menger then a special consultant to the Pentagon?
No, I haven't read that book.
QuoteEvery planet and moon in our solar system has a civilization on it.
No problems with that, but I would like to see some real evidence.
QuoteThere are 40 planets in our solar system.
Really? Are there real evidences of that?
QuoteThe universe is infinite.
Good for it.
QuoteBoth of Einsteins theories, general and special have been debunked. Newton's law of gravitation has been debunked.
What's the connection between that and people on the Moon, a breathable atmosphere or mining?
QuoteDo you do any reading besides punching a keyboard and watching a screen?
No, I'm just an illiterate person, I just hit the keyboard randomly and some things appear on the screen.
Do you have a reading list that you can share?
QuoteYou do know that the web is purely a disinformation source?
Yes, I know that, and I think I am seeing that. :)
QuoteCome on ArMap. Pull your socks up ,lad.
I'm barefoot at the moment, old man.
Edited to add: After rereading my post I think I may have been too harsh, sorry if I was.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 01, 2012, 10:20:17 PM
I'm barefoot at the moment, old man.
.
I can lead you to water Armap, but I can't make you think!
John it's good to see you posting here again, haven't heard from you in awhile. Hope everythings good with you. 8)
Armaps course to the moon
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1868/armapscoursetothemoon.jpg) (http://img51.imageshack.us/i/armapscoursetothemoon.jpg/)
Both of Einsteins theories, general and special have been debunked. Newton's law of gravitation has been debunked.
tsk,,tsk,,tsk,,,
actually Higgs Bosson,, confermed once again.
Wave Theory is not a theory anymore.
we can no longer think in the perspective of Linear Flight.
it would be like appliying Artillery shells too ,,gravity,,
ohh wait ya that is exactly what it is,, only on a ,,
larger scale,,
lets say water in a bucket,, first,,
and go from there.
Me.
:)
Actually when i seen Farside i thought of Jim Unger " Herman "
passed away,,,he was 72??? wow.
sorry off topic.
good stuff :)
Hello all, After reading the above I take it that the majority would like to contain the conversation here and not worry about the Far side buildings going off topic for awhile. Continue like the way we would talk to each other as if all around a table. Ideas flow out that need to be addressed. One affects the other and if the foundation is shaky so is all the rest. If there is anything I can do to help nail down some of these question, I will be sure to help out.
Deuems Step 1:
I have started a CAD file on the Moon Earth Sun relationship in full scale in Kilometers from data I have researched on the web. ( this is all I have in China ) I will add numbers to my model and work out some numbers and present them. If any of you find a wrong number please let me know and I can change it and update. Sarge should also be able to do this in his sleep so he can check any work or add some of his own.
I found a web site for history information on Apogee, Perigee, New Moon and Full Moon data.
I hope that John or Zorgon can let me know if this site is valued or trash.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html (http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html)
Attached is their chart for 1969
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/ApogeePerigeeChart1969.jpg)
There are 4 dates of interest to our discussion.
Apogee on July 13 at 406,601km
New Moon on July 14 at an unknown distance
Perigee on July 28 at 357,925km
Full Moon on July 29 at an unknown distance.
If any of the above is in question please advise me and I can change the data. This data affects everything from here in. This is another reason why I am holding the next step back.
I am attaching an excel spread sheet of the numbers I used to calculate my CAD model. ( For any readers not sure of what CAD is or does. It means Computer Aided Drawing. It is a very accurate method of making Engineering drawings within the computer. Even at full scale. If I draw a line a mile long. That line is a mile long in the computer. So everything in this model is to full scale including the 93 million miles to the Sun. )
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/1SpreadSheet.jpg)
I will give some time before printing step 2.
On the personal side of this, ( My opinion ) I have already drawn my Orbit map once and I can see that the neutral point is always shifting from minute to minute. We can actually draw in the ellipse for it once we determine and agree on the correct math.
Deuem
What are you using as your origin point? Everything has an origin point i.e. 0,0,0 which represents the X, Y, Z of any particular object. If you created a 3d model of your calculations, having an Earth model (to scale) a Moon model (to scale) what would be your origin point? The Earth, the Moon or the Sun. Or some other point? I can create an exact model of the Earth and the Moon and the Sun and put them together with the Sun as 0,0,0. Will your calculations and numbers reflect that scenario? Just for my own information.
P.S. CAD stands for Computer Aided Drafting not Drawing. There is a difference. Anyone can draw, drafting is an Art. Not everyone can draft.
Later it became CADD (Computer Aided Drafting & Design) but I prefer CAD.... ::) ;) ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on June 01, 2012, 10:20:17 PM
I didn't say that. So, how did they got to the Moon, did they moved in straight line from the US to the Moon?
Can you think of any reason why they would not take a straight path once out of Earth's orbit except when approaching lunar orbit to fine tune the trajectory? Any other path would be stupid surely?
The 4DMoon!...(this may be old news to some but I thought it was cool)..
Short video of some software I found that I think is fun and interesting to use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybMSuLQvJjg
I've installed it and it not only runs Apollo 11,12,14,15,17 Lunokhod 1 & 2, it also has the 'alien' spaceship that was discussed here previously. (you can actually move around the spacecraft in real time).
The cool thing about this software is its interactive. You can actually move to any point on the moon in real time.
Its from an Italian firm and some of the install instructions are in Italian but it's easy to install and fun as hell...
P.S. You can move around in real time in the areas that are pre-programmed..i.e. the mission I stated above. Once you get to the Apollo 11 site, you can then move around in real time...
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 02, 2012, 01:17:38 PM
What are you using as your origin point? Everything has an origin point i.e. 0,0,0 which represents the X, Y, Z of any particular object. If you created a 3d model of your calculations, having an Earth model (to scale) a Moon model (to scale) what would be your origin point? The Earth, the Moon or the Sun. Or some other point? I can create an exact model of the Earth and the Moon and the Sun and put them together with the Sun as 0,0,0. Will your calculations and numbers reflect that scenario? Just for my own information.
P.S. CAD stands for Computer Aided Drafting not Drawing. There is a difference. Anyone can draw, drafting is an Art. Not everyone can draft.
Later it became CADD (Computer Aided Drafting & Design) but I prefer CAD.... ::) ;) ;D
I am not using the 3D, just 2D for this layout. You can do 3D if you want too, that would make a nice model. I would hold off until we pass 2 sets of numbers. Then go for it! I would use the sun as 0,0,0 If you ever needed the model for anything else that starting point would be the master. I started with the sun and worked my way out. It would be easy to reset the suns center to 0,0,0 if and when I added a Z axis. For now x-y is as far as I want to get. There are a lot of numbers coming out that I think we all should agree on first otherwise there will be a lot of fix up work.
It is that left hand that makes all the mistakes. W instead of FT. Yea, it is Drafting, An oops for me! I get caught using the word drawing because then I don't have to explain what Drafting is. When I started we only had drafting boards. My first CAD program had no mouse. All text. I also prefer the word CAD. I added that note for readers who don't know what it is.
I drew the sun, went 90 degrees to the right, drew the earth at 93 million miles and so on. I used all metric. The drawing is set in kilometers. At a later point in time when needed we can calculate the Earths orbit relative to the sun and draw in the real orbit path. For this part of the problem I only added the sun so it would be in the program. As far as I see, our current problem has no affect on the math. If it does we will have to take another step, actually a lot of steps and figure out where the Earth was then in its orbit. I figured I could always group edit the Earth Moon and move it later. So at this point in time the Earth has no relation to the actual Sun orbit, just 90 degrees to the right and the average distance.
Sarge, what I am waiting for is for one of the guys/gals who know the Apogee/Perigee real well to step up and agree or toss out that web site and the numbers. On Moon numbers it seems like everyone out there has a different set. I am hoping that as a team we can all agree on every number presented or worked out. Play the cards face up as I say. So no one can say we hid anything. I hope you agree. I think you will like this. A lot of problems can be worked out with these models and shown well. Can you do simple screen shots, I use the free program called "Snap Shot" In step 2, I will post Snap Shots along the way. I hope you can do the same. If it is too much for this tread we can move it to another thread or my research thread and just put the answers here.
I also see ArMap and others going at it on the flight path. NASA illustrations screw with our minds because they do the entire flight path in one print. It happens over days.
We can add that later after this set up is done. At this point in time I would say it is a tangent to a tanget that will be there 3 days later. Never center to center. If gravity has any affect we can add those curves in. To me it looks like a straight line that plots out to a curve over 3 days to put on one paper.
Thanks for your interest, Deuem
Quote from: deuem on June 02, 2012, 02:54:04 PM
I am not using the 3D, just 2D for this layout. You can do 3D if you want too, that would make a nice model. I would hold off until we pass 2 sets of numbers. Then go for it! I would use the sun as 0,0,0 If you ever needed the model for anything else that starting point would be the master. I started with the sun and worked my way out. It would be easy to reset the suns center to 0,0,0 if and when I added a Z axis. For now x-y is as far as I want to get. There are a lot of numbers coming out that I think we all should agree on first otherwise there will be a lot of fix up work.
I was thinking since the universe is in 3d and not 2d that it would make a difference in calculations. Not that interested in flight paths... and I don't know that much about it, just curious.
Quote from: deuem on June 02, 2012, 02:54:04 PM
It is that left hand that makes all the mistakes. W instead of FT. Yea, it is Drafting, An oops for me! I get caught using the word drawing because then I don't have to explain what Drafting is. When I started we only had drafting boards. My first CAD program had no mouse. All text. I also prefer the word CAD. I added that note for readers who don't know what it is.
I wasn't trying to 'catch you' at anything. Just pointing out the difference. And yes I'm a draftsman first and formost, an original lead-spreader.
my first Cad system was all keyboard, Textronics CRT'S on the Auto-trol system. (1978),,,
Quote from: deuem on June 02, 2012, 02:54:04 PM
Sarge, what I am waiting for is for one of the guys/gals who know the Apogee/Perigee real well to step up and agree or toss out that web site and the numbers. On Moon numbers it seems like everyone out there has a different set. I am hoping that as a team we can all agree on every number presented or worked out. Play the cards face up as I say. So no one can say we hid anything. I hope you agree. I think you will like this. A lot of problems can be worked out with these models and shown well. Can you do simple screen shots, I use the free program called "Snap Shot" In step 2, I will post Snap Shots along the way. I hope you can do the same. If it is too much for this tread we can move it to another thread or my research thread and just put the answers here.
Snap Shot..huh...sounds interesting. Thanks I'll check it out...
Deuem, my interest lay in the structures/civilizations on the moon and not how we may or may not have gotten there... I enjoy reading your posts and the comments from other members...
Keep it coming...The passion for this is incredible.
Rock,,,Peace 8)
Hey Sarge, unless one of the big guns steps in and adds the Sun, I think we can do this test with just the Earth/Moon plane. If we were at New or full moon it might be worth adding. There are also a lot more variables that could come into this picture and it could get out of hand. I think we should start simple and work up.
1978, All keys also, then you are older than I thought you were. All the young kids would not know how to use CAD with out a mouse. For Readers: Yes there was a day when computers had no mice. Everything was done with key board commands. Yes, we are old! But still kicking!
I run snap on a lot of stuff including freeze frame videos I can not download. I send all the snaps to a Trash later folder on my main screen then move or trash as needed. This is very good for making reports/email with CAD clips/pictures, so I also use it for work so I don't have to email the entire drawing.
I understand your passion on the far side buildings and would never ask you to stop. This topic came up and I think it is worth a visit for us. I would like to drive this down to simplistic terms that anyone can read and understand. With John and Zorgons help, I think we can do it and put it in pictures instead of being locked up in formulas. Just an idea! Maybe at the end you can make one of you movies.
Deuem
Quote from: johnlear on June 02, 2012, 02:28:31 AM
I can lead you to water Armap, but I can't make you think!
I think that the problem is that you cannot make me think like you would like me to think.
My thoughts are my own, like yours are yours alone, although all our thoughts may be influenced by someone else's thoughts.
Quote from: johnlear on June 02, 2012, 02:43:19 AM
Armaps course to the moon
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1868/armapscoursetothemoon.jpg) (http://img51.imageshack.us/i/armapscoursetothemoon.jpg/)
Wrong again, I am not proposing any course, I was asking what was the course because I don't see it likely that they turned an orbit around the Earth into a straight line to Moon, then change it again to orbit the Moon, but apparently nobody here knows what was the real course.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 02, 2012, 01:17:38 PM
P.S. CAD stands for Computer Aided Drafting not Drawing.
I always thought that it meant Computer Aided Design. :)
At least that's what I remember from first hearing about that type of software, some 20 years or more ago.
ArMap, some place on line there is a list of the coordinates for the entire Apollo 11 flight path. I saw it once but forgot to bookmark it. You might have to drive down to it. I can not get it on a search. You could help out here and locate it, then post the link. Maybe it was minute by minute or hour by hour, I forget.
When we finish with the gravity drawings either Sarge or I could lay in the path and make a movie or gif to watch. Most likely any satellite or craft to the moon would take a very similar flight path so I bet we could use it for them all. At least as a start, then correct as needed.
Deuem, going off to home, good night all.....
Quote from: Pimander on June 02, 2012, 02:03:20 PM
Can you think of any reason why they would not take a straight path once out of Earth's orbit except when approaching lunar orbit to fine tune the trajectory? Any other path would be stupid surely?
What I am thinking is that they started by orbiting the Earth, right? From that, what would they do, a 90º turn to the Moon, or would they make more and more elliptical orbits to get to a point from where they would accelerate to move away from Earth orbit?
I am thinking about something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/a2znqel.jpg)
Was the real route something like it?
If it was, was it enough to give different results, as the position may not have been exactly between the Earth and the Moon?
How do we get the neutral point for positions out of that straight line between the Earth and the Moon? It shouldn't be difficult to get, for those that know how to do it.
PS: yes, I know, my drawing abilities are not good at all. In things like this I work better with a compass and some rulers or set squares or whatever they are called than with a computer. D
Edit: now I am proposing a route. :)
I can't get any of these videos but it seems to me from what little I understand that it only makes sense to sort of "use the inertia of the orbit to " sling" a capsule out toward the moon.... In fact wasn't that one of the main talking points for having satellites in the first place..... that it would provide that Jump out spot for efforts bound to the moon?
I will leave you guys to all of these videos. Too much input for me at once!!! Linda
Quote from: deuem on June 02, 2012, 04:29:09 PM
Hey Sarge, unless one of the big guns steps in and adds the Sun, I think we can do this test with just the Earth/Moon plane.
Thee objects are always in the same plane relative to one another (i.e. a triangle), although the may move in a third dimension relative to that plane. The moon does not rotate in the same plane as the Earth's orbit around the sun otherwise we would have an eclipse twice a month.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 02, 2012, 05:14:06 PM
What I am thinking is that they started by orbiting the Earth, right? From that, what would they do, a 90º turn to the Moon, or would they make more and more elliptical orbits to get to a point from where they would accelerate to move away from Earth orbit?
I am thinking about something like this:
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Image22.jpg)
That is pretty much what I would expect, with maybe minor adjustments when approaching orbit.
I am going to take a look at the relative gravitational effect of the Sun on Earth relative to the effect of the Moon on Earth. I suspect the third body (Sun) will have a negligible effect on the calculation so isn't especially significant when calculating the Lunar gravity. BRB
Quote from: ArMaP on June 02, 2012, 04:38:19 PM
I always thought that it meant Computer Aided Design. :)
At least that's what I remember from first hearing about that type of software, some 20 years or more ago.
When I got into the business in 1978, it was referred to as Drafting because that's what we were using it for. Major companies like McDonnell Douglas Automation Company (McAuto) were using it more for design purposes, hence the CADesign....it just was called by what you were using it for....
The link below is a pretty good history of CAD/CADAM...(I started using the Autotrol-AD380 system.) But if you read the article you'll see that CAD was around since the 50's....
http://mbinfo.mbdesign.net/CAD-History.htm
The sun and the earth
Earth: mass 5.97*10^24 kg
Radius 6,380,000 meters
Sun: mass 1.99*10^30
Radius 696,000,000
Distance Between Sun &Earth: 1.5*10^11 meters (149,668,992,000 meters)
(5.97*10^24)/1.5*10^11
=3.98*10^13
The moon and the earth
Moon: mass 7.35 *10^22 kg
Radius 1,740,000 meters
Earth: mass 5.97*10^24 kg
Radius: 6,380,000 meters
Distance between moon and earth: 384,000,000 meters
5.97*10^24/384,000,000
= 1.55*10^16
Effect Sun/Effect of Moon
(3.98*10^13)/(1.55*10^16)=0.002567742
Put another way the Moon has about 500 times the effect on Earth as the Sun does. Yes the distances between the three bodies change in a relatively small way but that would not effect the result all that much.
I suppose I really need to give this more attention. It does look as though using this method suggested by John that the Moon's gravity would be approximately 0.7 relative to Earth's. Not exactly but nowhere near the NASA figure of 0.166667. The figure is about 4.2 times that of the NASA one.
Food for thought....
F = G m M / r2
F = m a
I suppose I should add.... If the NASA figure is wrong, any Lunar missions would have shown that CLEARLY.
Quote from: johnlear on June 02, 2012, 02:43:19 AM
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1868/armapscoursetothemoon.jpg) (http://img51.imageshack.us/i/armapscoursetothemoon.jpg/)
Hmmm I dunno... I don't think any supposed Apollo flight could have got there with either of those courses :P
India claims they did it THIS way
(http://lucidthoughts.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/chandrayaan_1_orbit_400.jpg)
But still waiting for the good pictures :P
Quote from: ArMaP on June 02, 2012, 05:14:06 PM
What I am thinking is that they started by orbiting the Earth, right? From that, what would they do, a 90º turn to the Moon, or would they make more and more elliptical orbits to get to a point from where they would accelerate to move away from Earth orbit?
I am thinking about something like this:
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Image22.jpg)
Was the real route something like it?
