Pegasus Research Consortium

Evening all.
Has anyone heard what lunacognita is up to lately?
He seems to have dropped off the radar.

:)

I have not, and have no reason to know either, but I sure did enjoy the video's when they were pumping out!

I would suspect like many people that life change's tangent along with the fact that everyone has found as much as they could with what was provided.  Banging head on wall hurt's syndrome is perhaps what happened ? :D

It's almost got to the stage now that if we want better picture's of the Moon then we gotta go get them ourselves.  It's not as far out as it sound's either as it is possible to buy slot's in orbital drop-off's so to speak. 

Even ex Nasa people are hitting up Kickstarter for Cash.  As far as the Moon is concerned it would be nice to have telescope or three in orbit looking at it that Peggy control :D 

They don't have to be that special either! 
 

Yup.
Agree. Mind you I really think there is still a load of stuff on the orbiter scans,that haven't been looked into fully.
Remember lunacognitas " stacking technique ",
I think that could be applied.
But your right about personal telescope equipment .
Coz the big observatories  shure as shit ain't gonna show us what's going on.

Elvis

Then of course there is folk like jlw. Love him or hate him. That is getting some pretty close shots of the surface, with his " secret set up". There is also this guy called jive bop,on YouTube who also takes the old telescope thing very seriously.

Thankyouverymuch.

Wish I had some new pics to look at! Think I've exhausted all the usual sources. Then again I haven't talked to John lately, so maybe I should revisit some old ones and try something different with them. Maybe some new software?

Sgt,
Stand easy, lol
Hey man get back to the orbiter scans.
I know thereis more in there.
Stack them up dude  :D

Elvis

You're probably right dude, just been bored I guess. I get all excited when someone actually wants to discuss Moon Pics on this site...lol... 8)

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 19, 2013, 08:52:42 PM
Stack them up dude  :D

As far as I know stacking only works when we have several images from the same thing, so a video is a good target for stacking.

One photo has nothing to stack.

are yall talking about putting pics on top one another.ive had some times when i wish i could overlay some stuff.like a wind pattern annd a cloud pattern and a radiation pattern.i bet it would be very interesting.

Quote from: ArMaP on June 19, 2013, 10:24:57 PM
As far as I know stacking only works when we have several images from the same thing, so a video is a good target for stacking.

One photo has nothing to stack.

I see, I wasnt sure how it worked. Thats a damn shame really, cos it really pulls out detail, from what ive seen in mr cognitas work.
Maybe there is other new software that can be applied, that can analogue a single pic or something?
I dont know what im talking about really, but im sure some of you lot might know.It would just be great to have some new reworked images to study. :)

Elvis

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 19, 2013, 09:13:55 PM
You're probably right dude, just been bored I guess.

Have you considered Mars There are TONS of them bron malin Space Systems we never looked at yet :D

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 19, 2013, 07:55:36 PM
Has anyone heard what lunacognita is up to lately?
He seems to have dropped off the radar.

I have emailed him several times with no reply yet He used to write me regularly as he is from Toronto too. Also Martyn Stubbs  Not heard much from him since he was banned from ATS
(SecretNasaMan)

Luna started being silent about the same time Easynow flipped out.

Then Easynow came back all apologetic and even registered here, saying he would lurk for a while  but he never posted nor wrote to me since

Last letter I had from Luna was shortly after that film by Jose Escamilla with the giant humanoid. He had told Jose to leave that out as did we, but he put it in and THAT is all people talk about. Most of the material for that film came from us, expecially all the color clementine stuff

Right..
thanks, that is interesting.
As soon as i saw the giant humanoid thing i cringed. That was a big mistake. The film was great but that should never have been in there.
I didnt realise you had input on that. cool.
As i have said before, with all this stuff there has to be a degree of self editing. its like icke and his reptillians.
its just too outlandish and it scares people away.

cheers Z

Elvis

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 19, 2013, 09:13:55 PM
You're probably right dude, just been bored I guess. I get all excited when someone actually wants to discuss Moon Pics on this site...lol... 8)

Sarge, you do excellent work; may I suggest going back over some of the previous ones? My old eyes see things you missed in some of them; but then again, may be my eyes, also...


seeker

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 20, 2013, 09:44:30 AM
Maybe there is other new software that can be applied, that can analogue a single pic or something?

