John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by zorgon

Lets take a rest from that one object...

How about the floating spheres with shadows? Surely like the cranes you will be able to explain these as "natural rock formations"... They don't have much to do with the mine theory but there are many of them....


Next time we will do the Spires with shadows...

[edit on 28-9-2006 by zorgon]

Agreed. I have no explanation for those. I find them as odd as you do. There is also something strange about the white swath that does not seem to relate to its surroundings. Maybe that's the airbrushed area he is referring too? Too bad we don't have a print from when the negative(s) was pristine. I know when I scan negatives I continue to uncover more detail up to the 4,800 dpi limit of my equipment. The photo on John's wall may have much more detail than we are seeing in these posted pictures. John, would you elaborate on that? What resolution was the photo scanned at?

I'd like to say that I've enjoyed reading all the banter and conjecture in regards to the wonderful pictures that Springer posted for Mr. Lear. This is one of the reasons why I enjoy this forum so much. Although I've not posted till now, I feel like this thread has provided a grand service for everyone to think about.

Before moving forward I do have one question that I haven't seen asked yet (or if so I missed it completely). This is in regards to the scanning of these images. I noticed that the identifying segment numbers located on the left of the images are in a reversed numerical order/position, and was curious if we are viewing these from (or off of) a negative or an actual print from whereever you recieved them from Mr. Lear? Not that it makes a lot of difference whether the images are viewed left to right, or right to left, but I thought it curious? If this has already been addressed my apologies, as it's not really a big deal.

As I mentioned above, this is my first post to this thread as I was reading and hoping someone else might have seen an area that I found a bit curious in the very first linked photo [uploads.abovetopsecret.com/Copernicus1-full.gif]. Since it has not yet been discussed or pointed out yet, I decided to jump on the 'thread-bandwagon'. This area would be located top left approximately 6" down and 13" to the right of the numerical segment identifier (for the lack of a better phrase).

Crop section of Original

Because of my first being drawn to this area because of what appears to possibly be to impact collisions above one other (conjecture), I decided to crop and zoom in a bit on the area of interest.

Cropped/Zoom section of interest

It was then i noticed that there appeared to be possibly either smear/water marks or maybe even there was some foreign moisture residue that may have been left on the scanner. But if not, then there was even more to this part of the area that puzzled me. If it was not a 'smear' then what else could it be. I decided to flip the image left to right and enhance with a number of filters that included Gamma, Sepia, Negative, as I felt these would be the filters that would leave the original image the least affected by manipulation of the original capured area.

Sepia Filtered

I decided to really do some heavy filtering and it does manipulate the image beyond normal constraints of analysis, but it's still interesting.

Over-Enhanced

I really don't know what I'm seeing as I'm no lunar expert, but I'm hoping that perhaps someone might be able to shine some light in this area.




Thanks Mr. Lear for the wonderful photos and discussion thread...!

[edit on 28-9-2006 by JohnnyAnonymous]

Originally posted by StellarX
Those who suggest that one has to 'believe' in anomalies to see them should remember that the inverse is as just about as true; if you do not your subconscious mind will take the hint and make sure your information feed wont enable much else.

Very good post Stellar! And quite true. Perhaps thats why most major scientific discoveries are made by those without preconcieved ideas... either way.

But it is also true that one can direct the subconscious mind to see things LOL

And once you do that it stays stuck I was saving this one for the right moment...

So to all the sceptics here is a present...

The Butler...



[sorry I just couldn't resist]

I suppose it is possible that those boys at NASA with their airbrush have a real bazarr sense of humor...

But what I really want to know... what geological formation explains these two...







They are all on #5

[edit on 28-9-2006 by zorgon]

thanks for revisiting the floating spheres Zorgon

I have noticed a few more and you highlighted some of them in your post. You can clearly see shadow under some of these "spheres" which makes them imo more intriguing than the rock formations.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
thanks for revisiting the floating spheres Zorgon

I have noticed a few more and you highlighted some of them in your post. You can clearly see shadow under some of these "spheres" which makes them imo more intriguing than the rock formations.

Muhahahaha... think those are good? wait till you see the landing platforms for the spheres... found five so far

BTW if you have found more sphere let me know... the more the merrier..

Now to our friend with the Basalt...

I am really curious why a basalt formation would have a perfect star on the top of it...

