John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by Cygnific
So what do you think a structure on Mars would look like?

I'll let you know when I think that I have truly see one.

Does it have to have windows or does it have to have a roof with tiles?

No it doesn't, and nowhere in any of these posts have I intimated that it must have any of those things to be a structure.

I'm not saying this picture shows a structure, but i would like to hear your definition of what a structure would/should look like for you to be convinced.

Well first and firstmost it should be a CLEAR definitive picture of a building of some sort. Not some grainy picture that could be anything!!!

Show me one single photo that clearly shows any type of door, exhuast system, vehichle tracks, ANYTHING! Anything other than a discoloration.

Or how about a single person or entity walking or driving or flying? That would do it for me!!! But so far none of that has been presented.
I think that will all of this proof up there just waiting to be captured that John and his team should't have a problem showing there evidence to these guys and settling this matter once and for all.

If your evidence is as strong as you seem to believe, then you guys should have no trouble convincing these guys to let you use thier equipment.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by yfxxx

I'm really interested what I'm supposed to "clearly" see. Any factual answer will be appreciated (even if it's seasoned with remarks about my personal intelligence and state of mind

).

Yfxxx your personal intelligence and state of mind has been established. Its how you use these faculties that has been the question.

What I see in the picture is atmosphere. Clear as day. Probably more dense than the moons atmosphere which I have mentioned is 'breathable' and maybe not as dense as earth. I doubt that we would be seeing the sharp, geometric edges of the structure if Mars didn't have a dense and breathable atmosphere.

hi, just popped in for a moment to comment the blue glowies.

what if they are phosphorus-based? they glow because of the phosphorus. this requires a certain amount of oxygen to work, however, but not too much, or it ignites or something like that. this could explain why aristarchus fluctates from very bright to not so, over the course of days or hours. the amount of oxygen, atmosphere and sunlight being intimately connected. this could also explain why we'd see images of actual fire on the moon, that no one has as yet, attempted to explain.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by undo]

Or it could just be a reflection on the sun from all of the iron deposits on the moon.

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by Cygnific
So what do you think a structure on Mars would look like?

I'll let you know when I think that I have truly see one.

Very clever way of not saying what you think it can look like. Please answer this: Do you believe the Cydonia region qualifies for structures? Or maybe this is easier. Do you believe life was/is on other planets/moons then Earth?

P.S You asked for something that showed a clear picture for a structure, instead of grainy 'could be anything' ones..I will give you my answer: I would never release a picture that shows a high res clear closeup of what cannot be denied as a structure on Mars or the Moon. For the simple fact that i dont know the reason why any official institute would not come forward, and say in public that life is also on other planets/moons then Earth. This is a very big dillema and i'm sure many others will have the same feeling. Not that i have any, but just to say my point of view.

Would you release such picture and if so why?

[edit on 11/6/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by johnlear
What I see in the picture is atmosphere. Clear as day.

I doubt that we would be seeing the sharp, geometric edges of the structure if Mars didn't have a dense and breathable atmosphere.

I beg your pardon?? To me, your sentence says that you think "If Mars did not have a dense atmosphere, we should not see sharp, geometric edges". That doesn't make sense at all, even by your standards. So, do you want to rephrase your statements?

Regards
yf

Originally posted by Springer
You'd be fair and accurate to say hundreds of thousands of people are "watching" this thread.

Sorry for being off-topic, but could you please clarify one thing to me?

Are those hundreds of thousands unique IP addresses, page views or visits?

Thanks.

I was just re-reading, The New York Times story of man's greatest adventure, "We Reach The Moon" by John Noble Wilford (copyright the New York Times) and came across 2 of my favorite quotes:


Neil Armstrong (during Apollo 11's return trip from the moon): "No matter where you travel its is nice to get home."

Michael Collins: "This trip of ours to the moon may have looked simple and easy. I want to assure you that this has not been the case." Collins then pointed out the complex equipment involved, and cited the thousands of workers "below the surface" who made the mission possible.

Methinks my point was missed. I will spell it out...

Flat Earth (thinking) = No Life on Other Planets (thinking)

Now we can get past this hump and start thinking of what kind and variety it is...

Originally posted by ArMaP
Sorry for being off-topic, but could you please clarify one thing to me?

Are those hundreds of thousands unique IP addresses, page views or visits?

Thanks.

Visits/Unique Visitors monthly. One wouldn't use the term "Unique IP Addresses" for page views, one would simply state "Page Views". Unique IP Address indicates exactly what it says, a Unique IP Address.

Springer...

[edit on 6-11-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by kleverone
No offense, but until we see a photo that clearly shows these things you claim I would venture to guess that most people on here do not chime in because, so far none of these claims have even been proven. Lets get that close up pic before we decide that people are " to shocked to respond.