Software, no, only miracles. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on June 20, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
Software, no, only miracles. :)

Thats a shame because not being a religious man i dont belive in miracles.
I do however belive in life on our beautiful, shining celestial neighbour.
I also belive as consumer telescopes become more affordable, and more people get inquisitive....
The truth will out.  ;)

@ Fourwinds.

I just had a play with that thing but i couldnt get it to do what i was thinking.
what about taking one image, (say a moon Anomaly),
then adding it again and again as a transparency?
would it bring out more definition than the original?

Or am i just talking rubbish?

Elvis

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 20, 2013, 02:25:46 PM
Thats a shame because not being a religious man i dont belive in miracles.

I'm not religious either, but as a programmer that's the only way I see to make what you want. :)

Quote from: thorfourwinds on June 20, 2013, 03:19:28 PM
Here's an example of a triple overlay   :P


(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/1-15%20May%202013/tokyo3eyeoverlayFINAL.jpg)

I thought the idea was to get a better image.  :P

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 20, 2013, 05:20:24 PM
what about taking one image, (say a moon Anomaly),
then adding it again and again as a transparency?
would it bring out more definition than the original?

More definition with only one image, no.

But you can get what looks like an "enhanced texture", like this.

Original image.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img543/6159/99ez.jpg)

Processed image.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img211/8382/4t7z.jpg)

It loses the more subtle shades, but it looks more "textured", including the JPEG artefacts.
No miracles. :)

Actually Armap that does improve detail.
Thanks for the input.

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 19, 2013, 09:13:55 PM
You're probably right dude, just been bored I guess. I get all excited when someone actually wants to discuss Moon Pics on this site...lol... 8)

Post of the Day Sarge!  ;D

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 21, 2013, 02:56:52 PM
Actually Armap that does improve detail.

Detail, yes, resolution, no. :)

And it loses some of the more subtle differences in colour/shades of grey.

I quite like what this guy has done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePXeYVyauPw

Don't know if you have seen this one. For your pleasure and observance. ;D



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTDo2inZEfY

We like that, Sarge.    8)

Now Thats how you do it!

Its a big bugger isnt it?

Great work Sarge  ;)

Makes you wonder some times. Remember the JP Skipper images from Clementine 1.5 browser, What if some of those huge things could actually move? like we see here.
Its a wild idea,
But hey, why not.

Elvis

Is it me or are they foot prints? Woooooooooooo ;)

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 22, 2013, 03:37:04 PM
Now Thats how you do it!

Its a big bugger isnt it?

Great work Sarge  ;)

Thanks, that was one of the first videos I ever did. I just drew the shapes, extruded them based on the shadows and the contours of the shapes and that's what I got. I don't remember but I think we estimated the object to be about 30' in length...(don't quote me on that ;))...But it was fun

PEACE 8)
Rock

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 22, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
I quite like what this guy has done.

I do not. :)

It looks like another person that thinks that "enhancement" means turn the image in what they want to see.

He says that "This object is clearly out of focus and blurred", but that's only because he zoomed in too much, the object is neither out of focus or blurred in the photo. So, he tries to compensate the too much zoom he applied by using some filters, which further destroy information that was on the original, not over zoomed image, and introduce more artefacts.

Useless.

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 22, 2013, 09:05:36 PM
Thanks, that was one of the first videos I ever did. I just drew the shapes, extruded them based on the shadows and the contours of the shapes and that's what I got. I don't remember but I think we estimated the object to be about 30' in length...(don't quote me on that ;))...But it was fun

Did you use the sun height above the horizon or did you use an arbitrary value?

ArMaP, by now you should know, I'm not very scientific. :o. I use only what I see. It's pure sight adjustment. If shadows appear to be "x" length then I extrude the object to a length or depth that would match. Purely my own judgement. As I've said many times, I only draw what I think I see.

Peace 8)
Rock

What we NEED is a few photos that make ArMaP go

WOW

Sorry but I don't think that'll ever happen ;)

While we're on the subject, what ever happened to MikeSingh?
I found his mars photos fascinating.

as a side note, just flipped channels to TCM, and 'Jules Verne's 'From the Earth to the Moon' is on..1958 with Joseph Cotton and George Sanders and a giant cannon!...good stuff...

that does look really good.armap
thanx for the example.

