It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Anomalous Moon
page: 10share:
Without quotes its a bit difficult trying to answer a question as I'm not sure what the question is in relation to?
Be reasonable and I will try to give answers.
Fair?
Be reasonable and I will try to give answers.
Fair?
originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: lunarrover
lens flare and the infamous "lunar cooling tower" first pointed in the book "somebodys else is on the moon" in reality its an a crater on very odd lighting
I have never seen lens flare and odd lighting turn a "crater" in to what I can only describe as looking like some sort of castleised fortress?
The cooling tower is square on the top.
No?
edit on 26-2-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)
a reply to: lunarrover
pareidolia happens
also the "cooling tower"
is the circle with an tower on the center of the second picture
pareidolia happens
also the "cooling tower"
is the circle with an tower on the center of the second picture
originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: eriktheawful
Only a couple more images to go at this time once I have posted the images we can debate it.
This image is amazing, there is quite a bit going on, paradiddly inducing too.
Double bubble.
edit on 26-2-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: lunarrover
a reply to: tigertatzen
I dont know what the structures are, how can I? However it is what they represent which has had a more profound affect on me. There is no doubt that our solar system has been visited by beings millions of years in advance to us.
I get what you are saying about presentation of the material, it is difficult but I like to think I have th basics covered in terms of trying to be coherant etc. I am aware that there are those better at posting than I am however I wear my heart on my sleve and this is such an amazing subject I cant leave it alone.
I have to disagree man. I have no clue what you are looking at in any of the pictures you have posted in these first 7 pages. With the exception of one set that showed contrast between what "they" released and what you are providing, I don't see any anomolies. So in that sense I would say your message is pretty clear, but your evidence is gobbledy gook as far as trying to make sense of it as one not too emotionally invested. You have posted 10's of pictures that I literally just look at and go to the next one because I don't even know what I am supposed to see let alone where or how to see it.
Please don't mistake that as an attack on the subject matter, or as indicative of what I man or may not believe for myself.
a reply to: sputniksteve
It has no bearing on the reality you deny yourself, stay blind it will protect you from the truth.
I understand, the human race just is not ready.
It has no bearing on the reality you deny yourself, stay blind it will protect you from the truth.
I understand, the human race just is not ready.
a reply to: lunarrover
"Please don't mistake that as an attack on the subject matter, or as indicative of what I man or may not believe for myself."
Your attitude toward me for that post is about as ironic as it gets at this point.
"Please don't mistake that as an attack on the subject matter, or as indicative of what I man or may not believe for myself."
Your attitude toward me for that post is about as ironic as it gets at this point.
Luna - your condescending accusations to those who don't see what you see are a hypocritical statement. Since you self admittedly state you are not a
learned man then you need to understand how to structure an argument if you want people to agree or respectfully disagree with you. You cannot make
broad statements that people choose to be blind because you are formulating a very poor and subjective argument in your thread.
You are presenting an argument in this thread. Your argument is you feel you have found photographic evidence there are non naturally formed structures on the Moon that NASA is intentionally hiding. In an argument you traditionally present premises. In order for the conclusion of your argument to be true then all of your supporting premises must also be true. For example if you were to present 4 premises but 1 of those premises were proven to be untrue then the entire argument is rendered untrue. In order for your conclusion to be true i.e. "NASA is hiding (through photographic manipulation) structures on the Moon" then all of your supporting premises must also be true.
You have not even presented one premise. State what your premises are. Here are the ones I see you need to present and how you should provide supporting evidence.
1. Premise: NASA manipulates Moon photos.
- Show a Moon photo such as you have where you show the Moon's surface is intentionally over exposed.
2. Premise: Once a Moon photo is "corrected" additional features become visible.
- Show how in the "corrected" version of the same Moon photo how we can see more surface features compared to the original over exposed photo.
3. Premise: There are surface anomalies on the on the Moon that appear to be something other than naturally formed.
- Show pictures with clearly labeled examples of the areas you feel are not naturally formed.
