John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

It looks alot like an excavator, or some watermill wheel.

Blue Glowing Light from Aristarchus and other lunar sites

Could this be caused by Xenon gas under a big glass dome ? You know sometimes the light from modern bright car headlights looks brilliant blue when viewed at a certain angle.

Perhaps they are growing food in these domes or maybe producing the gas for ION PROPULSION.

At any rate, Wikipedia lists the many uses of this gas.

Just waiting for somebody to blow this theory apart now as I know next to nothing and am happy to admit it!

Brian.

The Case of the Disappearing Rays (white ejecta)

Here are 2 photos taken by Apollo. One was taken by Apollo 8 (December 1968) and the other by Apollo 12 (November 1969). Both photos are of the same identical area. The area is on the farside and as you look at the moon it is located just beyond the horizon about the 2 o'clock position.

Here is the first photo which is AS8-12-2209:



Here is what NASA has to say about this photo: "Long narrow rays have been reported in the polar region of the earth facing hemisphere of the Moon. The very bright-rayed crater near the horizon (in this photo) is now thought to be the source of those rays". OK. Sounds logical to me. Remember that the dark-bottomed crater in this photo is Lomonosov (a Russian founder of present-day natural science, 1711-1765.)

Here is the second photo of the identical same area taken by Apollo 12 (AS12-55-8226).



Where did the rays go? We can clearly see all of the craters now even though it is only 11 months later. Apollo 8 took their photo in December of 1968 and Apollo 12 took their photo in November of 1969. But where are the long, narrow rays? And where is the "very bright-rayed crater near the horizon which NASA now thinks is the source of the long-narrow rays reported in the polar region of the Earth-facing hemisphere of the Moon.

To add to the mystery in the Apollo 8 photo you can clearly see the city and the spaceport and all of the tubular structures. And in the Apollo12 photo they are all gone. Where did they go? And where did all the white ejecta go?

Dear Michael Griffin:

What kind of a ship are you running here boy!

On March 13, 2007 you told Congress that "It has been almost 35 years since man last set foot on the moon." I would invite you to look at some of the photos in this thread called "John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS".

Let me respectfully remind you that it is against the law to lie to Congress.

I am respectfully wondering if you would like to rephrase that statement?

Respectfully,

John Lear

Hey greatlakes, I think I found another drop of spilt milk on the farside:

Originally posted by Rilence

Now, what exactly caused those particular shapes to form, I have no idea at all, other than what I said in that they dont seem to be "natural"

Anything else you want me to take a look at ?

Thank you for that opinion "they don't seem to be natural.."

As to looking at any others... no I don't have any others that you need to look at... after all this thread is NOT about looking at anomalies in detail.. studying them as best we can, and gathering comments and opinions about what others see in these anomalies...



I DO hope the sarcasm came through in that last statement

Seriously Rilence... I posted four of the easiest for others to see anomalies and it truely IS the point of this thread to point out these anomalies... And we have repeatedly said that they must be viewed in a graphics program and for people to double check them in the originals so one can see we are not making this up.

So I would humbly suggest you do look at them in the context they are in in the original photos of Copernicus... The "Ancient Excavator" is on a graded slope near several "buildings" and the sloped grade goes through most of the image in Cop #1

In order to understand the concept of the Lunar mine we are presenting, one must look at the whole of the evidence together not just pick apart a single image.

If the premise is a mining operation... the obvious thing to do is search for anomalies that support a mining operation... You also have to adjust your search to the scale of the image...

All this we have done... and guess what? we find MANY examples to support our theory

One of my favorites is a very small section I found on one of the "risers"

I call this one Transit Tube...

Original clip just zoomed...



Highlighted for detail



Sketched



And the following is taken from a NASA pdf file on transit tube construction on the Moon..

Originally posted by Rilence
Yep Borg, agreed...If there are some other chemical processes involved, organic or not, that could explain the variation in colour with the oxidization on phosphorous we would normally expect..

Now the question is, what could cause that...

Oh goody!!! I LOVE this line of reason....