If it was, was it enough to give different results, as the position may not have been exactly between the Earth and the Moon?
How do we get the neutral point for positions out of that straight line between the Earth and the Moon? It shouldn't be difficult to get, for those that know how to do it.
PS: yes, I know, my drawing abilities are not good at all. In things like this I work better with a compass and some rulers or set squares or whatever they are called than with a computer. D
Edit: now I am proposing a route. :)
I think if you change 2 things, you will be much closer. #1 you entered the moon on the wrong side ( if drawn looking down on the north pole ) The moons right side was facing the sun and they entered on the dark side and landed on the bright side facing Earth. #2 On leaving Earth I would project this in an up and over the pole area and out. In you photo about 1/3 to the right of center to avoid going through the worst of the belts. If you can get that data I was talking about, we can plot it like they wrote it. In your picture and every book photo it looks like they left at the equator. This was not what was printed. It is just easy to draw.
Deuem
Deuems Step 2
Some standards I used and actual screen shots from the CAD model.
The Sun, diameter used 1,392,000 km
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SunDia.jpg)
The Earth, diameter used 12,756 km
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/EarthDia.jpg)
Sun to Earth, distance used 149,668,992 km
At this point in time we need to start positioning the moons in location to a date.
Remember the New Moon was on the 14 of July, so on the Sun Earth line, on the Sun side we place the 14th.New Moon.
The Full moon was on the 29th of the month so on the back side away from the sun we place the 29th Full Moon on that same line. Both on the straight line through the Earth to the Sun. Neither of these placements mater right now because we have to wait for the elliptical orbit to be fixed, then moved to correct placements.
The Moon, diameter used 3,480 km
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/MoonDia.jpg)
If I take the amount of days between 14th New Moon and 29th Full Moon, one can calculate the distance between them in the 180 degree arc and draw in day lines and numbers. Then do the same for a few days before the 14th. When the 13th has been located, we can add in Apogee. Draw from Earths center. The Sun is to the left. Looking at the north pole.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Daylines.jpg)
Apogee Radius, distance used 203,301 km
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Apogee.jpg)
Locating the 28th on the orbit will give us the location of Perigee. Drawn from Earths center.
Perigee Radius, distance used 178,963 km
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Perigee.jpg)
Apogee to Perigee, also known as the "Apsides line", distance 382,263 km
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Apsides.jpg)
Apsides center line off set to the center of Earth, distance 12,169 km
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Apsidesoffset.jpg)
With the Apogee and perigee known, we can calculate the average and use that for the third height of the ellipse. The center of the orbit ellipse worked out at the center of the Apsides.
Then day 19.5 was calculated and the distance found. Located its position on the ellipse.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Day195Distance.jpg)
So after all of that I have a distance center to center on the 19th of July at 193,674 km
Call this "cM2cE" ( center moon to center earth )
For the distance Surface to Surface ( Ms2Es ), subtract both radius cM2cE-(Mr+Er) = 185,554 km. 193,674-(6380+1740)=185,554 km
So when they say they have reached the neutral point is it based on the center to center numbers or the surface to surface numbers? I would like to stay at center to center if we can. That way the math is relevant to a distance and not a size and distance.
It looks to me that the Neutral point is going to follow the Elliptical orbit also. It has to change from minute to minute. Also the Apsides line rotates counter clock wise at a very slow rate. One revolution in 3,232.6 days or 8.85 years. About 15 km per hour. So this model is only good for this Apogee/Perigee. The next one would change the numbers.
With this math model I get an average Moon Orbit circumference of 1,200,914 km / 28days or 672 hours. The moon is moving around 1,787 km per hour. 30 km per min and 0.5 km per second. So if you are entering orbit you are hitting a moving target moving this fast. So that moon is coming at you at over 1,000 miles an hour. Speeding ticket for sure! When we add the closing rates for a craft or satellite it adds up fast. One wrong move and you pass the moon or you splatter all over it. Just thinking out loud for a moment, I would think the return trip would be much safer. You would be shooting at a stationary target.
Please feel free to add or pick the math apart, I make mistakes too. If this post is too large a mod can move it to my research thread and I can just post the answer.
Can one of you take the distance center to center on the 19th of July at 193,674 km and work out the neutral point?
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on June 03, 2012, 06:52:37 AM
It is just easy to draw.
And that's why I did the drawing that way, it was easier and faster, and I only had to use two circles, three circumferences and one straight line. ;D
Quote from: deuem on June 03, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
For the distance Surface to Surface ( Ms2Es ), subtract both radius cM2cE-(Mr+Er) = 185,554 km. 193,674-(6380+1740)=185,554 km
So when they say they have reached the neutral point is it based on the center to center numbers or the surface to surface numbers? I would like to stay at center to center if we can. That way the math is relevant to a distance and not a size and distance.
In a case like this, should the barycentre be used instead of the centre of the Earth, as that is the real centre of gravity of the Earth/Moon system?
I don't remember where I got this gif but it is not my work. The Barycenter gif.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/barycenter.gif)
Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on June 03, 2012, 02:35:30 PM
In a case like this, should the barycentre be used instead of the centre of the Earth, as that is the real centre of gravity of the Earth/Moon system?
This definitely needs more attention. Don't forget, I know nothing. ;)
I took a look into the Barycenter and all the information on line is based on a moon Earth average with calculations provided. This wobble as they call it has also been said to be true by looking at the stars. They said it creates a 6,000 mile window for where they are.
The average Barycenter point is at 4,671 km from the center of the Earth to the moon. This puts that point inside our planet. So if you draw the earth moon at the average and put them on a seesaw this is what they call the balance point of weight.
On my work done to date. It will affect a lot of it. Most of all the Apsides line will be much shorter, by over 9,000 km and the Apsides center to the earth center will change depending on the Earths wobble for that day and the overall ellipse I drew would be smaller.
Even though all of that would change and need updating, the distance I posted for 19.5 should remain basically the same. Juts the position of it would be in further but also the Earth would be too.
If someone wants me to redraw the model with the exact bary points included I will need the bary point distances for Apogee and Perigee to make it work.
I am guessing that if you know the balance point of the 2 objects, you could give a number to Earth weight and figure out the moons weight. Then, maybe extrapolate a gravity number from this. I wonder if this is how they got the 1/6th gravity for the moon.
Deuem
Has this thread died or is there something else happening? I do see that the topic was side tracked, but there is no current information with some of the Sgt.'s reviews and no John lately, weird..
Well, hopefully we can get back to the topic at hand and get on with the "Far Side" information, I am awaiting for more input and videos Sgt., Maybe the moon landing thing can get placed somewhere else, not saying it doesn't deserve the effort put into it thus far here, in the "far Side" thread, but should be transported to another thread entirely.
Hoping too hear from you researchers for the "Far Side" theories soon, been a while since anything was posted as new 'Possible' evidence...
1Worldwatcher
I'm here! I haven't heard from John in awhile. No replies to my emails or comments on the last couple of vids. I chaulked it up to him being busy with other things. I too would like this thread to be about 'Farside' info. But hey thats just me.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 23, 2012, 06:52:09 PM
I'm here! I haven't heard from John in awhile. No replies to my emails or comments on the last couple of vids. I chaulked it up to him being busy with other things. I too would like this thread to be about 'Farside' info. But hey thats just me.
Nice too see you here Sgt.! Was hoping that we could get back to the Farside research, as for John, he has some issues with his back, had surgery and such, is in a lot of pain as far as I can deduce, so , might be a minute or two before he gets back here.
With the pic's you have, was there anything else that you have found thus far? I am curious for the "Clearer Picture Resolution" hopes, but I understand, you have to work with what is laid before you.
I have spoken to Deuem and he has much needed insights for this thread, he has an uncanny ability to work with numbers and seems as if we may be able to start doing the math for the objects or anomalies youhave found so far, as far as sizing and geographical comparisons of the locations. Would have to think there would be some kind of common denominator for all the thing's you have found so far. Not sure what ties it all together, but there has too be some kind of sense too be made from the chaos of the structures/Anomalies at hand.
What do you guy's & gal's think?
1Worldwatcher
I just wanted you guys to know that I really enjoy reading this thread but have not responded for the simple reason that I have absolutely no experience or expertise to offer.
Just saying that no word from me does not translate disinterest in what you are talking about here.... just lack of experience. Linda
I hope this thread continues. We have been side-tracked by the Moon gravity debate which is relevant as it effects what we observe regarding the Moon but not what the original purpose was.
Show me a building or what looks like one.... Go on. ;)
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on June 25, 2012, 12:54:33 PM
Nice too see you here Sgt.! Was hoping that we could get back to the Farside research, as for John, he has some issues with his back, had surgery and such, is in a lot of pain as far as I can deduce, so , might be a minute or two before he gets back here.
I hope he gets well soon, if there's something I hate it's pain, and nobody needs that. :(
Quote from: ArMaP on June 26, 2012, 12:16:26 AM
I hope he gets well soon, if there's something I hate it's pain, and nobody needs that. :(
Ditto... I didn't know John had surgery...I certainly know what that's about...I was wondering why he hadn't responded to my emails, cause he's always been a gentleman and responded quickly and kindly...Hope he's feeling better soon....
Quote from: deuem on June 03, 2012, 04:17:35 PM
I don't remember where I got this gif but it is not my work. The Barycenter gif.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/barycenter.gif)
Deuem
Have you seen this effect yourself or are you taking NASA's word?
Hey can any of you wizards tell me where L1 is located based on Jon's gravity figures?
Thanks :D
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 26, 2012, 12:45:52 AM
Ditto... I didn't know John had surgery...
Surgery was a while ago but still on meds and he sleeps a lot. Just got off the phone with him so he is alive, just not kicking :P
Absolutely guy's and Gal's, hoping John has a quick recovery as well, know that the Med's can do as much damage as good when coming to potential strength of such things.
And Deuem, ArMap, the question Zorgon laid out on the table, can we answer this or not? L1 Question.
And Sgt. great too see it is all good , hope to hear from you soon as well.
1Worldwatcher
Global Moderator
Sgt:
Sorry for not answering your email. I have been very tired for the past year and for the past 30 days have been fighting and infection in both feet. I damn near lost my right leg last week; it turned completely black with extreme pain and open wounds on my ankles that would not heal.
I finally went to another doctor on Friday and he discovered that I had not been prescribed antibiotics with the mass of other meds I am taking. By this morning I was well on the way to recovery for the infection.
But for the past year I have just been sleeping a lot. Every couple of weeks I will sleep 4 days straight except for a pee, water and fruit.
I had a back operation about 4 years ago and I really never totally recovered.
The pain was one big pain in the butt.
I sleep in the den right next to my computer and TV. When I wake up I'll feel all charged up for about 5 minutes and then am overcome with overwhelming exhaustion. And barely make it back to the couch to sleep some more.
I am hoping to make it to my 70th birthday which is on December 4. Should be no problem. I'll just sleep until then.
Anyway thats why I have not been posting although I post a little on GLP but should be moving over here totally in a couple of weeks.
Ron, I need you to move the lunar gravity discussion to a new thread "Is the Gravity of the Moon really 70% that of Earths like John Lear says?" We will let 'buildings' stick with buildings.
Back to sleep...I'm exhausted.
Quote from: johnlear on June 26, 2012, 02:59:22 AM
Ron, I need you to move the lunar gravity discussion to a new thread "Is the Gravity of the Moon really 70% that of Earths like John Lear says?" We will let 'buildings' stick with buildings.
Can do but I will have to study how it effects the posts when I split it
As to the black legs and open ulcers... I know all about that :(
Quote from: zorgon on June 26, 2012, 03:17:12 AM
Can do but I will have to study how it effects the posts when I split it
It renames them all (the ones you choose to split) to the the title of the new thread but nicely asks you first if that's what you want to do.
John Lear said, "I am hoping to make it to my 70th birthday which is on December 4. Should be no problem. I'll just sleep until then".
John, there seems to be a lot of stuff for many of us that is not "golden", in those "golden years" of life!! Sorry about your problems, but glad that they have at least been effective in getting to the infection!!!
Hope everything else goes good for you!
Well John, now i feel like a total jerk pestering you with my stupid emails . I really didn't know you were in the condition your in. After my surgery in '06, i didn't feel like myself for a full year! Take care of yourself and rest. We got your back!
Peace!
Rock... 8)
Hey John ! Should I say Bon Courage !?
I've known all of this problems with my back 16 years ago with terrible
pain ... I'm sure y'll be back soon with us.
Je vous souhaite une bonne sante, mon ami, soyez fort ! :)
John IS ok now , got on the right meds and his leg swelling is gone now ,but he still has to sleep a lot , He says his leg swell if he stands for to long . He posted today on Lou's forum with his usual sense of humor so it shouldn't be too long till he is back here .
Quote from: guerande on April 07, 2012, 08:30:33 PM
Hi John,
i have just seen my " copernicus fingers " on CTC site .
It would be very nice if sgt;Rockn' can enlight them, don't you think so ?
And it would be better if the image on CTC was rotated 90° right, to get the
fingers vertical ...
up to you anyway :)
All the best !
Guerande
Hello Guerande,
Below is LO5-155 with a yellow circle within a yellow circle around the fingers.
All the best
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2218/copernicus5rond.jpg
Hello, I took the photo John posted and ran it through our Mid range photo process and posted the result. This program seems to turn the available light into a color topographical map. With black shadows being deep and white the high spots. With the right program this could be made 3D. The photo was made out of a crop of the inner yellow circle of the 5 finger area. I do not know if this helps or hurts. Deuem
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/copernicus5rond5pointXmr.jpg)
Quote from: johnlear on July 11, 2012, 03:49:31 AM
Below is LO5-155 with a yellow circle within a yellow circle around the fingers.
I think this shows that area, with a better resolution and less contrast. :)
(click for full size)
(http://i.imgur.com/fYzqpCd.png) (http://i.imgur.com/fYzqpCd.png)
PS: I hope you are feeling better. :)
Tks John , hope Sarge will enlight it as usual.
Even if it's only rocks (and I think it is ), they are so amazing !
I'll be away for about 10 days, without internet, so for all of you :
All the Best !
Guerande
Quote from: ArMaP on July 11, 2012, 11:29:55 PM
Hey ArMaP -a couple of questions for you...
Mathematically what are the chances of us seeing a new crater form on the Moon in this lifetime?
How many craters are predicted to be on the Moon?
Cheers big ears!
Quote from: watchZEITGEISTnow on July 12, 2012, 08:00:28 AM
Mathematically what are the chances of us seeing a new crater form on the Moon in this lifetime?
I don't have the slightest idea. :)
QuoteHow many craters are predicted to be on the Moon?
I don't have the slightest idea either. :)
ArMap Said:
QuoteI think this shows that area, with a better resolution and less contrast.
This is a very cool shot ArMAp, I took the picture to a simple paint application and zoomed 400%, then, jumped back and fourth from Inverted coloring (Black&White) there are so many structures with in this photo, I didn't want to venture the task of outlining everything I am seeing.
There is a portion of this photo on the upper center , just below cut-line of photo that clearly shows a tower with correct shadowing and all. This anomaly directly correlates with the seemingly open path way and ridge line that comes the area of the tower I am seeing.
I wish I had better equipment too look closer, I know there is all kinds of evidence with in this photo without a doubt.
Thanks for sharing...;)
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 12, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
ArMap Said:
This is a very cool shot ArMAp, I took the picture to a simple paint application and zoomed 400%, then, jumped back and fourth from Inverted coloring (Black&White) there are so many structures with in this photo, I didn't want to venture the task of outlining everything I am seeing.
There is a portion of this photo on the upper center , just below cut-line of photo that clearly shows a tower with correct shadowing and all. This anomaly directly correlates with the seemingly open path way and ridge line that comes the area of the tower I am seeing.
I wish I had better equipment too look closer, I know there is all kinds of evidence with in this photo without a doubt.
Thanks for sharing... ;)
1Worldwatcher
That is very interesting, I hope you can share the locations with everyone.
Does this help, This is ArMaps photo, down sized with grid lines. Deuem
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/MoonChartyellow.jpg)
QuoteThat is very interesting, I hope you can share the locations with everyone.
Does this help, This is ArMaps photo, down sized with grid lines. Deuem
H-K , 3-4
K-N, 7-9
I-K, 15-18
B-D, 15-16
F-G, 3-4
There are more, but the grid picture doesn't expand, but these are the ones I can see right off after looking at the photo closer through my Paint format.
K-N, 7-9 is where the shadow of thetower and tower can be seen, it is correct for ambient light admitted as well.
Just a lot of things going on, if you take this to paint, and zoom 400%, you will have to walk through it, but there are all kinds of seemingly structured things with in this photo.
1Worldwatcher
As best as I might and hopeful of finding something, the only thing I've seen is interesting topography. I downloaded all that I could find, I used the high res jpeg2000 files from here, http://pdsmaps.wr.usgs.gov/PDS/public/lunar_orbiter/LO_Archive.htm (http://pdsmaps.wr.usgs.gov/PDS/public/lunar_orbiter/LO_Archive.htm)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/HiRes.jpg)
and ArMaP's file from here, http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/lo-cgi-bin/vhFrameListPage.pl?mission=5&frame=155&site=37&siteName=Copernicus (http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/lo-cgi-bin/vhFrameListPage.pl?mission=5&frame=155&site=37&siteName=Copernicus)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ArMaP-1.jpg)
Rocks, just rocks....Maybe someone else can find something.
Peace
8)
What's casting that shadow...?
if you're talking about the area John hi-lighted, there are two depressions on either side of a mound with surrounding rocks casting the shadow.,,,IMHO..
I'm speaking of the area at the bottom of the pic... Looks like something mighty tall is casting a shadow from right to left.
Are you looking at John's, ArMaP's or mine....I've looked at all of them and I don't see any tall shadows.
Maybe you're talking about this one:
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/tallshadow.jpg)
It's really two shadows....
More....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY_EMAO2gVo
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 15, 2012, 05:12:04 PM
Are you looking at John's, ArMaP's or mine....I've looked at all of them and I don't see any tall shadows.