4. Premise: The surface anomalies appear to be similar to certain man made structures we can find on Earth.
- Show pictures of the corresponding Moon photo with the clearly labeled surface anomaly and state what you think it is. Provide an additional Earth bound photo supporting your claim. Example: In photo 1 in the NW area of the surface of the Moon there appears to be a mining crane. Then show a picture of an Earth mining crane so we can make a visual comparison.
These are just some examples. Where you are going to run into an inability to PROVE some of your premises are true is where the photographic evidence you present is not clear and concise. That means that without question we can all positively identify what a specific surface anomaly is. Most of the pictures you have posted in this thread are 100% subjective. That means it is 100% open to interpretation and is 100% inconclusive. Do not use any photos of this nature because you will automatically discredit your entire argument. Only choose photos where there is a clear and concise surface anomaly and we can clearly correlate it to a similar man made structure found on Earth.
And unless you can come up with high definition Moon photos (which you cannot) then at best this argument will only prove to be plausible. At best it will be plausible. Just follow the basic rules of argument.
Thanks for the thread.
BTW...check out this web page. It is in Danish but you can translate it using Google translate. There are some very compelling pictures here.
www.igap.dk...
You are presenting an argument in this thread. Your argument is you feel you have found photographic evidence there are non naturally formed structures on the Moon that NASA is intentionally hiding. In an argument you traditionally present premises. In order for the conclusion of your argument to be true then all of your supporting premises must also be true. For example if you were to present 4 premises but 1 of those premises were proven to be untrue then the entire argument is rendered untrue. In order for your conclusion to be true i.e. "NASA is hiding (through photographic manipulation) structures on the Moon" then all of your supporting premises must also be true.
You have not even presented one premise. State what your premises are. Here are the ones I see you need to present and how you should provide supporting evidence.
1. Premise: NASA manipulates Moon photos.
- Show a Moon photo such as you have where you show the Moon's surface is intentionally over exposed.
2. Premise: Once a Moon photo is "corrected" additional features become visible.
- Show how in the "corrected" version of the same Moon photo how we can see more surface features compared to the original over exposed photo.
3. Premise: There are surface anomalies on the on the Moon that appear to be something other than naturally formed.
- Show pictures with clearly labeled examples of the areas you feel are not naturally formed.
4. Premise: The surface anomalies appear to be similar to certain man made structures we can find on Earth.
- Show pictures of the corresponding Moon photo with the clearly labeled surface anomaly and state what you think it is. Provide an additional Earth bound photo supporting your claim. Example: In photo 1 in the NW area of the surface of the Moon there appears to be a mining crane. Then show a picture of an Earth mining crane so we can make a visual comparison.
These are just some examples. Where you are going to run into an inability to PROVE some of your premises are true is where the photographic evidence you present is not clear and concise. That means that without question we can all positively identify what a specific surface anomaly is. Most of the pictures you have posted in this thread are 100% subjective. That means it is 100% open to interpretation and is 100% inconclusive. Do not use any photos of this nature because you will automatically discredit your entire argument. Only choose photos where there is a clear and concise surface anomaly and we can clearly correlate it to a similar man made structure found on Earth.
And unless you can come up with high definition Moon photos (which you cannot) then at best this argument will only prove to be plausible. At best it will be plausible. Just follow the basic rules of argument.
Thanks for the thread.
BTW...check out this web page. It is in Danish but you can translate it using Google translate. There are some very compelling pictures here.
www.igap.dk...
a reply to: Outlier13
Reminds me of this joke.
A bloke walks into a Cafe and tells the chef, I want bacon dry as a bone that when you jab your fork into it it dances around the room, I want a fried egg, no yolk and burned underneath, I want tomatoes fried but just the skins, I want beans warm on the outside cold in the middle and I want 2 x toast white on one side and black on the other?