You DO realize both of you are talking about OXYGEN on the moon, yes?

But I looked all over the web and I cannot find blue or purplish glow associated with phosphorous

Edited - Cos I'm and idjit and dont read properly sometimes

Now now no need for that

Originally posted by zorgon

If the premise is a mining operation... the obvious thing to do is search for anomalies that support a mining operation... You also have to adjust your search to the scale of the image...

Zorgon,

All of the evidence leads to greatlakes and Rilance being professionally sponsored. Let me respectfully suggest that you do not waste any of your valuable time on either of them. Their obstructions follow a time-honored pattern of 'plant and run' where they suggest something which sounds logical but isn't and then leave without explaining or elaborating shouting over there shoulder, "you do the research."

I know that it is easy and fun for you to beat them to a pulp with evidence and facts but we have work to do. They're probably full-time airbrushers with NASA.

Originally posted by braddman
I would interject that none of the pictures "clearly" show anything, so please don't use that term. The pictures are all very low resolution and nothing is clearly anything. If there were CLEAR evidence, like very high resolution photos showing a base on the moon, I guarantee it would be on the news already, because one of us would make that happen.

A lot of the images, such as the rectangular structure in the crater could be attributed to compression artifacts.

I'm not saying those images are or aren't something, I'm just saying be objective, they aren't CLEARLY anything.

Oh they are in Mr Lears world

Have you heard of his "Soul transmission antenna" idea.
That one realy cracked me up.

Originally posted by johnlear
Where did the rays go?

Aren't those ejecta rays a flat feature? The idea I have of it is that they are like a splash of mud, painting the ground with a layer of the material ejected from the impact.

If that is the case then changing the direction of the light could make them invisible because they are not in a position to reflect light, the only characteristic that differentiates them from the rest of the ground being their bigger albedo.

To add to the mystery in the Apollo 8 photo you can clearly see the city and the spaceport and all of the tubular structures.

I can not see any "spaceport" or "city", but I think that the features you identified as "city" and "spaceport" are there, in the same place as they were in the other photo, just not that visible.

Originally posted by johnlearThey're probably full-time airbrushers with NASA.

Hmmm interesting... I really ought to pay more attention to IP addresses. I wonder if I should apply for that job... then I could sneak out an image or two...

Originally posted by SpaceBits
Hi, I'm new to this site,

Welcome new victim.... errr seeker

This parking lot idea just doesnt seem to fit, prehistoric-phosile-fuled vehicles on the moon? The stucture resembles more to be some type of proccessing plant or maybe a geo-thermal plant... for what you might ask?

LOL we said it LOOKS like a parking garage, so people could find it easier on the image. As to a "processing plant" we did mention that on page one of the website... (its okay i know there is too much stuff to see it all)

Here is the "box"



Here is a mine processing plant on Earth
www.landoflegends.us...

well the obvious of course which is WATER or H2O. the one substance not easily obtained in space.

Quite true. While there seems to be a lot of water on many planets, for us to get it is certainly not easy, so the first step on any lunar operation would be a water plant... which BTW would also produce hydrogen and oxygen for propellants... Oh yeah and breathing, a second equally important requirement

The new base planned for the south pole on the Moon plans to use the ice there to create water and fuel


[edit on 26-5-2007 by zorgon]

Pegasus News Release... Time Shifted dated to July 27, 2003

On the Fossil Fuel Vehicle aspect...

I have a few questions that I would really like to get answers for, so perhaps a few phone calls to get some real answers is in order... Its off topic a little, but everyone is in here so I can reach out better...

The topic is Mars

The Topic in particular is the new "rover" the Martian astronauts will use on Mars..

The MARS1 HUMVEE...

What I want to know is this...

A) What fuel are they going to use...
B) Is the passenger/driver area pressurized or will they need space suits
C) How are they going to heat it when temps drop to minus 200 celcius
D) How the hell are they going to get it up there?