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
Because of my first being drawn to this area because of what appears to possibly be to impact collisions above one other (conjecture), I decided to crop and zoom in a bit on the area of interest.

Welcome to the "Hunt"

You are the first to mention that the images are mirrored LOL So much for powers of observation huh? [even though one of the sphere posts has the 63 in it reversed]

You have found one of the cave/tunnel openings Of the top of my head there are 5 more that qualify... Maybe you could tweek the enhancement a little because it looks like there is a row of them in the dark looking at your sepia one.




[edit on 29-9-2006 by zorgon]

Zorgon, check earlier in the thread.
I made a post listing a few no one has posted yet.

EDIT:
Link- www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Xabora]

Originally posted by Xabora
Zorgon, check earlier in the thread.
I made a post listing a few no one has posted yet.

Yup I caught those when you first posted.. had some tucked away but not all. The white "puffs" are a good find Funny how we don't get comments on the good ones

Gave ya credit on the website... just not finished the pages yet

Here's one on #5 that is just too funny... but it is a real rock formation...[has the matching shadow to the left...

Either that or NASA is really telling us what they think...

I'd say the shadow could be more possibly to the right .
People seethings that aren't there sometimes , on the other hand things are seen by people sometimes .
Very good thread , I'm going to ask my Grandad to look at this picture , as he done a lot of intel work in the 50's (aerial photography etc) and ask him his opinion .

I hate to disappoint you John, but that is not a car park

Cheers

JS

Originally posted by zorgon


Someone asked about atmosphere? I wonder where this haze is coming from?

If a man can jump high on the moon because of the gravity, would it not make sense that fine particles of dust that were gouged up from the rockets firing on entry might hover for long periods of time especially since there is no wind to push them back down immediately? There is lots of fine dust there isn't there?


Pie

I received John's "Lick Observatory" photos on a CD yesterday and will have them uploaded today for all to peruse. I'll also be sure I post the "data" for these shots with the links to the photos themselves.

Springer...

Zorgon.

1) That first 'sphere' is interesting because there appears to be a shadow some distance from it. Does that shadow line up with the other shadows in the picture? That is, is it projecting in the right direction?

2) Many of the other 'spheres' appear to my mind as craters, with the mind interpreting the concave shape as convex because of the shadow orientation. Can you post a picture of one of the spheres with a few other objects and their shadows in the same picture? That will let me determine whether the obejcts are convex or concave. Otherwise, there is insufficient info. If I can locate on of the objects in the larger picture I will do so myself, but I don't want to find a crater, and tell you it is not a sphere when it is not something you were claiming is a sphere in the first place

I'm very interested in tryting to locate the 'tower features' in photo 5 to then see what is present there. I'll work on that this weekend.

Sorry, don't mean to disturb your day job

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Originally posted by jumpspace

I hate to disappoint you John, but that is not a car park

Yeah, I blew that one. I am leaning more towards a control tower.

John:

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jumpspace

I hate to disappoint you John, but that is not a car park

Yeah, I blew that one. I am leaning more towards a control tower.

Stop leaning towards a control tower and lean back towards the car-park.

You are "sort of" right

Cheers

See, to me, it is just that zigzag feature, but viewed nearly head on instead of from above as in figure 5. But I donno, I don't have an eye for these things. Shadow information helps alot so some of the tower stuff might be more definitive. We will see, we will see. A parallel search by a hundred people is almost always the best way to go.

Originally posted by Scotlandshope
I'd say the shadow could be more possibly to the right .
People seethings that aren't there sometimes , on the other hand things are seen by people sometimes .
Very good thread , I'm going to ask my Grandad to look at this picture , as he done a lot of intel work in the 50's (aerial photography etc) and ask him his opinion .

You would be wrong though as the direction of the sun is known. That was given at the start of the thread...

But by all means bring in your Grand Dad...

And when you do ask him to look at the "Smoking Gun"that I am about to post.

Oh and might it occur to you that other people here have the same skills as your grand dad? No? Hmmmm? Thats okay no insult taken though it was implied


Okay folks time to stop playing games... and I don't want to hear "I'm seeing things" this time

This is the crane first spotted by Zarniwoop... a really good find I might add..



Here is THE SAME CRANE in image #5



Now you can acuse me of "seeing things" all you like... because I do see this...
Here are the locator sketches so yo can look for yourself. Remember that #5 has to be turned to the right 90 degres to match the orientation.