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 22, 2013, 10:49:04 PM
ArMaP, by now you should know, I'm not very scientific. :o. I use only what I see. It's pure sight adjustment. If shadows appear to be "x" length then I extrude the object to a length or depth that would match. Purely my own judgement. As I've said many times, I only draw what I think I see.

Peace 8)
Rock

We can correct that. :D

The incidence angle was 61.15º, which means that the Sun was 28.85º above the horizon. With that value we can know that a, for example, 4 pixels long shadow means a height of 2.2 pixels, based on the formula:
shadow length = height / tan(Sun altitude)

(I hope I haven't made any mistake in my calculations :) )

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 22, 2013, 11:12:12 PM
Sorry but I don't think that'll ever happen ;)

You only need the right photos. :)

Remember, there aren't any anomalies on the moon? So I don't think you'll ever have the right photo. Lol

Thanks of the 'technical info'. I'll stick with my instincts and sight. ;)


Peace 8)
Rock

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 23, 2013, 01:56:18 AM
Remember, there aren't any anomalies on the moon?

Why do you say that?

Even if I could find an explanation for all photos (and that's not the case), that doesn't mean that I have seen photos of all the places, from all the angles, we have only a small percentage of the Moon photographed in high resolution (and not high enough for many things) and an extremely small percentage photographed up close.

Quote
Thanks of the 'technical info'. I'll stick with my instincts and sight. ;)

To me, that's wrong.

Why stick to your instincts when you have the real data?

Are you making those videos to give people a better understanding of what is there or just to advertise your point of view, regardless of the truth?

Not good.  :(

Lolololol you take the cake ArMaP! You tell me you've never seen any anomalies and dont think there are any and then you say you have to look at ALL the photos at ALL the angles for anomalies that aren't there?

For your information I made my videos because I enjoyed it. I believe that they're objects on the moon and we haven't been told the truth. I've tried to contribute in my own very small way. I certainly did not create them to please or satisfy you. Nor do I care what you think about my videos or how I create them.

'Not good' ?

In your opinion. I stick with my instincts because that's what I trust. Maybe wrong maybe not. But I really don't give a crap what you think.

Rock

couldnt the anomalies be shot from three angles to make a 3d image of them?

like a shot as the moon rises.directly over head and as it sets.

Possible. But it still would need interpretation I think to render it properly. IMHO .

Rock

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 23, 2013, 02:35:11 AM
Lolololol you take the cake ArMaP!

Hmmm, cake... ;D

QuoteYou tell me you've never seen any anomalies and dont think there are any and then you say you have to look at ALL the photos at ALL the angles for anomalies that aren't there?

The fact that I don't think that there are any artificial objects (besides the ones sent by humans in the 20th and 21st centuries) doesn't mean that they do not exist, as that is just my opinion, based on the very small percentage of the Moon's surface that I have seen in photos.

QuoteFor your information I made my videos because I enjoyed it. I believe that they're objects on the moon and we haven't been told the truth. I've tried to contribute in my own very small way. I certainly did not create them to please or satisfy you. Nor do I care what you think about my videos or how I create them.

'Not good' ?

In your opinion. I stick with my instincts because that's what I trust. Maybe wrong maybe not. But I really don't give a crap what you think.

Sorry, I mistaken you for someone looking for the truth instead of an artist. My mistake.

Quote from: robomont on June 23, 2013, 04:27:18 AM
couldnt the anomalies be shot from three angles to make a 3d image of them?

Two photos from different angles are enough to make a 3d image, that's how the HRSC camera aboard Mars Express works.

As the Moon always has the same "face" towards Earth that makes it impossible to do with photos taken on Earth.

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 23, 2013, 03:54:21 PM
I'm certainly not looking to you for answers.....

I didn't say you are/were.

QuoteI was going to have a smartazz comment for you but it would go over you're head so I won't bother.

That's likely, I'm only 1.67 metres high.  :P

Quote from: zorgon on June 22, 2013, 11:08:39 PM
What we NEED is a few photos that make ArMaP go

WOW

I think I found something that will. 

Everyone check this  out.   Don't just look at this first picture here that it takes you to.  There are many pictures that will show up on the left side of the screen with a Vertical slide bar to take you to other pictures as you highlight  said pictures. Which are on that page.  To the top there is a horizontal bar with a drop down menu that will take you to page 1  2  3......ect...   There are 8 pages of photos.


http://www.worldufophotos.org/2/8e1b9/25d5c9c/?a=1&navlist=257b2d8,257b2dd#/gallery/moon-photos/moon-structure-a-t-s-copyright-nasa/




Edward

At the time of the posting I've only really looked at one page of photo's but as I peruse the entire 8 pages, there really are some great pic's and very interesting ones too.   I highly encourage everyone to look at all 8 pages.