Now on D I could assume they will use the anti gravity we suspect they have or the simple way with the Aquila cargo transport once they get it into Low Earth Earth orbit.. but the other three are a mystery to me...

I wrote the Hummer people but no response yet. Now they have been testing and using this thing since 2003 in Haughton Crater in the Arctic on a "Mars on Earth" project... so it DOES exist...

Anyone got any ideas? Oh and one last question... why have we not heard about this thingy yet?





Haughton Mars Project


At least they won't have to worry about fixing a flat

[edit on 26-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by ArMaP

I think that the features you identified as "city" and "spaceport" are there, in the same place as they were in the other photo, just not that visible.

OK. Let me respectfully ask you to show me.

Here is the spaceport from AS8-12-2209 colorized:



Here it is not colorized from the identical area of AS8-12-2209:





And here is the area from your post where you say the spaceport is but just 'not that visible' from the Apollo 12 photo AS12-55-8226. Thanks.

John, can we all say in unison airbrushed. What better proof can you have then NASA doctored the photo. This is one of the biggest coverups ever in the history of man on this planet Earth. This is the same way with Mars NASA doctoring photos and hiding the truth about what is really on the Red Planet.

Again coverup after coverup. The coverup has been truely contrived, orgastrated and with a concerted effort to hide the truth what actually is on the Moon. I do not know about you but I feel cheated and out right lied to by the powers in control or should I say out of control. Think of the technology we have been deprived of as a human race. Power, money, greed what comes first? But we will all be told this is in your best interest and One World Security. Rik Riley

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by zorgon

If the premise is a mining operation... the obvious thing to do is search for anomalies that support a mining operation... You also have to adjust your search to the scale of the image...

Zorgon,

All of the evidence leads to greatlakes and Rilance being professionally sponsored. Let me respectfully suggest that you do not waste any of your valuable time on either of them. Their obstructions follow a time-honored pattern of 'plant and run' where they suggest something which sounds logical but isn't and then leave without explaining or elaborating shouting over there shoulder, "you do the research."

I know that it is easy and fun for you to beat them to a pulp with evidence and facts but we have work to do. They're probably full-time airbrushers with NASA.

WTF ???!!!

I have read every single post in this thread...And on more than a few occasions I've said I am certain man has been on the moon for over 40 years, and I have also said I agree that many of the anomalies found are likely to be buildings, etc...

Heck, several pages back a posted a cropped image of Agarum where I stated I believed there was at least one building there...

And you make that kind of comment ?

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Rilence]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Rilence

Now, what exactly caused those particular shapes to form, I have no idea at all, other than what I said in that they dont seem to be "natural"

Anything else you want me to take a look at ?

Thank you for that opinion "they don't seem to be natural.."

As to looking at any others... no I don't have any others that you need to look at... after all this thread is NOT about looking at anomalies in detail.. studying them as best we can, and gathering comments and opinions about what others see in these anomalies...

I DO hope the sarcasm came through in that last statement

Seriously Rilence... I posted four of the easiest for others to see anomalies and it truely IS the point of this thread to point out these anomalies... And we have repeatedly said that they must be viewed in a graphics program and for people to double check them in the originals so one can see we are not making this up.

So I would humbly suggest you do look at them in the context they are in in the original photos of Copernicus... The "Ancient Excavator" is on a graded slope near several "buildings" and the sloped grade goes through most of the image in Cop #1

In order to understand the concept of the Lunar mine we are presenting, one must look at the whole of the evidence together not just pick apart a single image.

If the premise is a mining operation... the obvious thing to do is search for anomalies that support a mining operation... You also have to adjust your search to the scale of the image...

All this we have done... and guess what? we find MANY examples to support our theory

Zorgon, I would have thought you had already realised I have seen these anomalies throught the thread, and I've said to you here, and in U2U that I dont doubt for a second quite a few of them are buildings and so on. ?

As to your question a page or so back with regard to phosphorous, indeed there must be oxygen up there causing it to oxidise and glow like that..Probably together with some other substances to give the blue color...

