John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

For "hair" like feature, check out....
18 32 59.85 S
70 15 24.10 W

it is pretty identical to your pic Undo..

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
For "hair" like feature, check out....
18 32 59.85 S
70 15 24.10 W

it is pretty identical to your pic Undo..

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

That a base to the right?

The cliff with the falling... um, water/sand/sandy-water (hehe), looks really
..........erm, unique.

Originally posted by yfxxx
Depending on the relative velocity of spacecraft and Europa, the time interval in which the best photos can be taken may be relatively short, and possibly too short to photograph all the visible surface in high-res.

This map illustrates your point pretty well…

www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

That pretty much blows my theory out of the water since the chances of there being two hi-res (

Originally posted by Access Denied
www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

Thanks for that ! However, the high-res image service seems to be unavailable. I predict someone will cry "Conspiracy!!" soon

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Thanks for that

! However, the high-res image service seems to be unavailable. I predict someone will cry "Conspiracy!!" soon

Regards
yf

CONSPIRACY!! (just kidding) ..

Whatcha talkin' bout, Willis?

Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by undo]

Undo, I see the anomolies in the Europa photos pointed out by your yellow arrows. There are too many anomolies to show, you would have nothing but solid arrows pointing toward them. Either the Europians have adapted to the cold or there isn't the solid frozen service we have lead to believe. Looking at the other photos on Europa it is absolutely loaded beyond belief with anomolies. Rik Riley

Originally posted by undo
What's he supposed to admit to? That he has negatives of the original, untouched photograph? I don't get what you are trying to accuse him of.

OK let me see if I can break it down for you. Here is the quote again…

Originally posted by johnlear
As I mentioned most of these photos have been retouched. Through some quirk of fate I not only received on that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative.

Note that several things are being claimed here:

1. Most NASA photos have been retouched.

2. “Somehow” John received a photo that wasn’t retouched which implies all other copies are and normally you couldn’t.

3. “Somehow” he received the actual negative which implies it’s unique and normally you couldn’t.


Now let’s see what evidence would he need to present to support these claims?

1. Several examples of NASA photos that have been retouched for comparison.

2. A sample of at least one (preferably more) of these same photos that hasn’t been retouched for comparison.

3. Evidence that nobody else could get this unretouched copy.

4. Evidence that he received an actual negative.

5. Evidence that nobody else could get the actual negative.


Now let’s see what evidence has John actually presented here?

1. Zero examples of NASA photos that have been retouched.

2. One NASA photo that hasn’t been retouched.

3. Zero evidence that nobody else could get the same unretouched photo.

4. Zero evidence that he received an actual negative.

5. Zero evidence that nobody else could get an actual negative.


Now let’s see what evidence I have presented here to refute these claims?

1. A copy of the same photo John presented that also wasn’t retouched by virtue of the fact that the same “anomalies” (that presumably would need to be hidden) are still there (for all practical purposes).

2. Evidence that more the one unretouched negative (in fact at least three) exist (or existed) of this same photo by virtue of the fact that scans of these additional negatives clearly show differences in the reconstruction of the original photo from the archived spacecraft image data.

3. Several examples of other photos of the same area in question that also show (where possible) some (if not all) the same "anomalies" are present which presumably would have been hidden (retouched) if NASA was actually trying to hide something here.


CONCLUSION?

John Lear’s claim (the basis for this thread) is bunk.

Now can we please come to some kind of consensus here and agree to move on or can I at least get a round of applause?

AD

Originally posted by Access Denied can I at least get a round of applause?

Nope...

As to the negatives (yes there are others) I have held them in my hand, and next time I pop over there I will take a photo of me holding them.

As to your photo it does NOT show all the anomalies, yet you keep telling yourself that it does. You have still refused to accept the challenge of the "excavator" from your image, and telling me its not worth your time is bogus because you certainly have a lot of time to spend in here telling us how good your evidence is.

You also evaded my question about Boyd Bushman and antigravity

So sorry no applause... but hey you can always get your buddies to toss you a few stars

Originally posted by yfxxx
Thanks for that

! However, the high-res image service seems to be unavailable. I predict someone will cry "Conspiracy!!" soon

Why bother? It happens a lot with NASA... the "unavailable high res images"

And lately some of their top image experts claimed publicly they found puddles on Mars, only to have to recant when someone on a board (wouldn't surprise me if it was someone from ATS) pointed out to these experts that the area they were discussing was on a steep slope not the crater floor.

And we have already seen high res .tiff files get pulled while we were downloading them... to be replaced by lesser quality jpegs... and that one ArMaP is a witness to...

Originally posted by Access Denied

Now let’s see what evidence would he need to present to support these claims?