I don't think "shocked" is correct for most but I will tell you that some are... and one recent participant has pulled out because of that. I think its more that people are interested enough, but not really sure if they have anything to add... and T&C does not allow (an rightly so) those oneliners...

Besides if everyone of those "hundreds of thousands" posted daily....

Now then as to a clear photo.. this one to you kleverone... please give me an honest opinion of this image from Mars...

so far all the regular skeptics in three threads have totally ignored comment on this one, yet want us to show clear images of anomalies..

Okay THIS one is very clear... no enhancement, no brightness gamma etc... taken straight from the Malin image strip.



Original Strip

[edit on 10-6-2007 by zorgon]

It took me a while too see it but I finally see what looks to be a very large plant or structure that is producing steam. Thermoforming?

Originally posted by Cygnific
Very clever way of not saying what you think it can look like.

Gotta live up to my name. I'm not saying that this photo is not what you claim. I can see what appears to possibly a building, but I don't think this photo verifies that an any way.

Do you believe life was/is on other planets/moons then Earth?

Yes.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by johnlear
Michael Collins: "This trip of ours to the moon may have looked simple and easy. I want to assure you that this has not been the case." Collins then pointed out the complex equipment involved, and cited the thousands of workers "below the surface" who made the mission possible.

John,when you say that Mr. Collins was talking about people actually below the surface, where you implying that he meant it literally or figuritively, or am I reading into that to much?

Originally posted by kleverone

John,when you say that Mr. Collins was talking about people actually below the surface, where you implying that he meant it literally or figuritively, or am I reading into that to much?

I never said Michael Collins was talking about anybody anywhere. All I did was post a quote from the New York Tmes book. The exact quote of the text from the book is, " He (Michael Collins) pointed out all the complex equipment involved, and cited the thousands of workers 'below the surface' who made the mission possible." The quotation marks enclosing 'below the surface' belong to the New York Times, not me.

Originally posted by kleverone
I'm not saying that this photo is not what you claim. I can see what appears to possibly a building, but I don't think this photo verifies that an any way.

I didn't claim anything on this photo, i did not even give a comment on it I dont know what it is, all i know is that the 'thing' resembles a structure. But who knows what it really is, maybe it's just a few layers of sand making a weird looking image.

Originally posted by undo
I need to apologize to the NASA folks again, as I still have no definitive proof that any of this is even their fault.

No need to apologize to NASA, I’m sure they’re used to it. What I think is hysterical is the title of this thread is “John Lear’s Moon Pictures on ATS”. No they’re not! They’re NASA’s Moon Pictures and it took a lot of hard work by REAL people so all of us can look at them and wonder. Sheesh, talk about being ungrateful and biting the hand that feeds you… if it wasn’t for NASA we’d all REALLY be in the dark about what’s out there!

Anyway, kudos to you for recognizing the possibility that maybe NASA isn’t try to hide anything from you after all, despite what John Lear and others like him (e.g. Hoaxland) would like you to believe. I can’t predict the future but I’m willing to bet if there IS any evidence of ET life to be found in our solar system or beyond, NASA (or another agency like the ESA or SETI) will be the first to prove it and share that discovery with the world. If you don’t believe me just ask anybody that works for NASA if they wouldn’t LOVE to be able to do that!

Originally posted by Zorgon
Now you just finished telling us NASA could create the negatives ANYTIME they wanted, from the raw data on the Magnetic tapes... therefore EACH NEGATIVE is an "original", certainly as original as you can get seeing the actual negative crashed on the Moon

And one of those given to the contractors was passed on to John

So what? The point you keep dancing around is John’s copy isn’t significantly different from any other copy out there. Besides how do you know he (or this “contractor”) didn’t just order it like anybody else could at the time? I think John just wants everybody to think his copy is somehow special and from the looks of it, a lot of you bought it and he’s sent you all off on a wild goose chase. Wouldn’t be the first time.

As a matter of fact YOU KNOW I have a better (higher resolution) copy from NASA of “Copernicus 1-4” (II-162) than what John posted here on ATS and you’ve known about this since last year! I even emailed you (at your request!) sections from my copy of the so-called “anomalies” you were interested in like the “keep”. Why haven’t you told anybody here about that and why do you STILL act like NASA is trying to hide anything from you and that you’re on to something “special”? If NASA was hiding anything why would they give me a better copy than John’s that shows the exact same things?

Hell, I even posted some more pictures of Copernicus (V-150 to V-157) and you STILL complain about not having any high-resolution pictures as if NASA is involved in some ridiculously huge cover-up! Anybody who’s even the least bit interested in investigating these claims would surely have noticed that right there on the USGS web site it says those are 100 micron (~250 DPI) scans and that even higher resolution scans are available by request …

Lunar Orbiter Digitization Project

As they are produced, constructed LO frames are being made available at 100-micron resolution through this web interface. The constructed frames at 50-micron or the individual scanned film strips at 25-micron can be made available upon request. Please send requests to one of the technical contacts listed below.