Originally posted by Rilence

And you make that kind of comment ?

originally posted by Rilence
This thread needs people like greatlakes and others to come in, look, analyse and post..Fresh eyes, blood and ideas are always a good thing when trying to make sense of anything.

We've already made sense of what's going on, thanks. I don't particularly care for some "I'm not an expert, but...." trying to post that the fission reactor at Aristarchus is a drop of milk or that we need to 'do the research'.

Thanks anyway.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Aren't those ejecta rays a flat feature? The idea I have of it is that they are like a splash of mud, painting the ground with a layer of the material ejected from the impact.

Here ArMaP take another look. Here is an enlargement of AS8-12-2209. Now does this look like a 'splash of mud'? Does this look like "painting the ground with a layer of the material ejected from the impact."

Does this look like a case of the 'direction of the light could make them (the long narrow rays) invisible because they are not in a position to reflect light, the only characteristic that differentiates them from the rest of the ground being their bigger albedo."

Take a good long look at AS8-12-2209. It is right out of NASA-SP-246:

Originally posted by Rilence
Zorgon, I would have thought you had already realised I have seen these anomalies throught the thread, and I've said to you here, and in U2U that I dont doubt for a second quite a few of them are buildings and so on. ?

Yes I know you did... but I was trying to generate conversation on THOSE particular objects. It seems every time I try to bring those back, they get brushed aside and ignored LOL. I had hoped greatlakes or yourself would take the opportunity to actually analyze what we are seeing. and discuss them...

What happens here is we show hundreds of anomalies and people either say wow, cool images or try to debunk everything as rocks and tricks of light and shadow or ink blots. Only a few work at explanations so when new blood comes in... well.... YOURRRRRR UP!

So when we get a good one, its not surprising the talk is diverted...

As to Johns comment, don't take it so hard...

He takes getting used to

As to your question a page or so back with regard to phosphorous, indeed there must be oxygen up there causing it to oxidize and glow like that.. Probably together with some other substances to give the blue color...

Be careful now... all that oxygen talk will get you in trouble with THEM

[edit on 26-5-2007 by zorgon]

You guys certainly do a whole lot of *ahem* research on the images you post before posting them here on this thread. Instead of posting these blob images one after another, why not FOCUS in one image at a time.

Or maybe you want to BARRAGE the readers here with what LOOKS like anomalies on the moon, inundating them with so many, while not providing any objective analysis of what the images may or may not be? Kinda like one of those tabloids, eye-candy for the reader, it's fun to read and look at the pics, but does anyone really believe the trash in the tabloids?

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

originally by John Lear:
All of the evidence leads to greatlakes and Rilance being professionally sponsored.

Ok not only am I now a disinfo agent lol but Rilence is as well! Cool, I never knew, hey what kind of salary does a disinfo agent get anyways these days. Oh wait, according to John Lear and zorgon, I'm one, I should know! hey rilence do you have those secret docs or do I?

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

It's my view that is a TACTIC by pure believers, similar to the tactic that our military, government and media uses to smear any UFO eyewitness that refuses to back down. It is also similar to tactics used by pure skeptics, smear the believers, calling them names like nutcases, nutters and the like. Is this what John Lear and zorgon are in fact guilty of doing?

Perhaps they are so used to being attacked on this thread (maybe due to the lack of research and objective perspectives) that this is what they resort to, perhaps unconsciously, like a defense mechanism.

As regards to the *CENSORING ATTEMPT* by John Lear, this is just plain...well you judge..

quote: Originally posted by johnlear
We accept differing viewpoints on this thread as long as they agree with ours.

It seems John Lear only really wants one viewpoint here on this thread, that is that these anomalies, ALL OF THEM are of intelligent design. Any dissenters to his pet theory, well they should leave, because they are thread hijackers!

quote: Originally posted by johnlear
So here is the deal. If you would like to conduct a critical thinking class here on ATS you have every right to do so. But I respectfully request that you do not hijack this thread with pictures of milk drops telling us that that is what Aristarchus is. Thanks.