The last image on the previous page...
This one:
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ArMaP-1.jpg)
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 15, 2012, 06:18:02 PM
The last image on the previous page...
The long shadow at the bottom of the image?
Yes. I'd highlight if I had Photoshop available.
I think this will show what that shadow is. :)
The red area is the image posted by Sgt.Rocknroll.
(http://i.imgur.com/yzlC50a.png)
Thank You, ArMaP. [smile] I can see now what it was I was looking at.
No tall shadow? 8)
Think this might be 'Near Side'.....
LO-2-162
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI97UaEL528
What version of the photo did you use?
It looks like it has too much compression, but it's hard to be sure on the video.
At work right now, but not sure, will check it when I get home...
I just gave ya some gold for all your hard work Sarge.
Have a cold brew on me! ;D
Thank you
Thank you sir. ;)
8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 18, 2012, 03:53:44 AM
Think this might be 'Near Side'.....
LO-2-162
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI97UaEL528
Made a bad mistake..this is NOT LO-2-162....IT'S 3213_H1
I'lll re-shoot the video with the correct info....SORRY..:(
Quote from: ArMaP on July 18, 2012, 01:52:13 PM
What version of the photo did you use?
It looks like it has too much compression, but it's hard to be sure on the video.
I used this one....
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/3213_h1.jpg
There's a bigger (4867 x 6387 pixels instead of 2434 x 3194) version of that image here (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/print/3213_h1.jpg).
But I guess the biggest problem is that the original image is not that good. :(
Thanks man, i'll give it a try since i have to re-shoot it anyway ::) 8)
Ok, guys i finally got a chance to re-shoot this video under the correct name.
This is 3213_H1..
Enjoy and comments are welcomed... 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiD5Tp7U944
Very nice work, (As Usual) Sgt.
Have a question for John on the "Vapor" trails that are very apparent.
John "Are these vapors from production or for some kind of atmospheric purpose?" I can see them plainly, and have actually seen them with my naked eye, but I am having a hard time in understanding what they are a result of.
I know we have limited understanding of what we are researching, but who better too ask than the man in the know than yourself. ;)
Hope I am not asking too much here, but clarification, or at least a "Good" direction of perception would be helpful at this time.
I have heard it rumored that the moon possess "Volcano's" and "tectonic" shift, but this is all from sources of the Internet and only speculation as far as I can tell.
"Your thoughts John?"
1Worldwatcher
Guess this thread is done?
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 27, 2012, 01:57:21 PM
Guess this thread is done?
Oh I hope not...I've posted a few videos and gotten a few responses but not too much lately. I guess Sgt. Rocknroll video escapades have run their course.. ;) ;D
But that's the great thing about this forum...So many topics of interest and so many opinions...And no one dumping on you for having said opinions...
But in the end, John really drives this topic...always has and always will...
Please excuse me for popping off...just crap coming into my head on a Friday morning...
Now I have to cut my grass...damn ::)
Rock
Peace 8)
1World : why would it be done ???
Hope Sarge will give us more details, and I'm sure most of us will
continue to provide images/pics of the Moon !
Did you ask Zorgon to send you the Allan Sturm e-book ? I'm sure y'll find
much amazing images ...
@Sarge : hope you are to continue to work on these pics of Moon !
You are doing such a great job ! I'm waiting each day for a new video :(
It seem y're too busy to interpreting moon pics ? Can't you do it at night ? :))
Thanks guerande for your comments.
I'm just a lazy ole bastard sometimes...
I'll keep it on keeping on...
Bon Chance Mon Ami...... 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 27, 2012, 02:21:50 PM
Oh I hope not...I've posted a few videos and gotten a few responses but not too much lately. I guess Sgt. Rocknroll video escapades have run their course.. ;) ;D
The problem is we have only about 500ish members so far and most of those are lurkers :P
So don't loose faith yet :D
Yeah you're right. I guess i need to go through all the post and make a list of all the photos people have posted. I know there are quite a few that have been talked about. Hmmmm feeling better bout this.
:)
I've still got most (if not all?) of the Apollo 17 pics, if anyone's interested 8)
I'm following along. It's John's moon pics that brought me here in the first place. Too many coincidences about our moon, it's rotation and the way it always faces the Earth, the perfect positioning to match the disc of the sun during an eclipse. All this talk of going to Mars does not make perfect sense to me. The moon is THE logical place to launch further missions into our solar system. We should have had a base there DECADES ago. Oh yeah....maybe we did!
Apollo 17, ... please post them so members can download.
Thanks.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 27, 2012, 02:21:50 PM
Oh I hope not...I've posted a few videos and gotten a few responses but not too much lately. I guess Sgt. Rocknroll video escapades have run their course.. ;) ;D
I confess that I haven't looked at your videos. :(
I have nothing against you or your work, just against low resolution videos of high resolution photos and the fact that when looking at a photo I don't have to wait for the interesting parts. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on July 28, 2012, 05:31:05 PM
I confess that I haven't looked at your videos. :(
I have nothing against you or your work, just against low resolution videos of high resolution photos and the fact that when looking at a photo I don't have to wait for the interesting parts. :)
ArMaP, you know I respect your knowledge and expertise and always look forward to your posts, but one thing puzzles me.
If you haven't seen any of my videos, how do you know what they look like? I usually don't play a bunch of space themed music, I keep the commentary brief and I only go after the things I think I see. Just asking..:)
8)
Hey Sgt.,
So, got any new stuff you are currently working on my friend? Last Video was very telling, I was and had noticed almost everything you had brought to the table with all the structures that are visible. I am still very curious about the "Vapor" you had mentioned with in your finds as well. I could see them with the naked eye, but when you enhanced them with your software, a lot more questions...lol
The stacked Sphere's, the 90* angular Buildings/Structures, the over all expansion of the area with very fine details leave ones thoughts on the crazy train of discussion, for sure.
There is much too do with what we see, just wish we could get the money shot of a craft or a 'Being' loading and unloading!! LOL
Your work is excellent Sgt. I am and always have been impressed by what you lay out for us too view, keep up the good work! ;) And by the way, the statement I made earlier "Guess this thread is done?" was suppose to have an LOL on the end of it, don't think this topic for discussion will ever be completely disclosed!! Sorry guy's and Gals, my bad, I knew there would be more, just trying to be funny..
1Worldwatcher
Thanks 1Wwatcher for the comments.. You know I was thinking about that same thing, instead of glossing over an entire photo, but rather concentrate on one specific area and do as much as I can with it...Good call....I guess I got kinda of lazy with the outlines and not the detailed model I want too do....Thanks again...
8)
Rock
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 28, 2012, 09:36:25 PM
If you haven't seen any of my videos, how do you know what they look like?
The only thing I know is that they are about photos with a much higher resolution and image quality, right?
QuoteI usually don't play a bunch of space themed music, I keep the commentary brief and I only go after the things I think I see. Just asking..:)
8)
I haven't said a thing about music, and I suppose everyone goes after the things they think they see.
My problem with videos about photos (besides the reduction in resolution and image quality) is that they take much more time to show something than a simple image does. If someone decides to show some detail on a photo for 15 seconds, that may be 10 seconds too much, but we have to wait those 15 seconds to see what comes next, so at the end of a 5 minutes video we may have used more 3.5 minutes than needed. And the opposite also happens, as the person that made the video may have thought that something didn't need more that those 15 seconds but when we look at it we have a different interpretation and we may need more than that. Sure, we can pause the video, but if we had access to the image it would be easier, and it would allow us to zoom in or out, rotate it, etc.
In conclusion, what I don't like in videos of static material is that we are bound by the creator's decisions about what is interesting, what is not, and how we should spend our time looking at it.
I like freedom to do what I want, at the speed I want, with the best quality possible.
As I have said in other occasions, that doesn't mean that videos are useless, as they still have their usefulness (when there is the need to show a sequence of images or when the source was something that changed with time, like a movie).
PS: sorry if it sounds like I putting your work down, I'm not, I just think that's the wrong medium to show that kind of information.
I got your point and I didn't think you were putting me down..I just didn't understand how you can base your judgement on something you haven't seen. I also understand about have a static photo to look at and at your leisure explore other items....
As always, I respect your opinion and value your expertise in photos very much.....
Peace..
Rock
8)
A suggestion for your next videos, use a screen recording program like CamStudio (http://camstudio.org/) (it's open source) to capture your work in the computer, that way one source of image degradation (the camera) is removed. :)
I will, remember I asked you and you gave me some great tips on what software to use?
I remember, but I didn't remember if I had included CamStudio.
And now everybody knows about it. :D
Quote from: ArMaP on July 28, 2012, 11:56:33 PM
I remember, but I didn't remember if I had included CamStudio.
And now everybody knows about it. :D
Damn, your secrets out... ;D
I also want to see this thread continue.Moon pictures and John are what got me into all this to begin with.
I joined a forum (OM) so I could see John's pictures of the moon. I was a lurker at ATS ,read Johns thread there and Sleepers. Then I found Johns pictures @ OM and I was hooked . I even found something that John didn't see on one of his pictures after staring at it through a magnifying glass. So I agree with Armap that a nice clear hi-res picture is great to look at. I can stare at them for a long time .
After a while things just seem to jump out at me I find it fascinating ;D Even if there is not some great find I still like to stare at them and imagine being there .
@SgtRock n roll : have you received AllanSturm's e-book ? Did
you ask Zorgon for it ? I'm sure you could do a very wonderfull work on it ! as usual .
Armap, ok with your opinion about videos, I think you are right, but I LOVE
these videos,Sgt's particularly :) it's very good for dreaming !
So please Sarge, keep it up :) that's so good !
Quote from: guerande on July 29, 2012, 02:32:23 PM
@SgtRock n roll : have you received AllanSturm's e-book ? Did
you ask Zorgon for it ? I'm sure you could do a very wonderfull work on it ! as usual .
Armap, ok with your opinion about videos, I think you are right, but I LOVE
these videos,Sgt's particularly :) it's very good for dreaming !t
So please Sarge, keep it up :) that's so good !
Thanks for the kind remarks Mon Ami.
My expertise is Cad and I tried to use that to the best of my abilities to contribute to the conversion and I will continue to do so.
As far as Allan Sturms e-book, I have it, thanks to Zorgon and there was a list posted of the photos used by Mr. Sturm. I just happen to have that open at the moment and comparing his photos and 'items' to what I can find. I'll keep in touch as soon as I figure out some new software 'someone' turned me on to..
Peace 8)
Rock...
For the serious researcher of Allan Sturms Unidentified Lunar Objects I went through and located the approximate position of the photos he used and then put the lat/long. Then put the nearest crater, then the Lunar Orbiter photo. That way you don't have to do a lot of extra work to find the craters.
ULO Summary
PHOTO Coordinates Nearest Crater Lunar Orbiter Photo
,
LAC, LTO, LRO
AS08-12-2209 N24 E110 LOMONOSOV LO-5-28
AS08-13-2244 S11 W163 KOROLEV LO-1-40
AS08-13-2246 S15 W165 KOROLEV LO-1-40
AS08-13-2267 S13 E 78 ANSGARIUS LO-4-181
AS10-28-4012 S 4 E 122 NECHO LRO LAC 83
AS11-41-6139 S 6 W174 KOROLEV LO-1-40
AS12-52-7757 N13 W 50 MARIUS LO-4-66 LO-2-213
AS15-88-1200 N24 W 50 ARISTARCHUS LO-4-150 LO-5-197
AS15-M-2502 S27 E 97 LAURITSEN LAC 100
AS17-150-2294 2S W169 SNIADECKI LAC 105
AS17-151-229 25S W175 ORLOV To the northeast of
Leeuwenhoek
AS17-151-23260 N 6 W20 COPERNICUS LO-2-162 LO-5-155
AS17-151-23261 N 3 E 63 APOLLONIUS LO-3-215 LO-5-28
AS17-162-24106 S 9 W172 KOROLOEV LO-1-40
LTO Lunar Topographic Orthophotomap lunar province
LAC Lunar Aeronautical Chart number of lunar region
LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Thanks John :)
Seeing you are not far waway from that time i really do appreciate what you have given us all along with making searching in general easier dude ;)
All the best mate :)
Soma 8)
Quote from: johnlear on July 30, 2012, 10:30:40 PM
For the serious researcher of Allan Sturms Unidentified Lunar Objects I went through and located the approximate position of the photos he used and then put the lat/long. Then put the nearest crater, then the Lunar Orbiter photo. That way you don't have to do a lot of extra work to find the craters.
Sweet :D
And here are the best copies of those photos I have been able to find online so far
Re: Unidentified Lunar Objects - Allen Sturm (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1596.msg24655#msg24655)
Much thanks Zorgon, John and the rest....Just when I thought I was out,,,,you puuuullllll me back in.... ::)
Not only do I have to learn some new software ArMaP turned me on too,,and just as I was going through all the pictures I downloaded,,,and just when I started to seriously go over Allan Sturm e-book....wait there's more???? :o
Grandkids sorry ,,,but PawPaw is busy.. ;D
Peace 8)
Rock...
I was looking @AS 15-88-120002 and the "crater" on the left, the brighter one , gets my attention. It looks less like an impact crater and more like an open pit mine .It almost looks like a collapsed caldera does on earth.
Here is an enlargement of a portion of Tycho. The first photo is Tycho with one yellow circle inside of another yellow circle around the area I would like you to look at.
The second photo is the area I would like you to look at to see if you see anything interesting. The second photo I have on a 20 x 24 mounted on ¼ inch foamcore.
It is much higher resolution than any photo of Tycho that I have so I can only scan a tiny portion at a time because of the size of my scanner. Its possible I have a photo with greater resolution so I will look around.
[img=http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5432/tycho3.jpg]http:// (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/tycho3.jpg/)
(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9153/lo5125mcircle.jpg) (http://img155.imageshack.us/i/lo5125mcircle.jpg/)
[img=http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9153/lo5125mcircle.jpg]http:// (http://img155.imageshack.us/i/lo5125mcircle.jpg/)
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9153/lo5125mcircle.jpg
(http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5432/tycho3.jpg) (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/tycho3.jpg/)
[img=http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5432/tycho3.jpg] (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/tycho3.jpg/)
Thanks John!
Tuesday Quiz: What is this? Where is it?
(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2936/apollo82209psb.jpg) (http://img832.imageshack.us/i/apollo82209psb.jpg/)
Tuesday Quiz Part Duex: Where is this city square with parking lot, structures and medians?
(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7056/citysquare2.jpg) (http://img585.imageshack.us/i/citysquare2.jpg/)
Quote from: johnlear on July 31, 2012, 12:24:18 PM
Here is an enlargement of a portion of Tycho. The first photo is Tycho with one yellow circle inside of another yellow circle around the area I would like you to look at.
The second photo is the area I would like you to look at to see if you see anything interesting. The second photo I have on a 20 x 24 mounted on ¼ inch foamcore.
It is much higher resolution than any photo of Tycho that I have so I can only scan a tiny portion at a time because of the size of my scanner. Its possible I have a photo with greater resolution so I will look around.
[img=http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5432/tycho3.jpg]http:// (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/tycho3.jpg/)
(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9153/lo5125mcircle.jpg) (http://img155.imageshack.us/i/lo5125mcircle.jpg/)
[img=http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9153/lo5125mcircle.jpg]http:// (http://img155.imageshack.us/i/lo5125mcircle.jpg/)
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9153/lo5125mcircle.jpg
(http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5432/tycho3.jpg) (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/tycho3.jpg/)
[img=http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5432/tycho3.jpg] (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/tycho3.jpg/)
Well aside from the obvious straight lines of what looks like buildings I see what appears to be orbs clustered around a large cone shaped tower . Maybe the orbs are a glitch on the photo ,not sure , but that tower or cone shape in the center @the bottom catches my eye right away. Not sure that is what you want me to see John. Also the white area @the bottom of the photo looks odd?
I would like to have the original photo file name to look for not just 'tycho3.jpg'.
Sorry. This is LO5-125m
I'm currently working on AS11-41-6139
I'm really not looking at Mr. Sturm's work while I'm doing this. I'm just trying to view the photo and then model/outline the things I see.
This is just a work in progress.
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-B.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-A.jpg)
Nice one Sarge... actually very nice! 8)
Been awhile since I saw your handy work Sarge, and heck I have to say... its getting better every time mate ;) ;D
Thanks Much Somamech, it's appreciated. But this is a work in progress, I think I'm seeing more and more each time I go back to it...
Rock 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 04, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
I would like to have the original photo file name to look for not just 'tycho3.jpg'.
Sorry. This is LO5-125m
Sorry John, I didn't see the edit to my post...thanks for the file number.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 05, 2012, 06:16:05 PM
I'm currently working on AS11-41-6139
I'm really not looking at Mr. Sturm's work while I'm doing this. I'm just trying to view the photo and then model/outline the things I see.
This is just a work in progress.
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-B.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-A.jpg)
This is one of the most convincing Building shots for me.
Sarge, could you include something to give us a sense of scale please? A picture of a car or a house would be great but even a line 100metres long or something would be massively helpful.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 05, 2012, 06:16:05 PM
This is just a work in progress.
Interesting, but the perspective looks wrong, as the "feature" looks flat and almost perpendicular to an axis from the the viewer to the surface.
At least to me. :)
PS: here's (http://archive.org/details/as11-41-6139) a better version.
Quote from: ArMaP on August 06, 2012, 09:56:14 PM
PS: here's (http://archive.org/details/as11-41-6139) a better version.
I don't want to sound thick but can one of you show me where on the TIFF image Sgt's building is? I can't see it.
I prefer to appear ignorant and ask stupid questions than to remain ignorant forever. :o
Quote from: ArMaP on August 06, 2012, 09:56:14 PM
Interesting, but the perspective looks wrong, as the "feature" looks flat and almost perpendicular to an axis from the the viewer to the surface.
At least to me. :)
PS: here's (http://archive.org/details/as11-41-6139) a better version.
