Whats going on here!!?? Taymour

Here's some more interesting pics:

These next two look like the focus is on what looks to be a group of "creatures". Once again the first is the full pic, the next is the crop of the first. I've circled the points of interest.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6236c886a8a6.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e7d0841735d.jpg[/atsimg]

I have no idea what this is supposed to be but obviously Taymour is alluding to a certain object in the pic. Any ideas? First is the full, second is the crop:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55ff26ab7991.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9e9c5f19b9b.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by MysterEthe Geologist did not answer my question directly. I asked if the formations could be formed naturally, and he stated that he felt they were not landscapes. I will try to get the exact question answered.

Seems to me he answered correctly.... you asked "If these images are of a mountain landscape pattern, could these formations occur naturally? "

He answered that they do not look like landscape... so if he does not see landscape, how can he comment on them being natural landscape?

The problem of scale is a very important one... one that has been asked of me for years in the images we have shown of the moon and Mars. Without scale there is little point

For example...

Dust mites seen at 350x magnification foraging for human skin on a bedsheet.

A pinch of dust can have over 1000 dust mites and 250,000 disease causing dust mite droppings. Anne Kennedy, a USDA microbiologist says just "a pinch can harbor over 1000 species of bacteria and up to a million organisms.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/73a6647b89e3.jpg[/atsimg]

www.dustmitemagic.com...

Another example of scale is this video clip...

Originally posted by nunya13

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55ff26ab7991.jpg[/atsimg]

This one is certainly extremely interesting and would be something I would feature to be sure... but again without scale and image source they are of little value.

I shall lurk some more and see what develops.

reply to post by zorgon


I agree that there are some where it's difficult to tell the scale like the second pic in my last post. If we can't even speculate as to what that is or how big it is then it's useless to assume.

But, in the other pics, I think we can fairly assume that they are supposed to be pics of "creatures". Given that we are provided with the full pic then the cropped image, we can estimate the scale. I don't know how to do that, but I'm sure others can. The one with the pic of what looks like a humanoid creature is spooky and the most interesting to me.

Originally posted by zorgon

Dust mites seen at 350x magnification foraging for human skin on a bedsheet.

Great examples, the video sums up scale perfectly!

-E-

P.S. I'm washing my bedsheets TONIGHT!

Originally posted by nunya13
But, in the other pics, I think we can fairly assume that they are supposed to be pics of "creatures". Given that we are provided with the full pic then the cropped image, we can estimate the scale. I don't know how to do that, but I'm sure others can. The one with the pic of what looks like a humanoid creature is spooky and the most interesting to me.

You are correct in your assumption. Taymour has sent me more pictures and the title is "Humanoid Figures" they are basically the pictures that were in the video, and that have been posted here. To be perfectly honest, I don't buy it. It is too speculative. I need better evidence.

-E-

Originally posted by mckyle
Hey Mike

The lovely blue tinge and the cute little alien head looking up from the surface was too much for me.

And as Chadwickus said, what a god-damn awful attempt at fakery it is too

Saying its FAKERY without at least having the original image is as bad as claiming its ALIEN

But with the 'alien head' it appears the 'object' is better resolution than the background.

maybe he got assassinated before he revealed his true identity

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mckyle
Hey Mike

The lovely blue tinge and the cute little alien head looking up from the surface was too much for me.

And as Chadwickus said, what a god-damn awful attempt at fakery it is too

Saying its FAKERY without at least having the original image is as bad as claiming its ALIEN

But with the 'alien head' it appears the 'object' is better resolution than the background.

Now, now Zorgy. Just because I made the quip about you not being in the same league as the other ufologists....

I guess Chadwickus and I were using something called common sense.

If i see a cute little alien head peering up at the camera, from a hitherto sourceless, unconvincing, video, where we neither know the location of scenes, nor the agency who took it, I think I'm pretty justified to assume it's fake.

Cheer up, maybe you'll get asked for your opinion in a future post.

Greetings, all!

Have enjoyed this thread so much, decided to throw in my 2 cents - I liked the geologist advice idea, but with the absence of scale...Perhaps those with the images would consider an image specialist (?) or CGI expert to analyze these for signs of tampering (ie: the cute grey and the blue "building") or editing at a pixel level...surley SOMEONE in our vast network of talent would be able to detect tampering if it existed in at least one image, probably using photoshop...I am reminded of the "false horizon" moon series.

Another idea is to research macro pics on the net (I have not tried sofar) and compare to see if these "landscapes" bear a resemblence to a microscopic "landscape" of a common substance

I fear that DiBello himself is the victim of a hoax, and I hope it doesn't damage his rep too terribly here, as I have a gut feeling he is sincere. If he is bound by counselor-client privilage, then he may not be able to disclose a smoking gun for QUITE some time, and we need to resolve this sooner than later.

Just 2 cents fom the Noob.

reply to post by zorgon

I would still prefer the Clementine images. They're more sexy than Taymour's vid!!

Like this one....



Cheers!

Originally posted by mckyle
Now, now Zorgy. Just because I made the quip about you not being in the same league as the other ufologists....

No offense there I know they aren't in my league

I guess Chadwickus and I were using something called common sense.

'common sense' is not too common these days, but it does not detract from my point. Making a statement that its fake before all the cards are on the table puts you in the same category as those presenting images without source IMO of course

I think I'm pretty justified to assume it's fake.

It is never safe to assume anything, because invariably one will eat crow

Cheer up, maybe you'll get asked for your opinion in a future post.

Maybe, but maybe 'they' know I would only deal with it with source provided Same beef I have with Hoagland's stuff

Originally posted by Cole DeSteele
I fear that DiBello himself is the victim of a hoax...

I'm leaning towards that conclusion also.

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike, I liked your "What?" at the end of your sentences,lol it added some flavor! BRING IT BACK!!


The only problem with any of these "anomaly pictures" is it is just so hard to judge size and see anything that could be called proof, at most they always end up "interesting".



I am still waiting for the reply from Dr. Johnson, when I get it I will let you all know.

reply to post by zorgon


It's all good zorgon.


But I agree with you about needing the source of the images for starters, but sometimes you only got what you got. I do not see this thread turning into anything more than another "Em, interesting" type of thread. But I hope for the best and regardless we should be able to come to some conclusion soon enough.

[edit on 6/4/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by Cole DeSteelesurley SOMEONE in our vast network of talent would be able to detect tampering if it existed in at least one image, probably using photoshop...

I am sure that someone here could do that, but that would require the original image. It is not possible to determine anything from a youtube screen capture

Another idea is to research macro pics on the net (I have not tried sofar) and compare to see if these "landscapes" bear a resemblence to a microscopic "landscape" of a common substance

Good idea

How's this? Martian Microbes in a microscopic image of that meteorite from Mars

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97bb02fb592a.gif[/atsimg]

[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by jkrog08But I hope for the best and regardless we should be able to come to some conclusion soon enough.

What's the rush? Been slow around here lately anyway I do like the images though...

What I like best is that the same 'only rocks' people still see nothing when the 'artifacts (real or faked) are so obvious... too obvious almost.

I guess I shall create a page... with a question mark for the time being.

Originally posted by jkrog08
I am still waiting for the reply from Dr. Johnson, when I get it I will let you all know.

Missed this...

Which Dr Johnston are we referring to here?

reply to post by zorgon


Personally I think the "people" are just people seeing "faces in the clouds", I doubt they are actually beings. I did like the image you referred to, the ship looking triangular object.

reply to post by zorgon


www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you go