It also seems that there is NO ROOM for CRITICAL THINKING here on this thread-SIMPLY AMAZING! I can't make this stuff up, these are his quotes!

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Try FOCUSING on one image anomaly at a time, is that so hard to do? Maybe then so many skeptics won't come on this thread and start their attacks.

For instance, Aristarchus Crater, which this started over, still have not heard much of a response to my post, instead other images are thrown at us saying "YEAH BUT, what about this anomaly, how can you account for this one?"

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
So another attempt at Aristarchus crater (Ari.C), then I have to report to my disinfo agent boss

Here is what we "know" about Ari.C:

THE IMAGES:


i141.photobucket.com...


landoflegends.us...


www.landoflegends.us...

Amateur Carol Lakomiak; Nikon CP4300; 8" Meade LX-10.

www.spacew.com/gallery/image002462.jpg


i141.photobucket.com...


i141.photobucket.com...

Now see these bright areas:



John Lear wants you to believe that these bright areas are an alien designed energy reactor, radiating out when the radiation hits the atmosphere, it glows blue. OK, thats one *ahem* theory.

Here's another, somewhat more based in fact (although its from scientists and researchers, which of course are all on the disinfo payroll!)

1st off what can be causing the blue luminosity?

SOURCE IMAGE

This is the "Multispectral Mosaic of the Aristarchus Crater and Plateau" image

The Aristarchus plateau is a rectangular, elevated crustal block about 200 km across, surrounded by the vast mare lava plains of Oceanus Procellarum.

Clementine altimetry shows that the plateau is a tilted slab sloping down to the northwest, that rises more than 2 km above Oceanus Procellarum on its southeastern margin. The plateau was probably uplifted, tilted, and fractured by the Imbrium basin impact, which also deposited hummocky ejecta on the plateau surface. The plateau has experienced intense volcanic activity, both effusive and explosive.

The impact crater was formed when an approx. 1mile diameter asteroid impacted the region. The asteroid impact is relatively recent, and is one of the newer asteroid impact on the moon.

It includes the densest concentration of lunar sinuous rilles, including the largest known, Vallis Schroteri, which is about 160 km long, up to 11 km wide, and 1 km deep. The rilles in this area begin at 'cobra-head' craters, which are the apparent vents for low-viscosity lavas that formed vents for 'dark mantling' deposit covering the plateau and nearby areas to the north and east. This dark mantling deposit probably consists primarily of iron-rich glass spheres (pyroclastics or cinders), and has a deep red color on this image.

The above starts to talk about what makes up the surrounding area the dark areas. The region is made up of iron-rich glass spheres (no John Lear and zorgon, not from aliens

).

Part of the reason most people THINK the Ari.C is SO BRIGHT is that it is RELATIVELY BRIGHT, as compared to the surrounding DARK AREAS, the sea as they are called.

The Aristarchus impact occurred relatively recently in geologic time, after the Copernicus impact but before the Tycho impact. The 42 km diameter crater and its ejecta are especially interesting because of its location on the uplifted southeastern corner of the Aristarchus plateau. As a result, the crater ejecta reveal two different stratigraphic sequences: that of the plateau to the northwest, and that of the portion of Oceanus Procellarum to the southwest.

ok so what is the material making up the Ari.C area??

The infrared spectral properties measured by Clementine are consistent with a composition of almost pure anorthosite, the primitive rock type produced by the lunar magma ocean. This is the first discovery of a major exposure of anorthosite in this region of the Moon, well within the boundary of the hypothetical Procellarum basin.

Almost pure anorthosite. Ok what the heck is this stuff, I'm an engineer not a bloody geologist!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Check part II post below, I ran out of room!

[edit on 27-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by greatlakes
Try FOCUSING on one image anomaly at a time, is that so hard to do?

Yes apparently so, because I asked you DIRECTLY about 4 images to get your response, and your reply was nothing to do with your opinion of those images...

And instead you come back with this post telling us to focus on one image at a time...

Seems that you are confused.

:bash:

[edit on 26-5-2007 by zorgon]