Edward

Hi Edward, can you post the ones you liked the look of please?

Quote from: Edward on June 23, 2013, 05:28:25 PM
At the time of the posting I've only really looked at one page of photo's but as I peruse the entire 8 pages, there really are some great pic's and very interesting ones too.   I highly encourage everyone to look at all 8 pages.

Those are mostly the same images that have been presented in the last few years (including the two I think are the most strange and for which I don't have an explanation), but the oblique view of Aristarchus by LROC was worth looking at all those misunderstandings/fakes/etc.

Thanks for that. :)

Yo.
Which two are they?

I would love to know :)

Hum.....I haven't seen them all nor processed them.

Jump on it bro.

Hey Armap :)

If I'm not being too rude may I ask?

Why did you choose that name?

Is there a story there?

With all respect.

Elvis

Hey Sarge,


Here's a page with LRO videos in various resolutions.

Grabbing frames directly from videos is a snap.



http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010929/ (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010929/)


eta: Any anomalies to be seen will have multiple frames taken from different angles!  8)

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 23, 2013, 06:49:31 PM
Hi Edward, can you post the ones you liked the look of please?

There is quite a bit.  Just look through them.  There are  like 168 pics.  That deals with objects on the surface and just off it.  Plus some of the other pics go into the moon hoax theories.   I could show you 1 or 2 that are good but it doesn't do it justice when see them all and how it all starts to add up in your mind.   Take a look at them.  If you don't want to look at all them that's up to you.  But it's easy and simple enough to go through them all if you are having problems looking at them here is what I suggest go to the link below.  It will be the page 1 then all you have to do is keep clicking the image on the page to get to the next image and this will continue until you reach the end. 

click this and then click the image you see and it will keep taking you to the next image and you can watch the progress of what page your on from the top of the page and you can see what pic is next on that current page with seeing the pic's layed out on your left side of the screen.


http://www.worldufophotos.org/2/8e1b9/25d5c9c/?a=1&navlist=257b2d8,257b2dd#/gallery/moon-photos/moon-apollo-17-photo-of-a-pyramid-after-adjusting-image-as17-136-206801/


Edward

Quote from: A51Watcher on June 23, 2013, 08:50:21 PM
Hey Sarge,


Here's a page with LRO videos in various resolutions.

Grabbing frames directly from videos is a snap.



http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010929/ (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010929/)


eta: Any anomalies to be seen will have multiple frames taken from different angles!  8)

Thank you very, very much A51Watcher. I'll take a look when I get the time.
BTW, I've decided (been convinced) that since I don't use scientific data and am only an 'artist', that I should remove my videos from the public eye. I won't be doing any more videos of the moon as I really don't know what I'm doing or what i'm looking at.

I'll make them available again on Youtube when i've learned to be a scientist and use 'real' data to locate those non-existing Moon anomalies.

Ya'll have fun now, hear?

;) ;D ::) 8)
Peace
Rock

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 23, 2013, 09:39:00 PM
Thank you very, very much A51Watcher. I'll take a look when I get the time.
BTW, I've decided (been convinced) that since I don't use scientific data and am only an 'artist', that I should remove my videos from the public eye. I won't be doing any more videos of the moon as I really don't know what I'm doing or what i'm looking at.

I'll make them available again on Youtube when i've learned to be a scientist and use 'real' data to locate those non-existing Moon anomalies.

Ya'll have fun now, hear?

;) ;D ::) 8)
Peace
Rock

Well Sgt., you should know by now that a skeptic does as a skeptic is. I have yet to see a skeptic that will admit to recognizing anything as fact, except only by pure physical evidence. Even if a skeptic "can't explain it",  a skeptic still will not accept it, regardless, because whatever it is does not fit within the skeptic's thought for  what is the actual reality of any given situation.

I seen so much skeptical response to posts over the past several years, that I am not even bothered by it anymore. I have no idea how a person gets to a point of being unable to positively cope with anything other than their self-determined skeptical thought. 