Well ArMaP, did you notice it wasn't a video?...lolol..and I did say it's a work in progress.
Perspective? Here's the problem, I'm looking at an object that appears to be a structure of 3 dimensions but it's on a flat 2d plane i.e. a photo. I can do 1 of 2 things here. I can model the item which requires 3 dimensions, scaled of course to match the photo, then rotate it so that the model appears as it does on the photo with the correct perspective. Or I can model it as it directly appears, extruding a 2d outline to get the desired effect.. The first one I used on John's space port, scaling off the photo and then modeling it with 3 different views. Most of my later models I modeled on the fly as the item appears. (making any sense?)..Some of my vid's were just plain outlines because the item didn't have a clearly defined shape..(is it a rock or what?)...Anyway as I said before, I'm still working on it...
Rock 8)
P.S. thanks for the link to a better photo..You always seem to come through.... ;D
Quote from: Pimander on August 07, 2012, 12:01:50 AM
I don't want to sound thick but can one of you show me where on the TIFF image Sgt's building is? I can't see it.
"My" photo must be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise to be in the same position. The "building" is in the area marked in red.
(http://i.imgur.com/crxkYqQ.png)
QuoteI prefer to appear ignorant and ask stupid questions than to remain ignorant forever. :o
That's the idea. :D
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 07, 2012, 12:50:46 AM
Well ArMaP, did you notice it wasn't a video?...lolol..and I did say it's a work in progress.
Yes, I noticed it. :)
QuoteOr I can model it as it directly appears, extruding a 2d outline to get the desired effect..
That's where the problem is, as it looks like the direction of the extrusion is not perpendicular to the ground's surface.
Sorry, but as I am incapable of making comprehensible drawings (even for me), I cannot explain it better.
Quote from: ArMaP on August 07, 2012, 01:51:11 AM
"My" photo must be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise to be in the same position. The "building" is in the area marked in red.
No wonder I couldn't find it. :)
Just so I know.... Is North the real North in your photo or Sarge's?
ETA: The flaming tiff just crashed GIMP now. I'll take a look when I have no other applications running. ::)
Quote from: Pimander on August 07, 2012, 02:15:31 AM
No wonder I couldn't find it. :)
Just so I know.... Is North the real North in your photo or Sarge's?
I don't know, I didn't thought about that. :)
GIMP has crashed now!!!
It will be either North or South at the top in Sarge's. You can tell by the shadows.
Ok gang here's a small update. The last pic explains what I see.
With the first photo, it's kind of hard to see but if you have the Hi-res photo ArMaP supplied, I think you can see it.
If you look carefully you can see what I think is the shadow of the disch to the lower right of the disch.
Or ..... it's just a pile of rocks...lololol.. you be the judge..
Anyway more to come...
Rock 8)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-B.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-C.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-D.jpg)
Ok, this is all I got....of AS11-41-6139
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-E.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-D-1.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-G.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-H.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-J.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-I.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI5L8-Z_cl0
As usual Sgt. "Really great work!!"
as I was looking upon the stills from Strums archives, and seeing the dimensions you had provided "Did you notice the shadow too the left of the structure on the ground that coincides with the something hanging off the side of the structure that looks like a satellite?"
There is something there too cast this shadow, but very shaded if you don't concentrate on the photo too see what I am seeing. Just an FYI Sgt. And thanks again my friend.
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-B.jpg)
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on August 13, 2012, 02:17:19 AM
Ok, this is all I got....of AS11-41-6139
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-E.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-D-1.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-G.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-H.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-J.jpg)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-I.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI5L8-Z_cl0
Nice Work!! Did you notice this also? as11-41=6139.tif
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/capture_001_14082012_045458.png)
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/capture_001_14082012_050350.png)
And what looks like a pyramid...
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/capture_002_14082012_051458.png)
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/capture_003_14082012_051929.png)
Nice catch Mikeybandb!
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/capture_002_14082012_051458.png)
But where my attention is drawn too is the valley between both high rise areas and what is in between them, looks as if it may be a structure as well, or a machine of sorts. Either way, if there is anyone that can get a better grip on what we are looking at, it would be our very own Sgt. :)
And by the way Sgt. , do you see the shadow I was talking about that was next to the object you had outlined? Too me it looks as if it is a satellite mounted on the top/side of the structure you had already outlined.
Either way, this thread rocks, and I wonder where John is lately, hope he is doing well. "If you are reading John and not posting "Hello" and excellent evidence thus far being found with what you are providing to Sgt. for research!!"
1Worldwatcher
the pyramid and the object are both interesting and I was able to find the object by spending a lot of time looking for it and rotating it as you did, but it would be helpful to have a location pointed out as in a full photo with the areas of interest circled or hilighted as to not having to spend time looking for it and also whether the object you might be looking at has been rotated or altered in a way to clearly see what you're talking about. As you know anomalies are not always spotted with the presented photo. Sometimes they blur them up or rotate them to hide things...IMHO
Rock
8)
Hey Sgt.,
In this still photo, next to the structure, there is a shadow on the ground to the left, is this a shadow of a topographical anomaly? or is it a shadow of something that is being cast from the structure that is attached higher on its top side?
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-B.jpg)
It may be a shadow of a rock being casted, but the shape is very similar to what a satellite would cast. And if you look in the direction above the shadow, it appears something is there being suspended as well. I am not sure, thought maybe you could verify with your CAD software. ;)
1Worldwatcher
Edit to add text
1Worldwatcher
I hope the next photos help.
With Outlines/Structures
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-K.jpg)
Without
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/ROCK-6139-l-1.jpg)
I hope I addressed what your were talking about.
As for scale I really have no idea.
Maybe another PRC member can help.
Peace 8)
Rock
Hey Sgt.
Actually, I had them backwards in my minds eye, the 'Crater' looks as if it is a casted shadow from an object suspended above it, follows the light plain anyways.
I didn't even notice teh satellite you pointed out, but then again, thats why you do what you do my friend..lol
Great work as always! ;)
1Worldwatcher
wow looks like a refinery set up for sure! :o
Hey Sgt. was concentrating on the above picture, took it too MS paint, was zooming in and out on the photo, seeing definite structure, but, then I dropped my pen I was holding, glanced up at the PC screen at an angel, and "Boy!!" The thing's I seen from a different perspective.
I am sure this has something too do with the Pixels with in the flatscreen I have, but when looking upon this same picture at an angel, all kinds of things were visible too me from this angel.
I spent hour's out lining what I seen in my average paint area of my PC by MS, not engineering tools by no means, but, if you could double check my findings with the original and compare notes with what was there (You might have to lean over one way or another and glance up towards the screen! LOL) because it blew my mind.... "Enjoy!"
And "YES!" WTH it does seem too be a mining/refinery community!!
Sgt.'s original:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/SgtsMoonPicture.jpg)
The Original inverted B/W before rendering:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/InvertedSgtMoonminingfacility.jpg)
My Rendering/Out lined picture/Inverted Black/White:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/OutlinerenditionMoonMiningcity.jpg)
Keep in mind I was zooming in and out as I was rendering, and what came out of it was amazing!! I had started in lower left corner and worked my away around the photo up until where you had rendered the Ship/Station area, this also includes the satellite you had presented. Not nessecary too question those finds. The rest just kind of happened as I went.
Look forward too hearing from you all on this, just too see if you see what I see. And also, if you are having a hard time with provided copy, "Copy" Photo, bring too simple "MS Paint" and "Invert" image B/W was the best for seeing these anomalies, and if you lean down, below the line of your PC desk top, and glare upwards (Should work either Left or Right...I was leaning Left, for the records...lol) You will see other things with in the photo.
Thanks for your time.
1Worldwatcher
wow 1ww, what do you think is going on there?
A question, in sarges photo in the upper left corner there is a rectangular shape in black. Looks like it is stuck in the ground abit.
Anyone got any ideas? Deuem
Hi Deuem, nice too see you.
I was a bit caught off guard when this happened. When I was bent over too pick up the pen I had dropped, And glanced up toward the screen, I was not prepared for what I seen! lol
As for whats going on is apparently exactly what it seems. I think a mining/excavation site. But have no smoking guns for there being either Humans or alien life on the lunar surface.
One thing I do know is that the images I have outlined aren't Parabola or some other optical illusion, I didn't see these things looking directly at the screen, my breath left me to the point of blue. Really amazing for what it is.
Sgt. is on Vacation right now I think, but , when I got done with my rendition, and sat back and looked at it once it was done (There is still much more, just can't make out exact shape/form for them.) I knew I had too post this here for different opinions.
There is so much evidence thus far to support the civilizations on the moon that Mr. Lear has postulated on as being fact, not myth is very evident, especially with this kind of place of interest and accidental finding. "Have too admit, what is outlined in the photo I had rendered was not a preempted thought or idea, it was just there."
Will be hoping Sgt. and John will make an appearance for some input on this. But, they are busy men, so may be a while. hard too believe that dropping a pen and then glancing up at a PC screen would have supplied such an epiphany moment Deuem...lol
The rectangle thing you mentioned, can you supply with copying the photo and either circling or arrowing where you are seeing this Deuem? Just so much in the picture I see.
1Worldwatcher
Hello to all, This thread is a real mind grabber. I just finished looking, watching and reading it and felt a desire to make a summery of what I think I see. (hoping I'm not blind lol.)
If we take it that even some of these pictures are authentic and some do seem to be just that. Then we definitely have a presents on the moon. There are a variety of types of things in these pictures. We see structures that to me seem to be the tip of the iceberg. That is to say only what must be on the surface is and that would explain the absence of some of the more commonly used parts of a facility we do not see. Like a whole network of city transportation. There are some areas with what appear to be roads but not a network. More like dirt roads on earth leading to mines, power stations ect... Again this makes me think those who live or lived at these places were on the surface only when necessary.
There are some pictures of what definitely look like refinery equipment. (look back through the thread if you want a see. There are plenty and I didn't want to clog the blog so to speak with repeats of all the shots.) Even in these pictures the bulk of the plants seem to be subterranean.
Now if we take it that Mr. John Lear and others are correct and a large population is indeed living on the moon. The pictures indicate that most general activities by the population are unseen. We seem to see what I would call the support facilities for a larger operation and or population. This whole idea seems to be supported by the pictures showing what look like venting of vapors or gas. This venting would surely be a necessary thing if a race of biological entities live under the surface. This would also seem to indicate that if the entities are not still alive and well at least some equipment was still working when the pictures were taken. (atmospheric scrubbers, environmental controllers) Another idea that is food for thought is this... If people from earth are there mining the moon and Mr. John Lear and others are correct that we did not go to the moon with the Apollo missions. Then someone has been very very busy up there in the last few decades. Could we have sent enough people and supplies to accomplish this I do not know.
And if the entities on the moon are not from earth, then they could have been there for a very long time and indeed may constitute a very large population. The size that would require the type of things we see in these pictures.
These are just some thoughts I had. I hope at least they are entertaining. lol
I have a couple pictures that are my favorites. And I did a little highlighting on what looks to me to be a type of excavator that is starting a pit or taking a sample.
Thanks for the wonderful information in this thread and may the man in the moon shine his light on us all. Wow this all brings new meaning to "The man in the moon". lol Or should we say men in the moon.
Now I'm going out to howl at the moon!
Whatthehey
Quote from: WhatTheHey on August 29, 2012, 10:41:39 PM
I have a couple pictures that are my favorites. And I did a little highlighting on what looks to me to be a type of excavator that is starting a pit or taking a sample.
That looks like a Lunar Orbiter photo, with what looks like a scratch of the emulsion. Those scratches are relatively common on Lunar Orbiter photos.
Here ya go 1WW, upper left hand corner.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/ROCK-6139-K.jpg)
deuem
Hi ArMaP, it could be the Lunar Orbiter. But it looks as though there is a shadow accompanying this object. That would be an awfully low orbit. But then maybe its not a shadow.
Thanks for the post.
whatthehey
Hey Deuem here is that upper left shot with just inverted colors. WOW! Looks like some of the most defined structure lines and angles seen in these pictures. That is without Sgt. Rocknrolls great imaging.
Nice 1 whatthehey
I think we may be getting inversion processes here a bit confused, the picture that Deuem had provided was natural state of still photo, the one I have rendered was inverted, this is obviously an honest mistake, but worthy of noting here is the side by side comparison with Deuem's pic super imposed with in my rendered pic of this area.
Strange thing is, that Original picture looks as if it is a Square or Linear structure, while inverted shows this as a circular or elliptical structure.
Can't wait for Sgt.'s return, going through the after math of Isaac right now, so my thoughts are with him and his family.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/DeuemsBldgmyrenderingcomparison.jpg)
Hi Sgt.
Hope you are coping OK and getting things back to normal again.
I Love reading you Posts and must congratulate you on your work.
Looking forward to your return soon...
Here's that "satellite dish" area as photographed by Kaguya/Selene.
Edit: I rotated the image to align it (more or less) with the Apollo photo.
Everything is great. Thanks for the kuddos everyone. But i see a lot of interest and thats always great to me. I'm just lurking right now on my phone cause cable is a little iffy right now plus I'm a little exhausted from the cleanup.. Not as young as i use to be. Lol
Great work everyone
Peace 8)
Rock
To make it clearer, here are two labelled versions of the photos. :)
(http://i.imgur.com/ontJjJS.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/JWiu3Ze.jpg)
Thanks for the key ArMaP!
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 03, 2012, 10:44:10 PM
Thanks for the key ArMaP!
Nice too have you Back Sgt.!! Now we can get some rendering and some closure on what we have been discussing thus far with the provided finds.
Hope you can see what has been brought forth my friend. really Amazing stuff for sure.
1Worldwatcher
I'm a new member. How do i post to introduce myself?
tyvm!!
Quote from: variance on September 04, 2012, 06:47:26 PM
I'm a new member. How do i post to introduce myself?
tyvm!!
Looks like you just did variance, Howdy and welcome lol
;DI just had to say THANKS to Sgt.rocknroll, looking at these images you have done is better then watching TV. Great stuff! This thread is a lot of fun. Takes the edge off things just looking through it.
Quote from: Pimander on December 15, 2011, 10:01:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0MM4yncLxo
Sgt. this video was posted petrus4 on a UFO sighting from UK and the resemblances are uncanny for sure. This sighting comes from 4 different vantage points of different same object.
WTH and I were skyping and he had mentioned the similarities of this object to the 3D rendering you had did early in the thread and was posted by Pimander.
Check this out man, unreal my friend. They appear one and the same as profile dipicts, ground breaking for the evidence..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yefcVOd5YHY
I am really amazed at this sighting and it's incredible similarities.
1Worldwatcher
Edit for text
Here is a still off the 4th video. This looks, as I said while talking to 1WW to be the same craft as in the previous pictures posted on the first page and the 7th page where sgt.rocknroll did his imaging of this craft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yefcVOd5YHY#t=657s
Click skip ad
A Lake in Oz :o
Lake Bullen MerriQuote
This information has been obtained from the report: Eruption Points of the Newer Volcanic Province of Victoria by Neville Rosengren. This report was published in 1994 and was prepared for the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) and the Geological Society of Australia (Victorian Division). The review of eruption points was based on an earlier unpublished manuscript Catalogue of the post-Miocene volcanoes of Victoria compiled by O P Singleton and E B Joyce (Geology Department, University of Melbourne 1970).
Geological heritage sites, including sites of geomorphological interest and volcanic heritage sites, are under regular revision by the Geological Society of Australia, especially in the assessment of significance and value. Reference should be made to the most recent reports. See the Earth Science Heritage (external link) section of the Geological Society of Australia website for details of geological heritage reports, and a bibliography.
So how about it ? anyone up for a bit of trout fishing on the Moon !
(http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/corimages.nsf/Images/lake_bullen_merri/$File/lake_bullen_merri.jpg)
SOURCE:
http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/coranregn.nsf/pages/corangamite_eruption_points_bullen_merri
I'm back! ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-fqNXOq1eM
if there is a population of humans on the moon i think people would be pretty annoyed if and when it all comes out.....i mean WHY would it need to be secret , then all kinds of questions come into play ??
are we an experiment ? were we put here ? and what of life on venus or mars ..... is it politics or what ? help me out guys n girls
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1572/learfinal.jpg) (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/learfinal.jpg/)
This farside photo may be deceiving because of the excessive contract and apparent no detail.
However, for the patient observer there may be more to this photo than appears at first glance.
I will post the LO photo where it comes from in a little while.
Quote from: johnlear on September 15, 2012, 05:56:44 PM
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1572/learfinal.jpg) (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/learfinal.jpg/)
This farside photo may be deceiving because of the excessive contract and apparent no detail.
However, for the patient observer there may be more to this photo than appears at first glance.
I will post the LO photo where it comes from in a little while.
Good day, John!
I see several things in that image, but the one which Im comfortable pointing out is the very linear anomaly in the top left..could that be where the images are connected or overlapped? Or some sort of linear antenna?
Le
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7017/farsideequat125ecca.jpg) (http://img196.imageshack.us/i/farsideequat125ecca.jpg/)
I am pretty sure this is the photo it was taken from. More info in a little while.
So Rock, have we already looked at this photo?
OK, John...now I see its a border between the images..but the larger picture now shows me there's something else there....Waiting for you analysis... :)
Le
Captain John have you been out with aliens ?
Nice pics dude ;)
Quote from: johnlear on September 15, 2012, 06:07:27 PM
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7017/farsideequat125ecca.jpg) (http://img196.imageshack.us/i/farsideequat125ecca.jpg/)
I am pretty sure this is the photo it was taken from. More info in a little while.
So Rock, have we already looked at this photo?
No John we haven't. This isn't one of the several you sent me. I don't think I've seen this one before.
Waiting on the file info my friend.
Good to hear from you BTW.
Rock
This is just what I found with half a cup of coffee! To the right of the yellow circle seems to be more buildings, perhaps vehicles, and lights. Maybe I'm reading more into this, but it also looks like trees! Too many instances of repeated patterns, and definite evidence of excavation and terracing. Amazing, thanks John!