1. Several examples of NASA photos that have been retouched for comparison.

Received with the same order, all retouched:

LOI-136H3
LO2-61H1
LO2-56H2
LO3-84M
LO3-85M
LOV-125M
LOV-155M
LOV-168H2

2. A sample of at least one (preferably more) of these same photos that hasn’t been retouched for comparison.

Are you kidding? That’s what I’d like to have.

3. Evidence that nobody else could get this unretouched copy.

Order it: LO2-162H.

4. Evidence that he received an actual negative.

Negatives available for anyones inspection. Offer made many times before.

5. Evidence that nobody else could get the actual negative.

I invite you to order it: LO2-162H. 60 days should be sufficient. Order from any NASA contractor be sure and specify you want 16 x 20 negative. Accept no substitutions. Report back here August 16, 2007. Thanks.

Now let’s see what evidence has John actually presented here?

1. Zero examples of NASA photos that have been retouched.

Same as above. All available for inspection at my home.

LOI-136H3
LO2-61H1
LO2-56H2
LO2-162H
LO3-84M
LO3-85M
LOV-125M
LOV-155M
LOV-168H2

2. One NASA photo that hasn’t been retouched.

LO2-162H. The same as posted on ATS. Would like more. Know where I can get any?

3. Zero evidence that nobody else could get the same unretouched photo.

I invite you to order it: LO2-162H. 60 days should be sufficient. Order from any NASA contractor. Specify you want 16 x 20 negative. Accept no substitutions. Report back by August 16, 2007. Thanks.

4. Zero evidence that he received an actual negative.

Negatives available for anyones inspection. Here is the list:

LOI-136H3
LO2-61H1
LO2-56H2
LO2-162H
LO3-84M
LO3-85M
LOV-125M
LOV-155M
LOV-168H2

Offer made many times before.

5. Zero evidence that nobody else could get an actual negative.

You are invited to order LO2-162H from any NASA contractor. Please specify that you are requesting actual 16 x 20 negative. Accept no substitutions. 60 days should be sufficient. Report back here August 16, 2007. Thanks.

Now let’s see what evidence I have presented here to refute these claims?

1. A copy of the same photo John presented that also wasn’t retouched by virtue of the fact that the same “anomalies” (that presumably would need to be hidden) are still there (for all practical purposes).

Actually only small portions have ever been presented.

2. Evidence that more the one unretouched negative (in fact at least three) exist (or existed) of this same photo by virtue of the fact that scans of these additional negatives clearly show differences in the reconstruction of the original photo from the archived spacecraft image data.

Show the evidence please.

3. Several examples of other photos of the same area in question that also show (where possible) some (if not all) the same "anomalies" are present which presumably would have been hidden (retouched) if NASA was actually trying to hide something here.

Like these of Kepler?

My copy of Kepler (LO-3-162H):



Apollo 12 picture of Kepler. Notice any difference?

CONCLUSION?

John Lear’s claim (the basis for this thread) is bunk.

Now can we please come to some kind of consensus here and agree to move on or can I at least get a round of applause? AD

How about it folks? Does he get that round of applause?

Lol, the contradictions between the 2 Kepler photos speak volumes, just as do many irregularities, between the negatives that have been shown on the thread.. These guys trying to de-rail have got no chance.. The discrepancies are so clear and there for everyone to see..
WTF is that Pentagon at the bottom of Kepler on your pic???
These guys should bunk off...After listenin to page after page of their BS, nothing they say stands up.. Zorgon and John Lear have made them look like amateurs..

Originally posted by undo

Yeah, but it depends on the settings of your video card and monitor, and your IP company, whether or not you can see what I see in the images. Zorg has explained this several times. Depending on how dark/light/contrasted/amount of colors/ etc.. . It can make a big difference between recognizing these things or not. He and I apparently have similar video card/monitor settings and IP companies that don't limit graphics, so we frequently can see the same anomalies.

I have a 20" widescreen lcd and a good pci-e videocard connected with a dvi cable and it is calibrated. My IP is a independent provider and i have a 24Mb adsl (2MB/s) connection. If i save the picture from a website it is allways the same as displayed.

Edit: It has shaper and same color output as my 19" CRT (to exclude the 6bit part mentioned before)

[edit on 17/6/2007 by Cygnific]

Hi. First post in this great thread.

I recall Zorgon posting moon pics from some guy in the UK taken with a paltry 10" which compared favourably with the Hubble - suspicious - but wonder why there is no US pics corroborating this. I mean you've got better weather and cheaper scopes and there is at least one guy on ATS with a 16". Just wondering...

Are there any more Kepler photos from the same sequence as LO-3-162H? The area has a nasty artifact right true the middle of the crater. If there are no more pictures of LO3 then it is very likely that it is 'just' the artifact.

L0-3-162


Closeup


ESA


Link to animated gif on ESA website.