Sgt., one thing to keep in mind, we can have sound differences of opinions with stuff, about what we see or don't see. There are times when I almost want to apologize when I tell some anomaly poster, "I see nothing but a rock", because I am about as far away from being skeptical as one can get. But, I am also often very positive to posters too.

A true skeptic just cannot transition from being totally skeptical, to accepting "as fact" what is clear to most non-skeptic eyes.

So, with that said, I am not accepting what you just said, and would like to ask you to reconsider. I have seen way too many positive comments regarding your work to let you do this without taking you to task for the benefit of all. Yes, "it does take a village" here!!!

So, when can we expect to see more of your work, or your next video post -  "right here"??

 
                                                         (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/beg.gif)
                                                             

Thank you very much.
And I don't know. Just a little down with myself right now to let 'something' or 'someone' get to me. Just got my panties in a wad right now... :o..I should know better, this ain't the first time with him....  >:(

Maybe I'll just take some time off and scope out the link A51Watcher posted....keep my powder dry sort a speak... :P

Sarge -

I think that example you provided of what you start with (a lousy sketch scribbled on a napkin) and the result you end up with -speak volumes- about your methods of observation.

'Scientific' or not, it obviously gets the job well done.

Human pattern recognition (such as yours) still reigns supreme.


My perspective is that anything we/you many discover requires provenance, so that it's pedigree is undeniable and we can avoid the hoax smokescreen.


That link I posted is the only thing 'new' with provenance (and decent resolution) I have found lately, and since you seem to be out of fresh frame candidates to explore, I think this might be good undiscovered territory to sift through, just in case they missed air- brushing something out.   ;D   

I will be downloading the highest resolution ones possible and report back anything unusual I see, but obviously you have a keener eye for this type of thing, that I and others might miss.

Your skills pretty much mandate that you get stuck as the one for the job.  8)

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on June 23, 2013, 11:36:55 PM
Thank you very much.
And I don't know.

Just realize Sgt., "You have staunch allies when it comes too what we 'Attempt' to bring to the table for public knowledge." As I have said many times before "Your work is amazing!" and as for the ones that continually counteract by self supporting banter? "So as it was, and unfortunately, So as it will always Probably be." for those types.

QuoteJust a little down with myself right now to let 'something' or 'someone' get to me. Just got my panties in a wad right now... :o..I should know better, this ain't the first time with him....  >:(

It is hard to over look such accusation's as not offensive, and it easy to loose sight of the goal, but you have been a true inspiration for me and a few others here to further our talents and abilities to the significance of such things as CAD and 'Truly' and 'Honestly' bringing all you see and recognize for furthering discussion's of these very fringe topics of conversation.
I am more apt. to go to you for detailed analysis before I would go to most here or anywhere, and that is because I feel what you find and discuss is pertinent and fundamentally feasible for the eventual disclosure of such things. You have never proclaimed "Eureka!!" at any time while we have been acquainted Sgt. you do not jump the gun and you definitely have both the talent and the skills too see these differences with in the images you so admirably research and openly present to us here for further debate. You have made things much more 'Visible' too those of us that have been discussing this for many years.
If anyone is not a scientist or scientific, it is those that are using rhetorical rebuttals with in the confine's of something that is quite comparable to a broken record. What you bring is new, exciting and worth while. It deserves too be discussed by such people as admirable as you are Sgt. both by personality and career oriented talents and techniques, none o f us have the 'Smoking Gun' as it were, and surely the nay sayer's are even farther out on a limb to just out right deny the possibilities you have presented thus far.

QuoteMaybe I'll just take some time off and scope out the link A51Watcher posted....keep my powder dry sort a speak... :P

If this what it takes Sgt. to allow you to over come these character attacks, so be it, just as long as you do not quit doing the impressive and very important things that you do with your talents, and doing continual work with in any thing that allows you to aspire to the research of such things trivial and rather elusive, what you do, every time we get a chance to see what things you find, allows us to discover new ways of disclosure to be the inevitable truth's that are there, just a bit muddied by these folks hammering the messenger with arrows of insult and discontent to a different leverage of the possibilities, that 'Some' just can't see the worth and value in the evidences brought forth.
Those out there like this can't have a world of reality that alter's their perspectives from their norm's, for it would change everything, including their perspectives on most things they find they are not the expert they once thought they were...LOL ;)