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8313/7989305949_4e4231476b_b.jpg)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 15, 2012, 07:57:27 PM
No John we haven't. This isn't one of the several you sent me. I don't think I've seen this one before.
Waiting on the file info my friend.
Good to hear from you BTW.
Rock
John, any info on the photo particulars, i.e. file #?
Rock....
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9583/orientalelookingsouthfi.jpg) (http://img208.imageshack.us/i/orientalelookingsouthfi.jpg/)
This is the Mare Orientale directly overhead facing south. I wasn't going to post it at first and then I kept seeing more and more interesting things.
Please take a look and see if you see anything.
Mare Orientales is on the extreme east of the farside and and the circular markings are where Norman Bergrun says that the Electro Magnetic Vehicle clamped on the moon to move it around to various galaxies.
(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/8734/orientalelookingnorthc.jpg) (http://img840.imageshack.us/i/orientalelookingnorthc.jpg/)
This is Mare Orientale, directly overhread, facing north.
Excellent image, John, I for one see several oddities, a few non natural geometric shapes, and one shot that looks like a square door of some kind, like the one you proposed at S-4 a while back...
Ill get the macpaint going and circle them...
Cheers!
Thanks John I'll look at it as soon as able. A little under the weather today! Vicodin here I come & a nap.
Peace 8)
Rock
This one is from LROC :D
Weird stuff in that
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/orient_100m
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1103/orientale_lro.jpg) (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1103/orientale_lro.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/MareOrientale_lunarOrbiter4_c1.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/MareOrientale_lunarOrbiter4_c1.jpg)
Is it me or does the moon appear to have a subskin beneath the surface layer?
There are a lot of impact craters with the impacting bodies still visible in them indicating they werent able to penetrate very deeply, eh?
Le
There's a higher resolution version here (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/frame/?4187).
Thank you ArMaP...I knew if I waited long enough, you'd have a better resolution one...Thanks... ;D
So what do you guys think that circular formation is? It is absolutely huge!
I can't think of anything comparable on other planets or Moons....
What circular formation are you talking about?
Mare Orientale. It is over 900 km (560 miles) but the Moon itself only has a diameter of 3476 km (2160 miles).
Mare Orientale's diameter is a quarter that of the Moon! How big would a meteor causing a crater that big be? How much energy would the impact have?
here's the official defenition.
The mare is about 900 kilometres (560 mi) across and was formed by the impact of an asteroid-sized object. Unlike most other basins on the Moon, Orientale is relatively unflooded by mare basalts, exposing much of the basin structure to view; the central portion of Mare Orientale is covered by a thin layer of mare basalt probably less than 1 kilometer deep, much less than in other nearside mare basins. The collision caused ripples in the lunar crust, resulting in the three concentric circular features. The innermost rings of this vast, multi-ringed crater are the inner and outer Montes Rook, and the outermost ring are the Montes Cordillera, 930 km in diameter. Basin ejecta begins just outside the Montes Cordillera and extends up to 500 kilometers beyond the base of the mountains. This ejecta has a rough, hummocky texture and contains linear patterns that point back toward the center of Mare Orientale.
Material from Mare Orientale was not sampled by the Apollo program so the basin's precise age is not known. However, it may be the freshest impact basin on the Moon and is believed to be slightly younger than the Imbrium Basin, which formed about 3.85 billion years ago. The surrounding basin material is of the Lower Imbrian epoch with the mare material being of the Upper Imbrian epoch.
it's a crater.
List of largest craters in the Solar System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_craters_in_the_Solar_System)
Some of the craters on the Moon and Mars look unbelievably big to me. Surely they would not have survived these impacts? I haven't looked at the physics of them but my initial reaction is that the Moon and Mars would not survive the impacts.... :o
Unless they aren't craters caused by meteors.
I agree, Pim. That much energy should have smithereened the hit body, I would think. I also find it...interesting that so many of the moons of Saturn have a "death star" look to them...
Hmmmm.
Quote from: Pimander on September 22, 2012, 07:25:28 PM
List of largest craters in the Solar System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_craters_in_the_Solar_System)
Some of the craters on the Moon and Mars look unbelievably big to me. Surely they would not have survived these impacts? I haven't looked at the physics of them but my initial reaction is that the Moon and Mars would not survive the impacts.... :o
Unless they aren't craters caused by meteors.
So if the moon is a semi-hollow construct...towed into place...When were the craters put there???
Quote from: andolin on September 22, 2012, 07:34:11 PM
So if the moon is a semi-hollow construct...towed into place...When were the craters put there???
I don't think it is completely hollow at all. It may be less dense than Earth and have hollow parts but I doubt it is completely hollow. I'm not sure whether John Lear would agree with me though.
As for the craters, which ones are you referring to? The smaller ones or the massive ones that are a fifth or more Mars' or The Moon's diameter? I think the smaller ones were caused partly by the conventional meteors and possibly partly by massive electrical discharges in the past. The huge ones, I'm looking for answers too....
You'll have to ask John about towing the Moon. I don't understand that theory yet and haven't read the work John referred to earlier in the thread.
Quote from: Pimander on September 22, 2012, 07:44:52 PM
I don't think it is completely hollow at all. It may be less dense than Earth and have hollow parts but I doubt it is completely hollow. I'm not sure whether John Lear would agree with me though.
As for the craters, which ones are you referring to? The smaller ones or the massive ones that are a fifth or more Mars' or The Moon's diameter? I think the smaller ones were caused partly by the conventional meteors and possibly partly by massive electrical discharges in the past. The huge ones, I'm looking for answers too....
You'll have to ask John about towing the Moon. I don't understand that theory yet and haven't read the work John referred to earlier in the thread.
Yah...i was pointing this at JL, That big crater impact should have moved it into or out of orbit (earth).....I mean't semi-hollow....implying that some underlying structure bent but did not break.....Implies a structure with some outer shell of some resilience....
The following is from 'Anomaluna' from Viewzone magazine:
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/anomaluna9_zps05333ef3.gif)
'Moon is, apparently, a terraformed, engineered piece of hardware, with an outer layer of dust and rock, and beneath this 3-mile layer, a solid 20-mile thick shell made from highly resistant materials like Titanium. Uranium 236, Mica, Neptumium 237. Not what you would expect.
No meteorite can really smash it to pieces. Moon seems to have been towed into place through space. Without it, there would be no life on Earth as it would be a sterile habitat. Now let's not take it too personally, it was probably not placed where it is just for us, but for Terra as such. We just happen to look at it and wonder, at least some of us.'
Just something I believe..
Peace 8)
Rock
I believe it is very close to the truth, Sgt, if not spot on. The moon is a Being fabrication and not a natural satellite.
Quote from: Pimander on September 22, 2012, 07:25:28 PM
Some of the craters on the Moon and Mars look unbelievably big to me. Surely they would not have survived these impacts? I haven't looked at the physics of them but my initial reaction is that the Moon and Mars would not survive the impacts.... :o
From my playing with the impact calculator, it looks like a planet needs an impact of an almost equal sized object to be completely destroyed.
Let my try something.
A 50 km wide piece of mostly iron, hitting Earth at 72 km/s and at an angle of 90º, would result in:
Major Global Changes:
The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree).
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
Crater Dimensions:
Transient Crater Diameter: 637 km ( = 395 miles )
Transient Crater Depth: 225 km ( = 140 miles )
Final Crater Diameter: 1480 km ( = 920 miles )
Final Crater Depth: 2.66 km ( = 1.65 miles )
The crater formed is a complex crater.
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 1.21e+07 km3 = 2.9e+06 miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater, where its average thickness is 37.9 km ( = 23.6 miles ).
Planets are resistant. :)
Source: Earth Impact Effects Program (http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/)
Surely the effects on Earth's rotation will depend on the angle of impact as well? It could also change the diurnal rotation....
I need to take a look at the physics of the impacts for myself before I make up my mind.
It could just be the death star weapon hidden under dust. :o :P
Our moon was fabricated inside Jupiter 38 billlion years ago. It has been towed around serving the same purpose for other earths as it does for us and that is to provide underground labs for the grays to do their check ups on humans.
The moon is not and cannot be hollow. Like earth and every other planet it has huge underground caverns that are located several miles underground. These caverns are constructed into hi tech labs for the grays.
Most of the markings around Orientale are due to the method that the EMV (Electro Magnetic Vehicle) used to tow it here and there during the past 38 billion years.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 15, 2012, 07:57:27 PM
No John we haven't. This isn't one of the several you sent me. I don't think I've seen this one before.
Waiting on the file info my friend.
Good to hear from you BTW.
Rock
John, any info on this file so I can find a better copy?
I came across this photo in the Moon As Viewed by Lunar Orbiter on page 102 and it didn't look like much. I was about to turn the page and I noticed something interesting. Then something else. After I marked about 5 places I realized the whole darn thing was full of interesting spots. Take a look Rock and see if you see anything.
(http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/9866/farsidesomewhered.jpg) (http://img253.imageshack.us/i/farsidesomewhered.jpg/)
Below are 2 different charts of the farside and where my photo is taken. The coordinates are 8 N 113 W, and are shown as a blue rectangle.
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7320/moonmapfarlargec.jpg) (http://img84.imageshack.us/i/moonmapfarlargec.jpg/)
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6015/lrofarsideab.jpg) (http://img843.imageshack.us/i/lrofarsideab.jpg/)
I know this isn't a farside building but I wanted John to see this video so I put it here since he has been posting on this thread .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtyFQRkhW9g&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: johnlear on September 27, 2012, 06:59:20 PM
I came across this photo in the Moon As Viewed by Lunar Orbiter on page 102 and it didn't look like much. I was about to turn the page and I noticed something interesting. Then something else. After I marked about 5 places I realized the whole darn thing was full of interesting spots. Take a look Rock and see if you see anything.
I'm looking for the appropriate photo John...
I got it John, thanks. And yes there are some things there that look very interesting. Will have to have a closer, more in-depth look. You've got a really good eye! :D
Rock 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 27, 2012, 09:48:02 PM
I got it John, thanks. And yes there are some things there that look very interesting. Will have to have a closer, more in-depth look. You've got a really good eye! :D
Rock 8)
Thanks for the compliment Rock, but you are the guy that makes it all visible!
Just an update John, I've been looking and drawing for 2 days and I'm still finding stuff..I really think you hit the jackpot with this one. Hopefully I'll be finished today.
Rock 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZHyqXojZPM
Good eyes, wow... and on a full moon too! Too many straight lines to be organic!
I agree, Primus. Many things that are too squared. Looked like light coming from a window on one of the earlier place...
Fantastic video..one of the best Ive ever seen if not the best ever!
Well done! And yes Amy and Primus..way too many shapes and anomalous geometry there to noy be artificial or non human!
Chilling, to say the least!
Le
My old eyes saw nothing until Rock outlined the stuff..Wow...Straight lines indeed..The tower came to life after he outlined it....
It's easy to forget the scale we're talking about when looking at these moon pictures. The difficulty of viewing this scale verses resolution makes it tough to see these structures, especially given such stark contrasts in lighting. The builders of these structures obviously engineered them to blend with the geography where they utilize the moon's features for efficiency and camouflage. Thanks to Rock we can see things, however, it's too bad this wondrous truth is hidden from us in the fist place!
Oh yeah, at 1:26 you zoom into some structures, and to the left is this funky looking, loosely shaped "H"... is that an anomaly in the photo?
Thanks Rock, Gold brother!
Primus58/Hiscosmos(YT)
Not as good and a little rushed but you get the idea.. This is the other part of the photo series.
I might do 'H3' if I get the time.
Thanks for the kuddos! John knows his stuff!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RueEI1qZCpw
Hi Sarge; you do such a good job with these videos ;D yet as I watch them I myself see more and more in each one, often times things I think I see that you do not address...
perhaps my old eyes are deceiving me, or I just want to see more, so I do...
Excellent, my friend...
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on September 30, 2012, 07:54:00 PM
Hi Sarge; you do such a good job with these videos ;D yet as I watch them I myself see more and more in each one, often times things I think I see that you do not address...
perhaps my old eyes are deceiving me, or I just want to see more, so I do...
Excellent, my friend...
seeker
You know I say the same thing myself, I often seen other things I should have addressed but I just don't have the time to go back and revisit...Maybe later..:) thanks again...it's appreicated very much.
;D
Rock 8)
Quote from: the seeker on September 30, 2012, 07:54:00 PM
Hi Sarge; you do such a good job with these videos ;D yet as I watch them I myself see more and more in each one, often times things I think I see that you do not address...
perhaps my old eyes are deceiving me, or I just want to see more, so I do...
Maybe, maybe not, that's the problem. We don't have any real way of knowing if our brains are trying to do us a favour by showing things that don't exist or if those things are really there but we didn't noticed at the time.
I usually rotate the image, as if it was some kind of optical illusion it usually disappears as soon as we see the scene in a different way.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 30, 2012, 08:50:09 PM
I usually rotate the image, as if it was some kind of optical illusion it usually disappears as soon as we see the scene in a different way.
That's exactly what I do on everyone. I rotate it around and see if the same thing appears in each view...
Excellent work, Rock!
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 30, 2012, 09:14:22 PM
That's exactly what I do on everyone.
I hope you don't do that on me, I could get even dizzier than I'm already am. ;)
Very funny ;D
Ok guys this is the last one in the series...Enjoy
Rock 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwWmKQmq0uA
At 1:05 in the mid left of the image I see round walls of what appear to be ancient craters.
I am familiar with how one crater landing atop an earlier one produces intermingled round edges and walls, but in this image I see 2 instances of straight line walls in the middle of the earlier craters.
How does that work? ???
Nice work Sarge, lots of interesting areas to ponder.
Back after a time away ...
Sarge, that is really a great work !
But thse constructions must be gigantic ? Enormous, no ? If it is building, of course !
May we have an idea of the scale ?
Alle the best !
Guerande
Great work Rock! I like it! :) :) :)
http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/moon_2012sept.html
Amazing views ! and very good quality !
Some Frenchies are really not so bad ! :P
Here are some interesting areas in the Marius Hills.
(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/7806/mariushillsa.jpg) (http://img805.imageshack.us/i/mariushillsa.jpg/)
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3355/mariushillsb.jpg) (http://img259.imageshack.us/i/mariushillsb.jpg/)
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/9563/mariushillsc.jpg) (http://img41.imageshack.us/i/mariushillsc.jpg/)
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5982/mariushillsd.jpg) (http://img825.imageshack.us/i/mariushillsd.jpg/)
Quote from: guerande on October 03, 2012, 03:01:33 PM
Amazing views ! and very good quality !
Some Frenchies are really not so bad ! :P
C'est si bon mon ami! ;D
:o Wow ....... that sure looks like vegetation(trees?)in those photos in Marius Hills John . They would have to be huge if my idea of the scale is correct.!! I see many things in those images and I am just using a magnifying glass. Can't wait for "Rock" to use his "powers" on them .
What do you say Sarge ? lets have a closer look !!
I'll have to look for some hi-res or better resolution photos. You really can't see too much other than they look interesting. I'll have to find exactly where ' Marius Hills' is located. But John always turns me on to great areas to look at.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on October 04, 2012, 01:07:13 AM
I'll have to look for some hi-res or better resolution photos. You really can't see too much other than they look interesting. I'll have to find exactly where ' Marius Hills' is located. But John always turns me on to great areas to look at.
Hello Rock,
Marius Hills are located in the Oceanus Procellarum at roughly 50W 12N on the near side almost to the western edge (left side) of the visible moon. The best resolution comes from the Arizona State University photos. ArMap knows how to get them.
This is a wide angle shot of the Marius Hills valley. Marius Crater is in the upper right. All of the previous posted photos were taken from this view.
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1228/mariuswideangle.png) (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/mariuswideangle.png/)
Thanks John, I've already downloaded the series 2213-h1, 2213-h2, 2213-h3.
Hey John , so here you are !!I have been looking for you to post somewhere!!anyway ... look at the shape of this Frank Loyd Wright house in the link. I think I have seen this shape on the moon somewhere ;)
Great pictures John and Sarge ... ! love to look at this stuff, I could stare for hours .
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/arts/design/frank-lloyd-wright-house-in-phoenix-faces-bulldozers.html?nl=todays
Could some of the more natural looking anomalies be lichtenburg figures and electrical discharge effects?
Certainly some of the things there look manmade, but several of the features appear to be electrical in nature..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_T6__JDeyw
Im out of my league here with you gents, but some of these spots look like the ones in this video.
Cheers!
Quote from: johnlear on October 04, 2012, 01:34:27 AM
This is a wide angle shot of the Marius Hills valley. Marius Crater is in the upper right. All of the previous posted photos were taken from this view.
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1228/mariuswideangle.png) (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/mariuswideangle.png/)
John ....I think I see enough places to live in this picture for a million people or more 8) lots more!!
I've briefly looked at this series and I have to say there might be something there but these photos look like they're smudged and/or blurred on purpose unlike others I've seen...Don't really know for sure. Maybe ArMaP can find some better ones.
Quote from: johnlear on October 04, 2012, 01:34:27 AM
This is a wide angle shot of the Marius Hills valley. Marius Crater is in the upper right. All of the previous posted photos were taken from this view.
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1228/mariuswideangle.png) (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/mariuswideangle.png/)
John . one third of the way down from the top of the image , on the left side I swear I see a pyramid!!
Hoss, youre right,,, a stepped one at that!
This image has numerous unnatural features in my opinion...quite a few.
Le
Quote from: Littleenki on October 04, 2012, 03:11:26 AM
Hoss, youre right,,, a stepped one at that!
This image has numerous unnatural features in my opinion...quite a few.
Le
Dave ,are you referring to the first thing on the left side or the second ? I think the first large feature on the left , down from the top ,I see what looks like a sunlit triangle or ...the one side of a four sided pryamid
The object I refer to has a dark line on it going down the side toward the bottom.
