Question.

[rdunk]

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?


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"??

 
                                                         
                                                             

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

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... ..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...

[A51Watcher]

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.      

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. 

[1Worldwatcher]

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.

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... ..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.

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

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

[ArMaP]

Which two are they?

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



And this one, from photo AS16-116-18603:

[ArMaP]

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.

[ArMaP]

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. 

[The Seeker]

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 


seeker

[robomont]

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

[Elvis Hendrix]

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

elvis

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

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.... 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
ROCK

[Elvis Hendrix]

I Likey likey this one,
Thoughts my fellows?

[ArMaP]

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.

[Elvis Hendrix]

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

[stealthyaroura]

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! 
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

(Jesus! 7 thread Kills oh heck!)