NASA Moon Anomalies III - Other Peoples Work

reply to post by weedwhacker

That is a nice phenomena.

Some times trees are just trees.

Sometimes faces on mars that seem to have been created, actually been created by someone.

This is true when there is a 1 in 1000 billion billion chance of it being caused by natural causes.

it cracks me up how many "debunkers" use the same techniques to explain their information that the ones they are trying to debunk....

i can post up a whole bunch of pictures and say i did this and that to it......

this is why my original statement was open minded.....

when did i ever say i followed hoagland?

lol im pretty sure i said i read his book and that it was interesting.....

now as for the "trees"

perhaps.... just perhaps..... when viewing the original image.... hoagland insisted they were trees.... i do not know this to be a fact because you supplied me with nothing but a statement, and i myself have never heard him make this claim.....

i'm quite sure that if someone showed him the pictures that you showed me..... assuming that these are indeed all the same region.... and are in fact the region that he labeled as "forested".... he may say.... well im sorry i was wrong.....

what about datas head and the other shrapnel found everywhere? i dont know.... all i said was that there was a collection of interesting material in the book.....

now someone here continues to show pictures of "natural gas leakage on mars"

who told you thats what that was.......?

nasa?

interesting that you would be so inclined to believe everything nasa tells you, yet its hard for you to believe anything not supported by the highest revenue in the world......

anyway.... i hope this clears up a few points, as i am not combating with anyone.

Lets instead be careful of how we percieve the things mentioned in the threads.....

reply to post by UfosExiZt


Here's my (possibly missed) point, "Ufos...":

I tried not to elaborate, since it's a bit off-topic to talk about Mars.

But, I have to ask everyone to ponder this: How far away do you think the photo provided of those "trees" was taken???

This will apply to many, many "anomaly" photos that members think they see on the Moon, too.

Because, think about it. The photo was taken by a satellite, right? With a camera onboard, from orbit!!!

Now, consider a camera, in orbit around the Earth, taking pictures of the surface.

Do you see indivdual trees in those photos? From a such a height?

Or, to put it another way --- just how BIG do you imagine those "trees" to be, in 'reality'? How many miles "tall"???

Get it yet?

reply to post by weedwhacker


i think its funny how we can take pictures of my a$$hole from a google sattelite, yet we cant produce a fine, ungrainy, 1950s quality picture from any the most advanced "cameras" in the world......

im not even sure what kind of point you are tryin to make....

do you realize the budget of nasa?

reply to post by C-Reilly



A common misconception regarding Google Earth images ---

...funny how we can take pictures of my (snip)*le from a google sattelite...

When you zoom, and zoom again to see such detail it's because the overall satellite images are enhanced and blended with photos taken from AIRCRAFT!!!!

Now, until we are able to get airpalnes and helicopters (or even hot air ballons) to the Moon and Mars, we are stuck with the technology that's available, and also financially feasible.

(Because, of course, the DoD of the USA, and similar agencies with other nations, can loft satellites with very, very powerful cameras to get detail from hundreds of miles up...but that is VERY expensive, well beyond the NASA budget).

there is nothing concievable that is beyond budget......

see... in economics.... money .... or the paper cotton sheets that we use as currency.... used to be backed by gold, silver.... etc..

these days.... its not backed by anything.....

and again.... with debunkers....

lets not take everything so literal.....

my point about the google earth was that if we as civillians have this type of sattelite at our disposal...... we have our own sat......

then nasas cameras should be a bit better......

why are pictures of space always star-less?

well the surrounding light filters them out and blah blah blah.....

you mean to tell me nasa cant develop a camera that can bypass that light intensity in an effort to get better "maps", photos, information on the stars...... etc.?????

why wouldnt we want a background in these images?

dont tell me its trivial.......

why would you not want to gather as much information as possible?

i dont know..... some things just do deserve to be viewed with scrutiny....

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
How come you see tree shaped things on one image and just some eroded cliffs on another then?

Because they are two different images? I don't really understand your question.

Are the tree images faked you say?
Please link if so.
Until then, the trees will remain trees.

No, I didn't said the tree images are faked.

Is my English that bad that you haven't understood a thing of what I said?

I actually laughed a bit at this.
As if ppl don't accuse wrongly on ATS otherwise.
Like putting threads in hoax section without proof wasn't an accusing act.

If you see anything that you think is unjust then file a complaint, I am sure all ATS members want ATS to remain as unbiased as possible.

They sure DO move

That is the thing, they expand and then get smaller depending on the season. Just like trees blooming in the summer.
Explain that!!

They don't expand, they become more or less visible, the shape and size is always the same.

Didn't you look at the photos on the link I posted?

Stop distorting images and flat facts please.

Provide evidence that someone is distorting images, please.

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
Here is one of the images YOU linked:
hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu...
Here you can see these treelike shapes CLEARLY.

I took too long to make my post (I was interrupted by dinner ), so I didn't saw your edit.