Here is the ridge in #2



And here it is in #5



You guys ought to see this in stereo vision

To Ectoterrestrial:

Look at the marks on the locator above.. your zigzag is not the hole where the parking garage is...


Do I get the Nobel Prize yet?


To John

Missed ya by 8 minutes LOL. Lets keep the garage for now... they have to park all those rovers somewhere

[edit on 29-9-2006 by zorgon]

John, Ectoterrestrial:

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
See, to me, it is just that zigzag feature, but viewed nearly head on instead of from above as in figure 5.

Yes, this is prob. correct in reality, sorry about that

I was coming from another angle.

But I donno, I don't have an eye for these things. Shadow information helps alot so some of the tower stuff might be more definitive. We will see, we will see. A parallel search by a hundred people is almost always the best way to go.

Yes, shadows do tell a lot...however make sure that the shadows you see are actually shadows and not air-brush "strokes" to cover light patches.

Cheers

JS

I am back and forth but mostly up at the mine so I don't get a lot of time to read or post but let me say this: Zorgon has done an incredible job of research and finding all the artifacts in the photo of Copernicus. He has correlated many of the images on 2 with 5. He has found many artifacts I never saw until he pointed them out. He must have found at least 10 images of smoke or vapor, maybe more. The post above of the crane which Zaniworp originally found is first class what I call "proof imaging' that is, proving the image in one photo by locating and identifying it in another photo. I was extremely lucky to have gotten an overhead image of the same identical area. When I originally asked Springer for help in posting these photos I had not the faintest idea that such an interest would develop. It was kind of like passing the baton in a relay race. This thread may go on for a long, long time but I wanted to thank Zorgon, Zaniworp and all of the others that have contributed to locating and identifying the equipment, structures, tunnels and other artifacts associated with this huge mining operation going on on the north face of the crater Copernicus.

That said, I sympathize with those of you who cannot see, or only see vague lines and shadows or only smoke and mirrors, (or basalt) because, through no fault of your own you are missing one of the most exciting discoveries of the decade.

If this sounds a little overboard so be it. I which you could share my exhilaration at some of the posts I have read on this thread.

I’m still really enjoying this thread.
I still don’t really see anything.
My opinion of what’s going on is illustrated perfectly by Zorgon’s “butler” photo…and I must give Zorgon a lot of love for feeding “the bad guys” such a tasty morsel.

So here’s a little quid pro quo…

I, Essedarius, do hereby (for a minute) concede that there is a massive strip mining operation occurring on the moon involving cranes and vapor and parking structures.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I’m faced with a whole new landscape of questions, based on the following assumptions:

1)
The mining operation is run by humans from earth. (If aliens are running things up there then these questions are obviously pointless.)

2)
The humans hail from a single country (that is to say, it is not a multinational effort…call me a skeptic, but China, Japan, Britain, the U.S. cooperating on something like this and keeping it absolutely secret? Nope.)

3)
The humans are mining Helium-3 as an energy alternative for use here on earth. (I know there are other valuable resources up there but, I think we can agree, none more so than He3.)


So here’s what I don’t get (and there may be perfectly good answers here...I just don’t have the knowledge to come up with them):


1)
Once the initial MASSIVE expenditure is made to establish mining operations (and I default to the word “massive” only because I can’t think of a single word that would do the monetary amount justice), almost 15,000 tons of regolith (lunar soil) has to be warmed up to about 1500 degrees (F) in order to produce 1 ton of He3. Does an operation like this really make economic sense?

2)
Obviously shuttles would need to be heading back and forth, picking up the He3 payload and bringing it back to earth. I think those of you living in California or Florida will agree: you can’t exactly “sneak” those things into our atmosphere…it’s a very recognizable event. One that doesn't go unnoticed.

3)
As you may have heard, the fossil fuel lobby is very strong here on earth. (No Bush jokes please…) An abundant source of He3 puts them, essentially, out of business. That’s a lot of power evaporating. As we know, power like that doesn’t really evaporate…it has to be ripped away with a bang. Many oil folk have access to the most secret of information. If they caught even a whiff of this, they would blow the lid off it in a second. Wouldn't they?


That’s what I have for the moment.
Feel free to tear up my assumptions and answer my questions.

I may be wrong…I really may…but logistically, it doesn't work for me.

Help me out.
Anybody.


[edit on 29-9-2006 by Essedarius]

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Essedarius]