Quote from: hoss58 on October 04, 2012, 03:46:15 AM
Dave ,are you referring to the first thing on the left side or the second ? I think the first large feature on the left , down from the top ,I see what looks like a sunlit triangle or ...the one side of a four sided pryamid
Indeed, Hoss, stepped with four sides and a clear pyramid shape. I also see a lot of marks which cant be from natural surface activity..and several places where structures appear to be blended in with the terrain and craters. Very good camouflage!
Also a lot of electrical arcing evidence..small holes in rows..and also theres a spot which looks like an entrance into a crater as if its a base of some sort..I think John pointed it out.
Cheers!
Quote from: Littleenki on October 04, 2012, 03:57:41 AM
Indeed, Hoss, stepped with four sides and a clear pyramid shape. I also see a lot of marks which cant be from natural surface activity..and several places where structures appear to be blended in with the terrain and craters. Very good camouflage!
Also a lot of electrical arcing evidence..small holes in rows..and also theres a spot which looks like an entrance into a crater as if its a base of some sort..I think John pointed it out.
Cheers!
Cool , you se it too !! I was hoping I wasn't making up in my mind, there is a name for that but it escapes me right now , any way yes I see a definite pryamid shape, and like you say , there is some camouflage . I hope Johh says something about it . I have not been exited like this for a while ;D
Sarge.... think we could get a zoom in on that possible pyramid? ;DI know that it might look different after zooming in with your set up . I am just using the screen zoom on my old imac and a magnifying glass ;)
As usual, a very intriguing picture courtesy of Mr Lear; I hope Sarge can get something to work with that hasn't been so heavily censored and/r airbrushed...
seeker
Ok guys, this is what I've been able to see so far. Now I know most of this is subjective because the photo is so badly blurred and out of foused. There is a lot there but I can't be sure exactly what some of it is. I'll keep trying to do more. This is just a taste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDwvk8QIiAE
Very well done Rock, freaking amazing brother, wow! :)
Thanks but as I said it really is a bad photo and some of the items are just probably funky looking rocks...lolol...But thanks anyway.
Quote from: hoss58 on October 05, 2012, 02:24:02 AM
Sarge.... think we could get a zoom in on that possible pyramid? ;DI know that it might look different after zooming in with your set up . I am just using the screen zoom on my old imac and a magnifying glass ;)
Sorry guys but I think its just a hill with some valleys or cravasses or craters. If this is the one you're talking about?
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/notaprymid.png)
Nice work, Sarge!
Is it me or does a lot of the stuff there look more like wreckage or mechanical debris than actual current structure?
And, a few of those shapes look mysteriously like ship pieces or boat debris.
Any thoughts on that?
Le
While I was outlining some things, I kept thinking of vehicles for some reason. Or machines of some sort. Just wish I had a better photo to work with.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on October 05, 2012, 03:38:43 AM
Sorry guys but I think its just a hill with some valleys or cravasses or craters. If this is the one you're talking about?
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/notaprymid.png)
yeah that's it Sarge , shoot ......It looks a lot different when you get good zoom on it , or well there is lots of other stuff how about the rim of that largest crater, especially the left side as you look at the image . It sure looks like a lot of straight lines and flat surace like dwellings built onto the existing topography
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on October 04, 2012, 02:13:26 AM
Maybe ArMaP can find some better ones.
The best I could find was the one at LPI, probably the one you used. :(
Yeah that's where I got mine. Thanks for looking though. :D
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on October 05, 2012, 03:38:43 AM
Sorry guys but I think its just a hill with some valleys or cravasses or craters. If this is the one you're talking about?
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/notaprymid.png)
It sure pays to have a decent display! It does have a step or two...down into a small crater though.. hehe.
After looking a bit more this morning..there are definite mechanically shaped objects..still looks like wreckage and debris from either mining or some other machinery to me...
A funny thought? Where did some of those ships from the japanese, and the bermuda triangles go? Is it possible some of them ended up on the farside?
Or even failed Philadelphia Type experiments perhaps. :o
Or as Luke has posed..the lost Searl Generators? 8)
Its a lot of linear shaped wreckage, like pieces of craft or vessels..just a thought.
Le
I keep seeing spherical objects sitting out in the middle of nowhere. I've seen them in more than one or two photos. I kind of thought about camouflage generators.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on October 05, 2012, 03:19:09 PM
I keep seeing spherical objects sitting out in the middle of nowhere. I've seen them in more than one or two photos. I kind of thought about camouflage generators.
Thats a unique idea, Sarge..I did notice some spherical features but hadnt really considered them, as I was locked into staright line mode..does the moon have features like the martian blueberries I wonder?
Of course, a camouflage generator would be a necessity to hide the real huge facilities we have speculated about on the farside for so long....I bet if we could see it over a period of time, instead of stills, there would be some glitching involved, just like any holograph generators here on Earth.
How many versions of this same image are there available, and from how far apart in time I wonder? If we had several of the same angle and area, we could compare them to each other.
Im not up on where to find the images and what the numbers mean in the listings, otherwise Id go look...ArMaP maybe?;)
John?
Great scenery up there nevertheless!
Cheers!
Le
Enki, you should take a look at this. :)
LROC WMS Image Map (http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc)
Hopping around the moon on that link, Pim. Saw this (and many others like it):
Quote from: Pimander on October 05, 2012, 03:32:16 PM
Enki, you should take a look at this. :)
LROC WMS Image Map (http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc)
Thanks Pimander, i might not come out of that site for a couple days...if not, send in the SG-1 team please!LOL!
Thanks a million, brother!
Le
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 05, 2012, 04:33:41 PM
Hopping around the moon on that link, Pim. Saw this (and many others like it):
You tell me what it is.... A mistake pasting together more than one image or a conspiracy to hide something on the Moon?
I'm guessing the latter. That is just SOOOOO not right.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 05, 2012, 05:12:01 PM
I'm guessing the latter. That is just SOOOOO not right.
Ama, if you look slightly above and to the left of your red circle you will see another similar blotch...
I find it difficult to be a result of pasting/stitching since it is in such a small area and does not carry full length as one would expect a stitch line to...
but that is just my ramblings on the matter...
seeker
Yep. Saw that, too, but it "hides" better. I agree, just not the right size for a stitch.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 05, 2012, 04:33:41 PM
Hopping around the moon on that link, Pim. Saw this (and many others like it):
It would be easier if we had a location for that. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on October 06, 2012, 10:22:23 AM
It would be easier if we had a location for that. :)
I suspect we might need a guide for members when they are looking for anomalies.
Never post a lunar picture without image ID or location coordinates is a good tip. Even some experienced members do it from time to time, without naming names. ;)
Sorry. I saw it and copied the image directly... It's in the southern part, pretty much straight down from where They start You off at.
Quote from: Amaterasu on October 06, 2012, 01:43:30 PM
Sorry. I saw it and copied the image directly... It's in the southern part, pretty much straight down from where They start You off at.
If you can find it again, get the footprint info or copy the long/lat that's displayed.
I've found it. :)
It looks more like the mosaic they use has many errors than any attempt at hiding something. The other mosaics do not have that problem.
(http://i.imgur.com/njBbnH4.jpg)
Here are some sources of data.
Clementine: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clm/
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunar_orbiter/
http://ode.rsl.wustl.edu/moon/
http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/pigwad/down/moon_dl.htm
Sorry about the off-topic posts folks.
I would appreciate it enormously if someone took the time to do a thread detailing the best sources for lunar images. Come on mate, I'm just so busy lately. :)
Why don't we just steal all the data and do out own ArcGIS database? We could just start with areas of interest. If we password protected it the feds wouldn't know. ???
Something old, something new.. Took the original 1102-H1 & spliced in H2 & H3 for some more interesting objects.. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xtJZqh_PEY
Well, it took a while to get caught up, and what fascinating finds for a more tangible approach to the 'Living Moon' theory.
Absolutely mind blowing as usual Sgt. And John, great pic's, as well as some that others have provided thus far.
I am still out on the sphere thing's/anomalies. They serve purpose, as too what? I can only go by speculation from space time continuum distorter too condensation recovery units, very complex for sure by way of thought perception and true function.
I was wondering John, "Do you have any inclination of what these sphere's may be?" with all the evidence so far, I have not heard your point of view of what these things may be for or if you have any opinion at all on their function.
Glad too be back here at PRC the way it was, thanks Z for the continued hard work and unparalleled efforts for our wonderful website here.
1Worldwatcher
Thanks 1WW...I have notice several on varying photos....at least to me they appear to be spheres, or incredibly smooth boulders.. ::)
Rock 8)
Just re-watched John's interview in April of this year on his home website...now I'm really fired up...
Excellent viewing....
http://therealjohnlear.com/TheRealJohnLear.com/NEWS/Entries/2012/4/16_INTERVIEW_2012.html
This thread is well....yawn... ???
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 11, 2012, 02:15:44 PM
This thread is well....yawn... ???
It could be because there are no real buildings on the Moon. ;)
Lol too funny ArMaP, too funny 8)
Hi Sarge , this is Portuguese humor ;D ( but I can confirm it's a very nice
people , an Portugal too is lovely ! )
Grrrrr ... bad English ...
I said " people " speaking of Portugueses, as I don't personaly know Armap ...
But I'm sure he is a fine guy !
Hey Sgt,
Sorry you are feeling that this thread is boring, without your expertise and in put to what we are looking at , it becomes rather moot for conversation without someone's in put from a man of your education and back round.
Though I do believe there should be a few posts here already that I would consider serious investigative reaction.
First one being the apparent mining facility pointed out by several members here see something , and they are all centrally connected apparently as well.
Another bit of observable info was the Video that was discovered by COSMOS and then shared here, it was the UFO footage from 4 different vantage points in the UK I believe. Strange video for sure, but uncannily close too the same shape and profile of the supposed Alien Craft on the tripod type of landing gear.
There are so many things we can revisit and re-involve, this thread could carry it's own weight, but without Sgt.'s diagnosis and evaluation, it is anybodies guess. Wish I had the $ for the software to help you out Sgt. but , I don't and hope you understand the value you have too this thread and the Pegasus family as a whole.
Have been discussing this topic for years now, and these researches that you have been doing for the PRC Forums are some of the best my friend.
So Sgt. "What do you think about that UFO sighting and the shape of our anomaly on the moon being one and the same?" Hoping your software can superimpose a side by side rendering that would put a bit of meat too the truth here. This is something that would have been weigh side if it were not for the keen eye of WTH. Blew my mind when it was realized.
Hope to hear from you soon and hope all is well for you and yours my friend.
With Great Respect,
1Worldwatcher
Thanks, 1WW...as always your kind words are welcome..It's not that I'm bored, but I kinda think everyone else might be. I don't really look at or comment much on anything other than moon anomalies, cause that's my main interest. How to save the world or mankind, or whether we're destroying the planet, or free energy, or HAARP....I kinda get a glazed look when reading that sort of stuff and my opinions on such things might disturb some people so I just lurk....I guess I need to go back and revisit all that stuff I've posted and see if there are any other interesting things to look at....
Rock..
8)
I'm always lurking on the Lunar images threads. I love this stuff.
I guess we all lurk...:)
Ok guys, here's the new and improved (I hope) latest video of the farside of the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8MCVyX93pM
Great choice of soundtracks too Sarge. Nice upgrade all the way around!
"LRC V13-H-1"?
What's LRC?
PS: as it says "must see" I didn't watch it. :P
'NASA LRC' is what's printed on the bottom of the photo John sent me. I didn't expect you to watch it anyway, cause nothing seems to satisfy you except your own analysis. It's my interpretation of what 'I' see! Either you like it or not!
Dear Sarge,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_nKtxal5dw
8)
Ok?
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 03, 2013, 08:15:22 PM
'NASA LRC' is what's printed on the bottom of the photo John sent me.
OK, thanks. :)
QuoteI didn't expect you to watch it anyway, cause nothing seems to satisfy you except your own analysis.
I could say the same thing about your analysis, as you ignored the higher resolution photos I once provided of one of those "anomalies", but that was not the reason I didn't watch the video, it was because 6 minutes is above my self-imposed limit to watch any video (it's between 3 or 4 minutes, depending on the first seconds being interesting or not), although I make some exceptions, if I know what I will be watching.
QuoteIt's my interpretation of what 'I' see! Either you like it or not!
Sure it's your interpretation, too bad you don't use other sources to compare with those old photos.
What I like is irrelevant for what you post but not for what I do with my own time. :)
Very well Done Sgt.!! ;) I was so glad too see that the 'Farside' was a recent post my friend. It is hard too understand why people don't see the obvious here. I see all that you have pointed out very clearly and it isn't from 'Normal' conditions these intricate angles and sphere's are created.
ArMap is a bit hard nosed , yes, but , if one has an itch, one must scratch, no matter how controversial it may be to do so....LOL ::)
I hope you will be doing some more Sgt. I have been watching updates to your YT subscription, was wondering how long it would be until you started sharing here again. Hopefully John will chime in with his Critique of this revamping, I do so like having all the places out lined with in sections, puts it all into a much more perspective analogy of what a 'True' mining field would look like "Town after Town" my friend.
Encore, Encore and applause for you Sgt. I am going to give you some of my gold!! ;) Just keep'em coming my friend.....
With Great Respect,
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: ArMaP on March 03, 2013, 10:08:41 PM
OK, thanks. :)
I could say the same thing about your analysis, as you ignored the higher resolution photos I once provided of one of those "anomalies", but that was not the reason I didn't watch the video, it was because 6 minutes is above my self-imposed limit to watch any video (it's between 3 or 4 minutes, depending on the first seconds being interesting or not), although I make some exceptions, if I know what I will be watching.
Sure it's your interpretation, too bad you don't use other sources to compare with those old photos.
What I like is irrelevant for what you post but not for what I do with my own time. :)
I have no idea what better resolution photos you're talking about! Please re-fresh my memory. The main reason I used this one was because John Lear took a great effort to get me this photo and that's the reason I used it. I've always tried to find the higer resolution photos available. I'm sorry I'm not as well versed as you and I'm fairly new to this game. It's just fun for me.
As far as you're time goes, that's up to you, but you did find the time to comment as you usually do.
So please don't waste your time on my account. ;)
8)
Many thanks 1WorldWatch and you too A51Watcher
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on March 03, 2013, 10:16:24 PM
ArMap is a bit hard nosed , yes, but , if one has an itch, one must scratch, no matter how controversial it may be to do so....LOL ::)
I just think the same as you that "it is hard too understand why people don't see the obvious here", I just have a different "obvious", obviously. ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on March 04, 2013, 12:14:54 AM
I just think the same as you that "it is hard too understand why people don't see the obvious here", I just have a different "obvious", obviously. ;D
Obviously obvious not your obvious. ;D ;)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 03, 2013, 10:48:33 PM
I have no idea what better resolution photos you're talking about! Please re-fresh my memory.
I have to refresh my own memory first, I only remember that I posted a photo from Kaguya/Selene that showed that an area where you pointed some "satellite dish antennas" (or something like that) were just some smaller craters and a play of light, shadows and colours.
QuoteI'm sorry I'm not as well versed as you and I'm fairly new to this game. It's just fun for me.
When I started reading posts about the Moon and Mars some 10 years ago I didn't had any idea of where I could find the photos, now I can look at a photo and (in most cases) see if it's Mars or the Moon or any other place or even which satellite took the photo. It has been a lot of fun for me, so I understand what you mean and I don't want to spoil your fun. :)
QuoteAs far as you're time goes, that's up to you, but you did find the time to comment as you usually do.
So please don't waste your time on my account. ;)
But I didn't waste those six minutes. ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on March 04, 2013, 12:21:23 AM
I have to refresh my own memory first, I only remember that I posted a photo from Kaguya/Selene that showed that an area where you pointed some "satellite dish antennas" (or something like that) were just some smaller craters and a play of light, shadows and colours.
When I started reading posts about the Moon and Mars some 10 years ago I didn't had any idea of where I could find the photos, now I can look at a photo and (in most cases) see if it's Mars or the Moon or any other place or even which satellite took the photo. It has been a lot of fun for me, so I understand what you mean and I don't want to spoil your fun. :)
But I didn't waste those six minutes. ;D
Now I know what you're talking about. That was a completely different area. ;D OBVIOUSLY ;D
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 04, 2013, 12:28:33 AM
Now I know what you're talking about. That was a completely different area. ;D OBVIOUSLY ;D
And, apparently, obliviously. ;)
Quote from: ArMaP on March 04, 2013, 12:14:54 AM
I just think the same as you that "it is hard too understand why people don't see the obvious here", I just have a different "obvious", obviously. ;D
So ArMap "What is your take on these 'Anomalies' we seemingly find with fine construct of one another?" I am by no means a geologist, astrophysicist or one that can write these off as just 'Normal/Natural' occurrences of either fractal or impact scenario's. And by this statement, I am only going by what I have read and learned over the past several years of looking at things from the Lunar surface. I could not for the life of me depict Mars photos from Lunar ones with out reference, err go my novice interpretation of what I see in a given format.
Sgt.'s allocation of these anomalies and then his renderings brings the subject matter at hand more feasible for further understanding, and I, for one, have seen a lot of thing's that I can't stereo type as 'Normal out croppings, shadows or play of light' scenarios. Though I do have healthy skepticism with in the discussion of such topics, it becomes obvious too me that there truly is something to the whole "Base's on the Moon" theory. (Had too throw that Obvious in there, keep it going you know...LOL... :P )
Is there method too the madness of where they are located and do you think, with similar mining facilities on Earth, that these are conspicuously and alarmingly similar? Sometimes right down to the possible equipment we would use for such facilitation?
If there was one thing I would ask of Sgt. it would be too use a different color other than red for outlining, maybe yellow or a higher contrast color when displaying. But for the most part, everything that Sgt. is pulling out for discussion seems too be quite relevant and rather 'Out of Place' too say the least.
ArMap "What percent of these locations do you think are actually 'Unexplainable' and can be feasibly what they seem too be?" (Lunar Facilities of some sort.)