Did you miss that or did you just decide to ignore another inconvenient truth?

Now, want to know what I think is even more hysterical about “John Lear’s Moon Pictures on ATS”? Did you know that when this picture (II-162) was taken in 1966 it was hailed as the “Picture of the Century” at the time and was featured in newspapers and magazines all over the world? Yeah, some BIG SECRET this was…

Orbiter II Takes the "Picture of the Year"

Don’t you think it’s about time to give it up Zorgon and admit you’ve been hoaxed by John Lear? It’s either that or I think you have some explaining to do to the members of ATS about the contrary evidence you’ve neglected to tell them about all this time.

AD

Originally posted by Access Denied

As a matter of fact YOU KNOW I have a better (higher resolution) copy from NASA of “Copernicus 1-4” (II-162) than what John posted here on ATS and you’ve known about this since last year!

Why are you not sharing these pictures? There are lots of free hosting sites to put them on.

Originally posted by Cygnific
Why are you not sharing these pictures? There are lots of free hosting sites to put them on.

Sorry, acesss denied. (long story but I have my reasons and that's all I'm going to say about it)

Anyway, here's a cropped 9.8 MB JPEG version ("lo2_h162_3a") that roughly covers the same area as "Copernicus 1-4" posted at the beginning of this thread when put together...

LO2-H162

Happy hunting!

Originally posted by johnlear
I was just re-reading, The New York Times story of man's greatest adventure, "We Reach The Moon" by John Noble Wilford (copyright the New York Times) and came across 2 of my favorite quotes:


Neil Armstrong (during Apollo 11's return trip from the moon): "No matter where you travel its is nice to get home."

Michael Collins: "This trip of ours to the moon may have looked simple and easy. I want to assure you that this has not been the case." Collins then pointed out the complex equipment involved, and cited the thousands of workers "below the surface" who made the mission possible.

John you can read anything into anything if you really try hard enough,
ISTM that you really want to believe there was no Moon landing and you really want to believe that there is mining etx on the moon. But Im afraid that and pictures lumps on a moon thousands of miles away isnt going to make it so.

I believe you believe it but that just isnt enough

Originally posted by kleverone

I would love nothing more than to tell you that I see definitive structures in those pictures, but I do not. I see what could be stuctures, but could also be shadows, discoloration. It very well may be a building! All I know is that nothing is conclusive in that photo. Although it certainly is interesting and should merit further investigation.

Fair enough, and BTW thanks for those kind words. Good skeptics make good adversaries too

As to the telescopes being able to see... yes they could.. so why do they not? Mt Palomar has a 200 inch scope, yet the director wrote...
----------------------------------
Hi Ron,

I haven't seen any images of the Moon from Palomar either. It is possible that some were taken long ago, but astronomers would rather explore the Moon with spacecraft and use the big telescopes for observing much, much fainter objects.

Clear skies,

- Scott

W. Scott Kardel
Public Affairs Coordinator, Palomar Observatory
Telephone: (760) 742-2111
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW:www.palomar-observatory.org
---------------------------------------------------

So I would then naturally be curious why no one does...

We have seen amateur shots here of Aristarchus... some show it as a plain bland crater of little interest, some show it as a glowing blue "gem" with hints of "structure", just like in the Clementine image...

They can't both be right, yet even I find it hard to believe everyone is fudging the results... so whats up?

The Ikonos satellite takes awesome pictures of Earth

Here is a sample of an image of the Tsangpo River at a resolution that would normally cost you a couple grand... Dial up warning its BIG and takes four scans to complete the image...



I have linked this before... but when you get it do a slow pan in a graphic program... especially the lower right corner going up... the effect is amazing considering this was taken from 400 miles out in space...

The point is this satellite took one image of the moon and then annouced curtly that "they will not be imaging the moon"

The river I posted above will give those not familiar the ability to see the resolution capable from satellite images. This is a commercial satelitte.. anyone care to tell me that the Government ones are less capable?

So then were exactly ARE these images? We know they had them as early as Lunar Orbiter... the ITT defence Contractor says this....

On a typical Lunar Orbiter mission, the photographic system provided high-resolution pictures of 4,000 square miles of the Moon's surface with enough clarity to show objects the size of a card table. At the same time, medium-resolution photographs covering 20,000 square miles could be made with overlap for stereo viewing and analysis of surface topography...


The 1600 pictures captured in total by the five Lunar Orbiters using the ITT photographic system enabled photogrammetrists at NASA and the U.S. Government's Defense Mapping Agency to create accurate maps of the Moon's surface.

Okay so which one of you has seen and can show me these images that I can recognize a card table on the Moon?

And how many of those 1600 images did you say are available for us to look over?

If there is nothing to hide, just release them to the public... seems simple enough