Originally posted by johnlear
Apollo 12 picture of Kepler. Notice any difference?

If I may pop in here...

Well, there is about a 30 degree rotation, elevation is changed by maybe 10 degrees, angle of sun is altered, still the center anomaly (marked far right) and the one next to it are not resolved to my satisfaction.

How about it folks? Does he get that round of applause?

I dunno...*skritch chin*

It just looks too easy. What about the statistics? The probability someone somewhere else will have the same argument but no one here ever hears about it? If his claims were true, I think we would have heard something by now.

And another thing, I don't mean to be cold here, but he is coming across to me as desperately hanging on and willing to go to great lengths to prove his worth. Of course it could be me, and I am itchin' to address that antigravity fiasco he had with Zorgon, and so on, which colors my opinion, so I cannot really claim it is a clear one.

Nope. If his strategy were different maybe I would reconsider, but I am falling onto the our side of the fence on this one.

Originally posted by Access Denied
...I trust you’ll understand that my peripheral defenses remain up.

You can check in your guns with the doorman.

1. Apparently you’ve never had any OPSEC training.

If you have, then you may have grounds of concern about your clearance being pulled if its still active. Another response can be "So what?". Like I am going to start giving out details to a stranger. I have given enough already, and if you cannot respect it then access is denied!

2. I’m not claiming to be an agent. Again, since you apparently didn’t get it the first time, the MIB thing was a joke in response to Zorgon’s paranoia expressed to me in a private email.

Interesting distinction since I mentioned a public forum. Even though you claim you are not making claims to this effect...

3. I’m not advertising, Zorgon blew my “cover” here. I would have preferred to remain anonymous.

...you "act" like one, complete with a hidden agenda.

4. I have been involved in propulsion research with the Air Force for over 20 years now both as a military member and as an on-site defense contractor. I am also an advocate of NewSpace/alt.space efforts i.e. the privitaztion/commercialization of space access.

Well, that 20 years would explain your highly refined social skills, and I also find it of interesting note you suddenly have contractor experience after I define a difference between Feds and "feds". And if you want to talk more bait, that part about being an advocate is not going to open my doors to you. Its a different story if you come in here waving a fistfull of cash, but just saying you are with us does not mean you can or will help us.

There is a really good conversation going on at this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I pulled this image from one of their links, talking about the Apollo 8 image of the Moon Tower:

John Lear,

No, no round of applause for Mr. AD. Firstly because he keeps abusing the laws of debate, most of which are rhetorical, such as ...

1. The Strawman
This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

2. Dicto simpliciter
This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.

3. Red Herring
This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

4. Argumentum ad numerum
This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true.
He has 10 stars, he must be right! She has no stars, she must be wrong!

5. Argumentum ad populum (same as above)

6. Argumentum ad hominem
This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater

And the cream of the crop, the high point, the real gist of his entire argument:

7. Argumentum ad ignorantiam
This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.





[edit on 17-6-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by Access Denied
3. Evidence that nobody else could get this unretouched copy.

5. Evidence that nobody else could get the actual negative.

There is something I don't understand.

How does the fact that John Lear got an unretouched copy and a negative makes it impossible for other people to get them?

Or did John Lear said that he was the only person to get them and I missed that?

Originally posted by zorgon
As to the negatives (yes there are others) I have held them in my hand, and next time I pop over there I will take a photo of me holding them.

That’s OK, I’ll take your word for it. John just admitted what I’ve suspected all along, he ordered them, they weren’t slipped to him (wink wink, nudge nudge) by a contractor like he implied at the beginning of this thread.

Originally posted by zorgonAs to your photo it does NOT show all the anomalies, yet you keep telling yourself that it does. You have still refused to accept the challenge of the "excavator" from your image, and telling me its not worth your time is bogus because you certainly have a lot of time to spend in here telling us how good your evidence is.

I already did. I posted the clip from mine and John’s for comparison and it doesn’t look like an “excavator” to me in either one. The basic outline (what I see as rock/shadows in the background) is there in both copies but yours has some sort of very small additional smudges/defects/dust (I presume) on the left of it that aren’t in mine. I can see how you would think it was an “excavator” with a lot of imagination and blown up beyond all proportion which in itself introduces subjective artifacts (“detail” that wasn’t there) so I really don’t know what else I can say about it other than it’s one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever seen for something “unnatural” on the moon, sorry.

Originally posted by zorgon
You also evaded my question about Boyd Bushman and antigravity

OK fine, in my opinion he’s whacked. It’s all just hearsay/words. Show me something independently verifiable and reproducible in the lab (e.g.. where I spend my waking hours) and then we’ll talk. Anyway, I think this says it all better than I could…

Anti-Gravity Impossible or not?