With Great Respect, From a Fan and a Friend,
1Worldwatcher

P.S. "Maybe it is time for another Radio interview?" ;) They are still discussing this with me Sgt. and the folks at IRN were very impressed with the evidences we had brought up, even have some of them doing their own research via the WWW and creating their own findings of what we have introduced, keep in mind, there are still teh Skeptics but there are a lot of people on this planet that are not even aware of the Lunar anomalies even existing, and having such a person as you as the greeter or inciter of the possibilities? Well, that could have not been or happened in a better way for people of new found interest of the Lunar anomalies, just as Zorgon and John had introduced me to this phenomena, it is a "Learn as you go" kind of thing, as you well know.. Ha ha ha :P

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 23, 2013, 07:38:42 PM
Which two are they?

This one, photo AS11-41-6156 (although I wouldn't call it "walled compound"):

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS11_41_6156/Structure01B.png)

And this one, from photo AS16-116-18603:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS16_116_18603/Gears001a.png)

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 23, 2013, 08:00:25 PM
Hey Armap :)

If I'm not being too rude may I ask?

Why did you choose that name?

ArMaP? It's the first two letters of my first name, the first two letters of my second name and the first letter of my last name. :)

Quote from: A51Watcher on June 23, 2013, 08:50:21 PM
Here's a page with LRO videos in various resolutions.

As far as I know, LRO doesn't have a video camera and does not take photos in sequence, so it cannot make videos.  ???

Sarge, my cajun friend, snap to, soldier! You know you cannot convince anyone that does not perceive what you or i do; you just keep on doing what you do so well; many of us here appreciate what you put on the table...

remain calm and carry on  8)


seeker

sarge.your x military.you should have thick skin.

we are all valuable members here.i welcome your threads and replies.i personally appreciate your photos and hard work.

if no decent stuff becomes avalable then maybe we can redirect you talents.zorgon has created this team and i for one dont want to let him down.this sight is amazing and you can also look back and say i helped make this place what it is.
in five to ten years who knows how big this could become.
maybe even paying gigs.lol

Sarge,
Well have none of that here soldier ;)
Keep doin what your doin, or il send my mother in law around.
actually, shes rather fit.
Oops did i say that out loud ;D

elvis

Thanks for all the kind words of encourgement guys, its appreciated. Just a knee jerk reaction to others that at my age I should know better. I guess I realize that time is running out and I'm closer to the end than the beginning. My first reactions are anger then I think about what's said and I feel maybe I'm wrong and I should take a more analytical look at things. Then again what the hell, this is suppose to be FUN.... 8) and I do what I do...

I do care (even if i say i don't) about what people think of my work.

Thanks for the friends I have here.

HOOAH 8)
ROCK

I Likey likey this one,
Thoughts my fellows? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHdLfE33Uyo

Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 24, 2013, 01:30:44 PM
I Likey likey this one,
Thoughts my fellows? :)

It looks like something on the photo itself.

When we have scanned photos then the source for any object in the photo may be:
the scene - the object was photographed in the scene
the development - the object may be the result of a development problem, the best example being the Lunar Orbiter photos, that were developed aboard the ship.
the printing - any thing between the light source and the paper will appear on the final photo
the scanning - any thing between the photo and the sensor will appear on the digital version

In this case it looks like the object has slightly better defined edges, which may mean that it was not on the original photo (all objects should have the same general look). As there are several versions of that photo with the object, I don't think it's a scanning problem either, if it was it should look slightly different, as any object between the photo and scanner will be a 3D object, even if extremely thin, so it should show some signs of shadow.

I think it's a processing/development problem, specially because of the bubble-like marks.

Does Anyone have any details on this one?
The scale seems wrong. The Tower would have to be huge.
but hey, maybe it is..

Elvis


(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/105136_29601_real_zps9bacec55.jpg)

ROCK I don't post in many of the Moon Anomaly thread's (john Lears pic's etc) cos I don't want to contaminate the thread with a pointless "hey great work " post.
just cos you don't get a reply from me & probably many other members does not mean we ignore the work done by such as yourself.Far from it, I think the cad work is great.
There is nothing more frustrating to come across A video or picture only to find "content no longer available" etc. :(
The site is not just about learning the facts, It's about speculating about the possibilities and various theory's. so without input from people like yourself what good would it be?