1WW
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on March 08, 2013, 02:45:23 PM
So ArMap "What is your take on these 'Anomalies' we seemingly find with fine construct of one another?"
I don't think they are anomalous. :)
QuoteI am by no means a geologist, astrophysicist or one that can write these off as just 'Normal/Natural' occurrences of either fractal or impact scenario's.
One of the main reasons people see strange things on Moon (Mars, etc.) is the fact that people forget that, on a 2D screen, we cannot really see a 3D scene, but that doesn't stop our brains from creating a possible 3D version of what we are seeing.
The Moon, even in greyscale photos, has many different shades (and in reality, many different colours), so when people see a brighter area close to a darker area they, usually, create a 3D version of what they see, by imagining that the brighter area represents some kind of reflection. The same thing happens with darker areas, confused many times with shadows.
That's why I always look for other photos of the same area, as even a slightly different angle is usually enough to give us a 3D version that is much closer to reality.
QuoteSgt.'s allocation of these anomalies and then his renderings brings the subject matter at hand more feasible for further understanding, and I, for one, have seen a lot of thing's that I can't stereo type as 'Normal out croppings, shadows or play of light' scenarios.
The problem with the outlining and rendering in any photo is that the person doing it may be considering that, for example, a rock behind a crater is just one object, so the result, although a help for other people to see what the person doing the outlining or rendering sees, doesn't really get us closer to the truth, it only shows us that person's vision.
QuoteThough I do have healthy skepticism with in the discussion of such topics, it becomes obvious too me that there truly is something to the whole "Base's on the Moon" theory. (Had too throw that Obvious in there, keep it going you know...LOL... :P )
I have yet to see something that really looks like a base.
QuoteIs there method too the madness of where they are located and do you think, with similar mining facilities on Earth, that these are conspicuously and alarmingly similar? Sometimes right down to the possible equipment we would use for such facilitation?
Zorgon once posted what he said was some crane-like object on the edge of, if I'm not mistaken, Copernicus crater. On a different photo the "crane" was clearly a ground feature.
I haven't seen any mines either. :)
QuoteIf there was one thing I would ask of Sgt. it would be too use a different color other than red for outlining, maybe yellow or a higher contrast color when displaying.
I agree, yellow (or bright green) makes a much better contrast.
QuoteArMap "What percent of these locations do you think are actually 'Unexplainable' and can be feasibly what they seem too be?" (Lunar Facilities of some sort.)
Of all I have seen, only one was, to me, unexplainable, or, more correctly, I didn't find an explanation that I thought was clearly better than all other possibilities.
That means that, as a percentage, it's very low. :)
I whole heartedly agree with ArMaP. There is nothing on the Moon other than rocks and dust. This has just been an exercise in the macab. Tricks of light and shadow and 63 year old eyes wearing trifocales make the ordinary rock look like the Mona Lisa. :) I forget that ArMaP only sees what 'he sees' and what you and I 'see' are just tricks of light and bad grayscale images. ;) Just us of the great unwashed, imagining moon people and mining operations and heaven forbid, 'spacecraft' and 'spaceports', don't know what we're talking about. ::)
In conclusion, I'm sorry for having tricked everyone into thinking there might be something, somewhere, on the moon where it's not and I promise I'll never ,ever use RED again if at all. Shame on me. I have enjoyed my time here and hope you all have a great day.
;) :o ::) :P :-X
Peace out Rock. 8)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 08, 2013, 10:24:59 PM
I forget that ArMaP only sees what 'he sees' and what you and I 'see' are just tricks of light and bad grayscale images. ;) Just us of the great unwashed, imagining moon people and mining operations and heaven forbid, 'spacecraft' and 'spaceports', don't know what we're talking about. ::)
Anyone can post what they think they see but I cannot post what I think I see?
Should I keep my mouth shut and not post my opinions to avoid offending your 63 years old eyes?
If that's what you want just ask.
No no no. I'm agreeing with you. 100% there's nothing up there.
There are also no UFO's and Aliens... it is a CIA plot (I have documents) :P
There is no 'Free Energy'... its all misdirection and Tom Bearden works for the CIA
Its all a hoax - nothing to see here move along back to your Ipods and video games, but read this first :P
WARNING DOT MIL AHEAD
THE ONE HUMAN PROBLEM, ITS SOLUTION, AND ITS RELATION TO UFO PHENOMENA
Jauuary 3, 1977
Thomas E. Bearden
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a034236.pdf
A Conditional Criterion for Identity, Leading to a Fourth Law of Logic
Thomas E .Bearden 1979
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a071032.pdf
Policing the New World Order: An Alternative Strategy
National Defense University National War College Fort McNair,
Washington, DC 20319
1991
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a436613.pdf
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 09, 2013, 12:42:22 AM
No no no. I'm agreeing with you. 100% there's nothing up there.
I would expect such a line from an ex Army Cyber Intel Agent :D
::)
My bad :P
;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Quote from: zorgon on March 09, 2013, 03:00:22 AM
I would expect such a line from an ex Army Cyber Intel Agent :D
::)
My bad :P
'These are not the droids you're looking for'
Thanks for your honest reply ArMap, I do understand what you are saying, I do know that 'Sometimes' the mind can trick itself from what is really being looked at or seen, and I do know there is 'Color' alternatives too take into consideration. And for this, you have my respect, but not my confidence.
I find it hard too believe that there is little to "NO" possibility of these photographed artifacts not being what we see them to be. Even with "63 Year Old Eyes" Sgt. I am 48 with some vision issues too, but clearly see things you are bringing to our attention. And as far as the 'Color' of out lines, I was just openly stating my eye sight has a hard time seeing the red out lines, I am color blind....LOL True as it is , works great for hunting ring necks, but for traffic lights and other facilitated uses of the colors of red, green and brown, that is my personal issue.
Another point I would like to bring up is the fact of how we are using same satellite technology too locate ancient civilization occupations on our own planet. "Why would they resort to something that is in your eyes (ArMap) that is so controversial for geological interpretation?" I mean, lets face it, satellite imaging is no different from one situation to the next, and I am an avid follower of archaeological exploration and finds, it is a testament of technology that seemingly has worked very well for finding such obscure and hidden places. This is also what one would expect for the Lunar surface as too allocate and discern probable associations with in such fine remnants and constructs of such research and investigative insights. I, for one, think we aren't looking at natural formed phenomena, this is clearly a representation of what one would see if we "Could' put boots on the ground and look for them on the Lunar surface ourselves.
I hope that Sgt. and the rest here don't ever quit this type of discussion and research, until we can get a man on the moon representing us honestly, we will always have skepticism and debate, but for the most part, the technologies being used are being used with in these field of research right here on good old Mother Earth, and that is something I know you cannot argue with. It is fact and is proving to be the most efficient way of doing archaeological digs without having to trek through unforgiving land masses and terrain, with no idea where too look. Which, with in the Archaeological community, is openly welcomed and accepted as a proper way of locating and finding such ancient remnants of these lost civilizations. IMHO.
1WW
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on March 10, 2013, 12:30:21 PM
And for this, you have my respect, but not my confidence.
Thanks for the first, I don't understand the second. ???
QuoteI find it hard too believe that there is little to "NO" possibility of these photographed artifacts not being what we see them to be.
First of all, I am never 100% sure of anything, so I never say that any thing (specially on an old photo of the Moon) cannot be something besides what I
think it is.
Second, there's the problem of the "what we see them to be", as different "we" see different things; you may see a mining operation while I see just natural features. The only thing we can be almost 100% sure is that one of us is probably wrong. :)
QuoteI am 48 with some vision issues too, but clearly see things you are bringing to our attention.
I'm two weeks away from 50 and in need of changing the lens on my glasses. :)
QuoteAnother point I would like to bring up is the fact of how we are using same satellite technology too locate ancient civilization occupations on our own planet. "Why would they resort to something that is in your eyes (ArMap) that is so controversial for geological interpretation?"
Do they rely on just one photo and one interpretation?
That's the same thing I say about using Google Earth to analyse Moon or Mars (or even Earth) photos; Google Earth is good for a starting point, it's not good enough (and we have better sources) to make a more or less good analysis.
Using satellite photos to get an idea of (what could be) an archaeology site is just one of the tools available to archaeologists, in the same way they have been using aerial photos to help them since they noticed that some features were easily seen from above, besides other things they have been using for centuries, like some kinds of plants that prefer rocky ground growing along walls, making a kind of map of underground buildings.
QuoteI, for one, think we aren't looking at natural formed phenomena, this is clearly a representation of what one would see if we "Could' put boots on the ground and look for them on the Lunar surface ourselves.
That's the problem, specially when we use only one photo, we are limited to what we
think those things are. From what I have seen, every time I find a second photo (or a better version of the same photo), everything looks natural.
QuoteI hope that Sgt. and the rest here don't ever quit this type of discussion and research...
So do I, what I would like was for a less "us and them" situation when people just post their own opinions, instead of being treated as an some kind of enemy.
If we want to
know instead of
believe then, the first thing we should do, is to accept different opinions.
I have stated many, many times that these are things that I 'think I see'. If you don't see the same thing, fine. No problem. I do this because I enjoy it. I have found many an interesting rock/geological formation, hell some even look like buildings. But I know there's a possability they aren't really there, just tricks of light and poor resolution of photos that are 30, 40 years old. I wonder though how those aerial photo interpreters in WWII discovered and could differentiate between trees and rocks that there were actually V2 rockets/trucks/buildings? Just the minds eye trying to convert 2d to 3d I guess. ;)
(as a side note. My last vid was done with a scan of a photo that John Lear sent me. He asked me to take a look and see if I thought there was anything on this photo, cause he actually did. I didn't think it proper to use another photo.)(I have downloaded literally thousands of photos. I have a great amount of space to save photos.)( Anytime someone has a better resolution photo, I'll go and download it and use it)
I'm going back to searching now and I'll post what I think I see.
As 1WW says 'With great Respect'..
Peace 8)
Rock...
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 10, 2013, 03:35:01 PM
I wonder though how those aerial photo interpreters in WWII discovered and could differentiate between trees and rocks that there were actually V2 rockets/trucks/buildings? Just the minds eye trying to convert 2d to 3d I guess. ;)
I suppose they are more than one photo and that they were better than 30 or 40 years old photos. :)
QuoteAnytime someone has a better resolution photo, I'll go and download it and use it
True, I have seen you do that more than once. :)
QuoteI'm going back to searching now and I'll post what I think I see.
I will wait, then I will post what I think I see, obviously.
QuoteAs 1WW says 'With great Respect'..
Always. :)
Look guys, there are many who are NEVER going to admit to seeing an anomalous object, solely on the basis that a "skeptic" just doe not believe they exist. There are a "gazillion" reasons that can always be easily fabricated to explain anomalies away. Some skeptics do it very diplomatically, and others do it very direct and argumentatively, taking their response to "making it personal". And in some cases (other websites), I have seen the "skeptics" respond as if on a very coordinated basis......for whatever reason.
But, while the skeptic members do have the same right as all to express forum opinion, we should take it for what it is, and continue to develop what we feel are the facts of what we believe to be "true anomalies".
Skeptic activity is not simply isolated individual eventism. It is a learning process based approach to the particular thought process of "fact denial". For instance, there is a large "Skeptic's Dictionary" on-line that can help us understand where the skeptics approach to thought comes from. Here is a link to that dictionary for review by anyone interested:
http://skepdic.com/
So, we shouldn't get too bothered by negative comments presented by folks known to be 99%+ skeptical in all prior comments. We know where they are coming from, take it for what it is, and move on forward!
I do believe the below image is appropriate to reflect the true definition of skepticism. Forget the printed words on the image, and just think "SKEPTIC"! :) :) :) :) :) :)
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/311897_601498509876961_96408027_n.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on March 10, 2013, 05:58:56 PM
Look guys, there are many who are NEVER going to admit to seeing an anomalous object, solely on the basis that a "skeptic" just doe not believe they exist.
Wrong, it's not a question of believing or not believing in something, it's a question of seeing all the possibilities without having a preferred answer.
QuoteThere are a "gazillion" reasons that can always be easily fabricated to explain anomalies away.
No need to fabricate anything, is it that difficult to accept that other people may see things in a different way?
QuoteBut, while the skeptic members do have the same right as all to express forum opinion, we should take it for what it is, and continue to develop what we feel are the facts of what we believe to be "true anomalies".
I agree.
QuoteIt is a learning process based approach to the particular thought process of "fact denial".
Wrong, look at a real definition.
QuoteFor instance, there is a large "Skeptic's Dictionary" on-line that can help us understand where the skeptics approach to thought comes from.
What do you mean, that that site is some kind of "sceptics bible"? ???
QuoteSo, we shouldn't get too bothered by negative comments presented by folks known to be 99%+ skeptical in all prior comments.
Comments from sceptics shouldn't be negative, even if they are contrary to your opinions/beliefs, and you shouldn't think of a different opinion as a negative comment.
(If I have ever made a negative comment please point me to it so I can apologise for it to the affected person(s))
QuoteWe know where they are coming from, take it for what it is, and move on forward!
Apparently, you do not.
QuoteI do believe the below image is appropriate to reflect the true definition of skepticism.
Wrong again.
::)
armap said, "What do you mean, that that site is some kind of "sceptics bible"?"
...
Well, when one looks at its voluminous content of "skeptic thought", "skeptic's bible" would be a pretty fair description for its intended purpose, doncha think?
Can you think of any other possible purpose for creating and maintaining such a large database of purely "skeptical thought" on almost every conceivable subject, and then some!
Here are specific quotes from the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary, relative to its purpose (found in its "Introduction") :
The Skeptic's Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term "occult" to refer to any and all of these subjects.
The Skeptic's Dictionary will provide the soft skeptic with evidence and arguments, as well as references to more evidence and arguments, on occult issues.
The hardened skeptic doesn't need much more in the way of evidence or argument to be convinced that any given occult claim is probably based on error or fraud. Still, The Skeptic's Dictionary has something for the hardened skeptic, too: It will provide ammunition against the incessant arguments of true believers.
The one group that this book is not designed for is that of the true believers. My studies have convinced me that arguments or data critical of their beliefs are always considered by the true believer to be insignificant, irrelevant, manipulative, deceptive, not authoritative, unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational, and/or diabolical. (It is perhaps worth noting that except for the term "diabolical," these are the same terms some hardened skeptics use to describe the studies and evidence presented by true believers.)
Quote from: rdunk on March 10, 2013, 07:57:53 PM
Well, when one looks at its voluminous content of "skeptic thought", "skeptic's bible" would be a pretty fair description for its intended purpose, doncha think?
Well, that may be the intention of the site owner, but a real sceptic doesn't need a site or a book to tell him/her what to do, a sceptic applies his/her scepticism in everything he/she does and to all the information that reaches him/her.
In fact, I am very sceptical about that site. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on March 10, 2013, 09:21:10 PM
In fact, I am very sceptical about that site. :)
Obviously ;D
Quote from: ArMaP on March 10, 2013, 06:45:59 PM
it's a question of seeing all the possibilities without having a preferred answer.
However there is also another factor. The "I see nothing but blurry rocks" factor. There are people who will look at the greyscale images and truly all they can see are blurry rocks... while others can spot details as plain as day. Is it their monitor? Is it their vision? Or does their mind simply not accept it?
Others that can see it immediately are usually artistic and others get hired by the military image processing outfits. I was actually offered such a position... in hind sight I should have accepted :P
It is really a futile endeavor for either side to try to convince the other... though once in a while eyes can be opened as happened with TheBorg at ATS. One day he saw what I saw... clearly because he had finally gotten the scale into his mind. After that he found many more himself :D
The RAF Penemunde photograph is a perfect example Look at the objects labelled rocket and trailer. This image was used as bombing target selection
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Peenemunde_test_stand_VII.jpg)
Quote from: zorgon on March 10, 2013, 09:38:16 PM
It is really a futile endeavor for either side to try to convince the other... though once in a while eyes can be opened as happened with TheBorg at ATS. One day he saw what I saw... clearly because he had finally gotten the scale into his mind. After that he found many more himself :D
I usually don't have any problems seeing what other people see, in fact, I think I have been more on the side of other people not seeing what I see (usually rocks). :)
QuoteThe RAF Penemunde photograph is a perfect example Look at the objects labelled rocket and trailer. This image was used as bombing target selection
I doubt that bad digital copy was the one they used. :P
QuoteArMap
I guess you could be right with the technologies used here on Earth for satellite imaging, but with the new Lunar satellites being sent to get better resolutions and topography of the lunar surface, you would think they could or have gotten technologies to amass structural information and formations of ridge lines, craters and other easily facilitated information by now. After all "The Moon is colored, right?"
QuoteSgt.
LOL "Obviously!!" Ha ha ha ha....Too funny my friend. ::)
Quoterdunk
Thanks for the link, I have to agree there is some kind of mental self absorption when it comes too die hard skepticism, but, as myself being an atheist, I am assuming they are going by what they "Think they know" kind of dead reckoning of sorts. Though I think my religious interpretations are far more constituted than straight out skeptical denial, they may very well be one and the same as far as over all out come too cause and effect. ::)
Interesting skeptics website for sure. WWW has got it all covered!! LOL :P
1WW
Hello folks.
So, 43 pages in, do we have an image that most of you agree is a building or not?
A lot of skeptics (and sceptics :P) use the word Pareidolia a lot... in fact they flog it to death... but I have another word that in my opinion describes these skeptics to a tee...
Prosopagnosia
This is the opposite of Pareidolia It is the INABILITY to recognize shapes :P
Skeptics will argue that we see faces in clouds and everything else, but that these faces are merely our ability to see form in everything. But what if there is another reason? What if we see these faces because the faces are really there?
Natives have talked about Nature Spirits for thousands of years. What if the faces we see in Nature are really there, an expression of some unknown entity? I have spent years collecting these 'spirits' And quite frankly I pity the skeptic who's eyes and mind cannot see what I see...