The chef says I aint got time to do aill that, so the bloke says No? You found time yesterday.........
Reminds me of this joke.
A bloke walks into a Cafe and tells the chef, I want bacon dry as a bone that when you jab your fork into it it dances around the room, I want a fried egg, no yolk and burned underneath, I want tomatoes fried but just the skins, I want beans warm on the outside cold in the middle and I want 2 x toast white on one side and black on the other?
The chef says I aint got time to do aill that, so the bloke says No? You found time yesterday.........
a reply to: Outlier13
I had a look at that website and it is nothing more than the garbage moronic dullards have been squinting at for the past 50 years.
Also
Quote
Moon Towers!
This is a NASA photo from the back of the Moon, showing possible towers with square shaped structures. The place is called Oceanus Procellarum.
Correction The Oceanus Procellarum is on the side of the moon to the left just check a lunar map to confirm its location. Those moon towers are nothing more than RF antenni from the CSM (Command Service Module)......
Thanks for the advise though, I'm sure it will come in handy at some point.
I had a look at that website and it is nothing more than the garbage moronic dullards have been squinting at for the past 50 years.
Also
Quote
Moon Towers!
This is a NASA photo from the back of the Moon, showing possible towers with square shaped structures. The place is called Oceanus Procellarum.
Correction The Oceanus Procellarum is on the side of the moon to the left just check a lunar map to confirm its location. Those moon towers are nothing more than RF antenni from the CSM (Command Service Module)......
Thanks for the advise though, I'm sure it will come in handy at some point.
edit on 26-2-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)
I always post it....might as well do it again ...cause I saw just yesterday again on friggin tv.....
''Twas the apollo 14 landing pic....the touch the foot off the ladder shot.
There's is a friggin 500 foot tall water tower four miles distance.....in our face beside the Astronaughts backpack......on tv again....like it always shows.....water tower lookin tower, with the base over the perceived horizon, white in color and what the hail is it?.....I got more,,,,I'm selling the GBPJPY big turn right now....brb
''Twas the apollo 14 landing pic....the touch the foot off the ladder shot.
There's is a friggin 500 foot tall water tower four miles distance.....in our face beside the Astronaughts backpack......on tv again....like it always shows.....water tower lookin tower, with the base over the perceived horizon, white in color and what the hail is it?.....I got more,,,,I'm selling the GBPJPY big turn right now....brb
edit on 26-2-2017 by GBP/JPY because: Gbpjpy fallin on the dealer chart
a reply to: GBP/JPY
Apollo 14 marvellous
Alan eats some cosmic hot dogs as ufos can be seen whizzing past the window 45 seconds mark
youtu.be...
Apollo 14 marvellous
Alan eats some cosmic hot dogs as ufos can be seen whizzing past the window 45 seconds mark
youtu.be...
edit on 26-2-2017 by lunarrover because: (no reason given)
Awhhh, I'm so worn out on it....but my tv keeps track of.....just a minute....brb.....ok
What the hail. YouTube....apollo 14 landing 1972 what the hail is that.....someone tell me
editby]edit on 26-2-2017 by GBP/JPY because: Coza
What the hail. YouTube....apollo 14 landing 1972 what the hail is that.....someone tell me
editby]edit on 26-2-2017 by GBP/JPY because: Coza
edit on 26-2-2017 by GBP/JPY because: Coza
edit on 26-2-2017 by
GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
I love the first picture, looks almost metallic inside, but when looking at the 2nd picture I don't see an "alien power plant"
I think maybe you're putting too much faith in some very old pictures when these 2 images show that, in some instances, you can easily get hold of far superior quality images. Also, you seem to think craters are domes.
Aristarchus Crater
I think maybe you're putting too much faith in some very old pictures when these 2 images show that, in some instances, you can easily get hold of far superior quality images. Also, you seem to think craters are domes.
Aristarchus Crater
edit on 27-2-2017 by bitcoinforever because: .