Also what about Ingo Swan's work & the others in the field of Remote Viewing!  8)
You have read what he had to say about what's up on LUNA, is HE making it up? I say NO.!
It's part of the puzzle, put it all together and you start to see the big picture.  ;)

There will always be skeptics and there need's to be IMO.There has to be balance,we're all here to find truth when all said and done & a little fun along the way :D

(Jesus! 7 thread Kills oh heck!)

Thanks.

I know of Mr. Swann but haven't read too much on him, been meaning to..

Vid's are fixed..I changed them to private so I could re-visit them to see if I could improve on the product..
Sorry...
Rock

The photos provided are very impressive (I suppose their provenance is solid).

That said,  I am puzzled by overlapping conspiracy theories.  The moon landings were faked but then other astronaut photos show weird stuff in the background.  So, they went to the moon or they didn't?  Or they went there by repurposed flying saucers and shot the stuff?

I'm not clear on the concept (being somewhat new)

Quote from: Eighthman on June 25, 2013, 12:56:36 AM
The photos provided are very impressive (I suppose their provenance is solid).

That said,  I am puzzled by overlapping conspiracy theories.  The moon landings were faked but then other astronaut photos show weird stuff in the background.  So, they went to the moon or they didn't?  Or they went there by repurposed flying saucers and shot the stuff?

I'm not clear on the concept (being somewhat new)

That's one of the problems, if we take all the theories together they cancel each other (or most of each other), but we see much of that, like people saying that we cannot trust NASA and then present their own theory based on data from NASA. :)

In my earlier days, as a strong Christian, I rejected all reconstructions about Jesus for this reason, namely that they would pick and chose what Gospel components they liked and reject the rest. By this means, Jesus was a Magician, a Zealot, an Essene, a moderate Pharisee, a Buddhist and so on. It looked like circular reasoning...

I have adopted a "Ali Aja" theory about reality. Here goes:  Once upon a time, a sort of Muslim guy tried to kill the Pope.  He gave several different stories that were mutually exclusive - and that destroyed all of his credibility.  This is typical of intelligence training.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, although it could never be proved in court, the only story that made real sense was that he was trained by the Bulgarians, helping the Kremlin, to kill the Pope and stop his interference in Poland.

Many times we have nothing more to guide us than intuition moderated by logic.  Some German Jews judged Hitler by his words and left. Others rationalized that they'd be OK. 

In the current situation,  sheer skepticism won't do.  We can never know enough or confirm enough.

Quote from: Eighthman on June 25, 2013, 01:32:54 AM
In the current situation,  sheer skepticism won't do.  We can never know enough or confirm enough.

I think that scepticism is not enough in any situation, but is also needed.

As I am not a imaginative (in the creative sense, I'm more a problem solving person) person I leave the imaginative part to other people while I try to supply the facts needed as a base for the imaginative process.

I appreciate your response.   I find myself more mystified than ever in my life about world events and what they mean.

The world is being stirred up as people everywhere seem to be losing all faith in almost all institutions.  Disruptive technology is emerging faster.  Global finance appears to be near collapse.  There is an explosion of exposure seemingly out of nowhere.  Bizarre theories are invented almost daily to explain current events but at the same time equally bizarre hard facts emerge that suggest that our times are weirder than we think.

What does this zeitgeist mean?  Does it lead somewhere, to an outcome we might desire - or does it decline into anarchy?  Is it being guided somehow?  Do the fantasy-prone "Ascension" types have some insight in this area? 

Is the world building up into some sort of unimagined transition?  Part of me keeps insisting it is..... but should I trust that feeling?

Quote from: ArMaP on June 25, 2013, 01:16:15 AM
That's one of the problems, if we take all the theories together they cancel each other (or most of each other), but we see much of that, like people saying that we cannot trust NASA and then present their own theory based on data from NASA. :)

But and its a big but, We have to keep poking.Because there are holes in the story. Something is amiss, and by cross referencing our theories and data, we will eventually find a given.
I sometimes think the only true pictures of the moon are from the early orbiters, zond etc.
Then il pick holes in the apollo surface stuff to find evidence of fakery.
The main contradiction for me that upsets the apple cart, is the lunar surface and cmd transmissions.
Things like "We came across Barbera", or from the cmd "the people who live down there must be very lonely". Im paraphrasing but you get the idea.
the whole thing is a contradiction but that makes it even more fascinating.
Its a riddle wrapped up in an Enema  ;D

elvis