Have a look at this one... I call these images "The Watchers"
(http://thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Eyes_000.jpg)
(http://thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Russia_001.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOoWfUw-jNM
I have found that every really good storm will have a watcher appear :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=148E6nHKmq8
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on March 10, 2013, 09:44:38 PM
I guess you could be right with the technologies used here on Earth for satellite imaging, but with the new Lunar satellites being sent to get better resolutions and topography of the lunar surface, you would think they could or have gotten technologies to amass structural information and formations of ridge lines, craters and other easily facilitated information by now. After all "The Moon is colored, right?"
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. :(
Quote from: zorgon on March 10, 2013, 10:03:21 PM
Skeptics will argue that we see faces in clouds and everything else, but that these faces are merely our ability to see form in everything. But what if there is another reason? What if we see these faces because the faces are really there?
The problem with faces is that humans are really "wired" to recognise faces, even where there is none, like this one. :)
Also, what we recognise as a face is something very simple, we just need two points and a line in the right positions to see a face.
So, while I think seeing faces is usually a case of pareidolia, I don't think that seeing mining equipment, buildings and factories is just pareidolia.
Quote from: ArMaP on March 10, 2013, 10:13:08 PM
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. :(
I was pertaining to such things as thermal distance imaging, High and low altitude satellite discrepancy evaluated photos or images. With in all the technologies being used, "Don't we have a Lunar Orbiter that supplies topographical information for terrain discrepancies?" i.e. South America with forset covered terrain showing feasible areas for ancient civilization possibilities and locations? (Ancient cities and dwellings on satellite/Radar.)
Heck, I find it useful to take a image to my simple paint and invert the image colors, this pulls out a lot of what isn't being seen as well. Believe it or not, I do have a few pictures of what seems to be ancient remnants of structures on the moon, but can't post due to my PC problems, and I am sorry for that, but it looks very convincing to me that there was more than 'Natural Forces' at work for them to be so obvious, but who knows for sure, I may be wrong.
1WW
Quote from: ArMaP on March 10, 2013, 10:18:56 PM
The problem with faces is that humans are really "wired" to recognise faces, even where there is none, like this one. :)
But see that is my point YOU say there is no face there... and I say maybe there is :P
(http://thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Clouds/Sky_Otter_3022.jpg)
Just like this apparition of the Fiery Horse of the Apocalypse.
(http://thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Horse_001.jpg)
But hey no worries we still love ya :P
Quote from: Pimander on March 10, 2013, 09:52:50 PM
Hello folks.
So, 43 pages in, do we have an image that most of you agree is a building or not?
Nope no buildings :P NASA nuked them all. Only way we will get this sorted is sign on with Bigelow and get our own camera up there.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Russian/Commercial/Lunar_Hilton_Interior_High_Res.gif)
And the structures on Luna base are hard to spot because they did a lot of THIS
(http://oi49.tinypic.com/2qsbipk.jpg)
QuoteZorgon
I can see the faces and the Fiery horse as well.....LOL Though I am a free lance artist and was enrolled for Mechanical Engineering as well, so, may be the artsy-fartsy thing with in my brain!!! LOL
Bunnies in the cloud recognition is the way I have always categorized this effect, but, I do believe there are thing's with in the lunar anomalies that shouldn't be there and aren't as malleable as cloud formations. Ever changing as clouds are, the surface of the moon isn't so forgivable for explanations.
Like the Pic's and video 'Z' pretty cool for sure. I am really into Native American religion for the stories, and you are correct, they have been speaking of them much longer than other religions have been around.
1WW
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on March 10, 2013, 10:36:56 PM
Heck, I find it useful to take a image to my simple paint and invert the image colors, this pulls out a lot of what isn't being seen as well.
I never understood that, I always see the same things, either in positive or in negative, inverting the colours doesn't change the difference in tones that makes them more or less noticeable. ???
QuoteBelieve it or not, I do have a few pictures of what seems to be ancient remnants of structures on the moon, but can't post due to my PC problems, and I am sorry for that, but it looks very convincing to me that there was more than 'Natural Forces' at work for them to be so obvious, but who knows for sure, I may be wrong.
I can wait. :)
Quote from: zorgon on March 10, 2013, 10:43:57 PM
But see that is my point YOU say there is no face there... and I say maybe there is :P
No, I don't say that there is no face, I said "even if there isn't a face".
Also, that depends on the definition of "face" (I know, some people don't like definitions, but that's how I work); if we say that a smiley has a face then those clouds have a face.
And yes, I see them, and the horse.
Greetings Esteemed Member, oops, GloMod ArMaP:
OK, now that we have your attention, we have always wondered about these photos and seriously would like your explanation of the 'natural forces' at work here on the surface of the moon.
Unless, of course, there might be another explanation of these 'anomalies' and the Zorgmeister is right again and "Robert the Big" has a hand in his pocket. ::)
Thank you for your time and consideration.
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/1-15%20March%202013/AS15closeup-600-1.png) (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/1-15%20March%202013/AS15closeupFULL-1.png)
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/1-15%20March%202013/as15-93-12601-600-1.jpg) (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/1-15%20March%202013/as15-93-12601FULL.jpg)
Quote from: thorfourwinds on March 11, 2013, 02:16:03 AM
OK, now that we have your attention, we have always wondered about these photos and seriously would like your explanation of the 'natural forces' at work here on the surface of the moon.
They look like lava canals (or whatever those things are called), places where lava once flowed.
Quote from: ArMaP on March 11, 2013, 09:26:00 AM
They look like lava canals (or whatever those things are called), places where lava once flowed.
That is the official explanation. They do look like lava (or more likely magma) flows to me. My opinion is based on my knowledge of Geology which I studied at A Level only.
It is interesting that the flows are visible on the surface.
If they are magma flows (magma flows UNDERGROUND) then there has been erosion which led to them being exposed at the surface. What process could have done this on a planet without liquid water or enough atmosphere for wind?
Those look like worm tunnels.giant worms on the moon?
It's Luna not Dune. ;D
But what if the Dune worms teleported to Luna for Holiday? :P
(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/1-15%20March%202013/Dunesgiantsandworm.jpg)
Lava tubes... ::)
Lava flows? Seismic activity?
Not on the moon, it's dead as a dodo...
Looks like someone was testing the 50 terrawatt laser they got for christmas ;D
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on March 11, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
Lava flows? Seismic activity?
Not on the moon, it's dead as a dodo...
That's what it looks like to me, regardless of what other people think. :)
QuoteLooks like someone was testing the 50 terrawatt laser they got for christmas ;D
It doesn't look like that to me (no signs of difference between the edges and the surrounding areas, as I think should be expected from something like a laser), but I would like one of those lasers for my birthday. ;)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 03, 2013, 06:24:40 PM
Ok guys, here's the new and improved (I hope) latest video of the farside of the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8MCVyX93pM
Any chance of uploading the scan dude? cheers
Here's the original ,watchZEITGEISTnow, that John sent me and the one I used in the video.
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/63b34113584fd6b86472d13901548352da4abebb20d2f55850cb18daeab201a96g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?39z0y30fj09bed7)
Thank you :)
Ok, its been awhile since I made one of these and when Guerande posted last week about a refinery photo that he'd seen on an older post, I had to go and find it and I did. When I first started doing this on PRC, back on my thread 'Trying to believe', Zorgon asked me to look at Jack Arneson's work and well here it is finally.
It was a slow day at work, in between Cavern modeling and paperwork, I thought I'd give it a try. Just some pipes and different shapes to bring out what might be there next to Tsiolkovsky crater.
AS15-94-12741HR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lHXSBFKHE
Nice Sgt. Very concise geometric outlines, and very similar too what the He plants look like here on Earth. All one has too do is Google Helium Plants (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=909&q=helium+plants+in+u+s+a&oq=Helium+Plant&gs_l=img.3.5.0j0i24l6.6030.14292.0.34949.14.13.1.0.0.0.134.1290.9j4.13.0....0.0..1ac.1.20.img.N0wYqZlaGgg#hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&oq=helium+plants+&gs_l=img.3..0i24.770009.773662.0.778602.8.8.0.0.0.0.319.1729.1j2j3j2.8.0....0.0..1c.1.20.img.slASM_0xpAI&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.eWU,pv.xjs.s.en_US.MzTIAy2H0K0.O&fp=ecb5700270c0ee3f&biw=1280&bih=909&q=helium%20plants&imgdii=_) and you can definitely see how this layout you gave here could be absolute smoking gun kind of rendering. ;)
As always Sgt. "Great work!!" This I am sure will start this thread moving again, and 'Yes' it has been too long for this thread to remain dormant and out of the discussion area.
1WW
Thank you 1WW! as always kind words...As I mentioned, it was just some general shapes & pipes to give it shpae. I'll probably add more to this later. (did you notice my pyrimid?...lol)
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 23, 2013, 12:22:10 PM
(did you notice my pyrimid?...lol)
Well, if you think it seemingly doesn't belong, you may be wrong.
Fluid Cracking Process Plant:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/20120706_60237_494x381_2174138_71061_zps57ea8643.jpg)
If you notice at the bottom there is a legend explaining the Plant's function points, but, mysteriously, we have a "Sphere on a Pyramid" with no description. ??? So, I think your finds here are really spot on Sgt.
And keep in mind, as I am searching these similar types of facilities out, and with the elongated building on the opposite assumed plant transport area, these could very well be shielding buildings from either Solar or potentially a way to ascend and descend with out being in the open elements of the Lunar surface? ??? Just saying , "Quite a Coincidence if you ask me, I have never even seen a "Fluid Cracking system" until now, which raises even more suspicions as too what these could actually be."
And by the way, it is easy too compliment someone of your caliber, you see it, you share it, and now lets discuss it for what it may or may not be. ;)
We are all in this together my friend, just have to make sense of it all and get to the bottom of this long awaited disclosure!! Keep doing the great work you do Sgt. ;)
1WW
1WW, the pyramid with the circle on top on the flow chart represents a pump. Standard process symbol. Shouldn't be confused with mine.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on July 23, 2013, 01:27:48 PM
1WW, the pyramid with the circle on top on the flow chart represents a pump. Standard process symbol. Shouldn't be confused with mine.
So, you are saying "This couldn't be a Pump?" that we see with in your interpretation/rendering ?
And as for the all the Pipeline going to underground and oval shaped anomalies couldn't be transference tanks or possibly resource containment tanks Sgt?
I only placed clickable to show different types of Helium Plants here with in the USA, but if one goes down and looks at the provided web pages I posted, there are some very strong similarities, IMHO. And with you finding such things with in your interpretation of what it is that we may be seeing with in the "Refinery Images", you are also saying that this is not the case ? ???
ETA: Sgt. "Do you see these Anomalies as being a possible Refinery in your own personal Opinion, or do you feel that the image was too degraded too get accurate fundamental shapes and connection's for true assessment?"
1WW
To me that's not a pump. Too big and the shape is not your standard pump configuration. It might be a containment building of some sort, I don't know. It DOES have a pyramid shape though and thats why I protrayed it that way, with a sphere of some sort on top. Maybe a satellite building?...
The underground pipeline was pure quess work on my part as there are two distinct facilities far apart but in the general area. It would stand to reason that they would be connected in some way shape or form. One third of the way from plant one(far one on the right) there is an out-cropping of some sort, maybe a bypass system that I chose to show as an underground sphere for speed purposes, but the more I look the more there is an object or objects on the surface. I need to re-evaluate that.
In my opinion, these objects are on the surface, casting shadows. These objects resemble a lot of piping systems I have seen in 35 years of drawing and designing piping systems.
Yes I think its a process system of some sort. Helium 3? I don't know..But something is going on.
Peace 8)
Rock
Nice work again Sarge,
And yep I sure did notice the Pyramid :D
Sarge excellent.
Amazing work Sarge! Thanks for sharing with us.
Spot on, Sarge :)
The symbol definitely represents a pump (although the modern symbol places a triangle IN the circle showing the flow direction) But the actual pump will be more of a fat cylinder. Notice the absense of cooling towers which is natural since their is no air thus no convection thus no means to cool things, except by IR radiation emission, like if you paint a pipe matt black & pump hot water through it.
I'm not familiar with this area of the moon, whish i had the time to set up my telescope... :(
PwM that was a general symbol. There's process flows (PFD) & then there's Process & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&ID). Pfd's are more simplified.
@everyone: Thanks!
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on July 23, 2013, 10:57:15 PM
I'm not familiar with this area of the moon, whish i had the time to set up my telescope... :(
I think it's on the far side, so I guess a telescope would not be enough. ;)
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on March 11, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
Lava flows? Seismic activity?
Not on the moon, it's dead as a dodo...
Always so sure are we? Who told you that? :P NASA
::)
Moon Burps Reveal Volcanic Activity November 08, 2006(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/002/067/iFF/061108_ina_02.jpg?1292265005)
Close-up view of a strange depression on the Moon The sharp details of features on the interior indicate recent formation but not by an impact.
Credit: Peter H. Schultz, Brown UniversityQuoteThe Moon has been seen huffing and puffing, remnants of a once very active satellite, scientists reported today.
It's believed that the Moon hasn't experienced any volcanic activity for at least three billion years, but a new look at some old evidence suggests otherwise.
http://www.space.com/3090-moon-burps-reveal-volcanic-activity.html
So either it is THE LIVING MOON still spewing lava OR these 'burps' and 'puffs' are signs of MINING OPERATIONS in full gear
I would suggest we look at these new images showing the activity :D
When jack Arneson requested LRO to revisit the Tsiolkovsky Crater area we used 'geological reasons' as the excuse. We had already posted the lobate area that looked like it was a recent mine dump and wanted to see closeups of disturbed rocks.
In this Case ArMap was very diligent finding all those moving rocks... so many that he stopped pointing them out.
I would say that was certainly proof of 'disturbed terrain' :D
Rare Volcanoes Discovered On Far Side of the Moon
July 25, 2011(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/011/190/original/moon-compton-belkovich-craters.jpg?1311621446)
This image from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter shows a region on the far side of the moon between the Compton and Belkovich craters. The colored region marks a high amount of the mineral thorium, which is thought to have been deposited by rare silicate volcanoes in the past.
Credit: NASA/GSFC/ASU/WUSTL, processing by B. Joliff QuoteShielded from Earth-bound eyes, the far side of the moon is home to a rare set of dormant volcanoes that changed the face of the lunar surface, a new study finds.
Data and photos from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) reveal the presence of now-dead silicate volcanoes, not the more common basaltic volcanoes that litter the moon's surface, researchers said.
"Most of the volcanic activity on the moon was basaltic," primary author Brad Jolliff of Washington University told SPACE.com in an email. "Finding other volcanic types is interesting as it shows the geologic complexity and range of processes that operate on the moon, and how the moon's volcanism changed with time."
http://www.space.com/12419-moon-side-rare-volcanoes.html
I guess I need to do a thread on this region and tie it into the Tsiolkovsky stuff Jack found
Need to find out if they are still taking requests at LRO... we were one of the first :D
I will move these to a new thread shortly as I see so much availabkle material :D
Volcanoes On The Moon? Rare Silicate Volcanoes Found (PHOTOS)(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315747/thumbs/r-VOLCANOES-ON-THE-MOON-large570.jpg)
QuoteIf possible, volcanoes on the moon just became even more awesome.
According to NASA's Lunar Science Center, scientists have recently discovered what they believe to be dormant silicate volcanoes on the far side of the moon. While the surface of the moon is littered with more common basaltic volcanoes, the type that "ooze" magma, this new find suggests a different type of activity.
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) discovered the now dead volcanoes, according to Space.com. Previous lunar exploration missions had hinted at this type of activity on the moon, but it wasn't until this find that the presence of silicate volcanoes could be confirmed.
The find tells scientists a lot more than was previously known about volcanic activity of the Earth's largest satellite.
"To find evidence of this unusual composition located where it is, and appearing to be relatively recent volcanic activity is a fundamentally new result and will make us think again about the Moon's thermal and volcanic evolution," Bradley Jolliff, PhD, research professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis said.
Apparently these volcanoes, located on the far, or "dark," side of the moon present some of the youngest volcanic activity predicted to have taken place on the moon, occurring about three to four billion years ago, according to NASA.
Wired reports that, despite the cool finding, NASA's plans to return to the moon were canceled in 2010, and thus "Sadly, we probably won't get a chance to take a hands-on look anytime soon."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/volcanoes-moon-silicate_n_910141.html
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315747/VOLCANOES-ON-THE-MOON.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315753/VOLCANOES-ON-THE-MOON.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315751/VOLCANOES-ON-THE-MOON.jpg)
Thanks very much Sarge , I knew you were able to do something with that
" refinery " !
You are just " formidable " :)
Volcanoes on the moon would raise havoc with the "Hollow Moon" theory...
Remember..."Rang like a bell"...towed into orbit and all that.
Andy
Quote from: andolin on July 30, 2013, 10:53:23 PM
Volcanoes on the moon would raise havoc with the "Hollow Moon" theory...
Remember..."Rang like a bell"...towed into orbit and all that.
Andy
Not really Andolin, there are people that think the Earth is hollow and we have exponentially many, many more Volcano's here on Earth, so, believe what you want, truth of the matter is, more than likely, it would be feasible for each to have their follower's of such things. ;)
Keeping in mind that Silica is a very important substance for new age technology. ;)
And after all, these are ancient volcano's we are talking about here on the Lunar surface.
1WW
:) Volcanoes on the moon would raise havoc with the "Hollow Moon" theory...
Greetings to all.
It would also seem to be true that if there were volcanic activity on the moon there would be some measurable atmosphere and or emissions. It may be that the effects of volcanic activity on the surface would be short lived do to the extreme exposure to space. But should be detectable at some point.
Also volcanic upheaval would most likely have a large particle content and should stay in the gravitational pull of the moon, dispersing gradually and probably almost evenly around the source because of there being no weather. If this does take place there should be evidence in the form of radial patterns that may be visible in old or new photos.
Just a thought
WhatTheHey2