The problem with that image is that it's not a full resolution image, that's a small version to be seen on the Internet.

I will post part of the full resolution photo in a moment.

reply to post by C-Reilly


I think that the point that is trying to be made by critics, including myself, of anyone who makes claims whether in books or on the Internet, without supplying irrefutable evidence has to be that you should take the claims with a grain of salt. People such as Hoagland, Lear, Dean, Friedman, and many others, cannot be trusted to tell you the truth because they may believe their own b.s. But it's always up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. The wheat is almost imperceptible.

FYI, Data's "head" has been debunked, very competently, in other sites which are found with proper research.

reply to post by The Shrike


would you please show me?

on another note..... it was meant hypothetical.... hence the obvious blah sarcasm......

however i would like to see that because you are not helping prove a point by supplying no proof..... this is more or less just proving what i mentioned earlier.....

the fact of the matter is.... an anomalous (excuse the spelling?) object isn't proven to be something simple just because a scientist said thats what it was.....

example......

believe it or not many scientist believed the earth was flat

many scientists, archaeologists, palientologists, etc.... believed the TRex was the most fearsome predator on the planet.... now it is also an accepted theory that this creature was in fact a scavenger.......

scientists once believed that the earth was the center of the universe!!!

anyway.......... i think you understand now..... i hope anyway

Here's something I found floating around on the intarwebs, and I thought it went together with what you guys are showing (although, the pictures are extremely blurry, and it would take someone with a VERY active imagination to put the blurriness together into something coherent...but I digress).

This article talks about the fact that there may have been another planet in our solar system millions of years ago that created the asteroid belt along with just about every planet and moon past Mars, as well as our own moon (negating the theory that our moon came from the innards of this planet). The fact that we're seeing all these "structures" on not only Mars but on our own moon as well could mean something significant....anyhow, here's the link for the Asteroid Belt/Planet theory.

www.world-mysteries.com...

And here's one talking about the similarities between Earth and Mars.

scienceray.com...

Anyway, could it be possible that the structures found on Mars and the Moon been part of a bigger planet, and possibly a bigger civilization that existed way before humans first stepped out of the dregs?

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
Here you can see these treelike shapes CLEARLY.

Here is a comparison between the image you posted (a reduced, highly compressed version) and the same area from the full resolution image at 12.5% zoom.





As you can see, and although the 12.5% zoom version is still a little bigger than the Internet version, we can also see that it has more detail.

This is the same area at 50%.
(click for full size)


And at 100%
(click for full size)


You only need a program capable of showing JPEG2000 images and download the JP2 versions from that site or, by using IAS Viewer (available on that site), using the "JP2 QUICKLOOK (IAS Viewer)" version, to see the full resolution images in all their detail.

Originally posted by C-Reilly
[edit]

the fact of the matter is.... an anomalous (excuse the spelling?) object isn't proven to be something simple just because a scientist said thats what it was.....

Your spelling of "anomalous" is correct. Also, anomaly. Scientists usually do not make comments without irrefutable evidence to back up their comments.

example......

believe it or not many scientist believed the earth was flat

This is an old argument because the ancients knew the earth is round. Any "scientist" that said otherwise is not worth the title "scientist".

many scientists, archaeologists, palientologists, etc.... believed the TRex was the most fearsome predator on the planet.... now it is also an accepted theory that this creature was in fact a scavenger.......

New discoveries are being made every day and species are being re-categorized since we do not have any living examples to observe. A view is not necessarily wrong, it is a temporary conclusion.

scientists once believed that the earth was the center of the universe!!!

Again, people made mistakes on the available evidence and their mindset. The future always brings new knowledge and those with the proper mindset will recognize the errors of the previous claims.

anyway.......... i think you understand now..... i hope anyway

Oh, I understand.

And when I criticize people such as Hoagland, Dean, Lear, etc., and I don't provide the evidence you want is because these are established liars, hoaxers, frauds, and the evidence has been presented here and on the Internet in general and simple research will bring it to your eyes.


[edit on 14-1-2010 by The Shrike]

reply to post by truthseeker1984

Anyway, could it be possible that the structures found on Mars and the Moon been part of a bigger planet, and possibly a bigger civilization that existed way before humans first stepped out of the dregs?

So far, no structures have been found on Mars, Moon, or anywhere else that stands scrutiny. That's why these threads go on and on with blurrier and blurrier photos, highlighted with colors, etc. Only those with a vivid imagination see things that are not really there. Wishful thinking.

Even my sickle in Delisle crater which is clearer than any other anomaly presented, so far, was still a light and shadow effect. There really isn't a giant sickle on the moon, is there?


[edit on 14-1-2010 by The Shrike]

reply to post by The Shrike


I would check out this video before you completely dismiss the possibility of alien archaeology. Just some food for thought.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by C-Reilly
[edit]

the fact of the matter is.... an anomalous (excuse the spelling?) object isn't proven to be something simple just because a scientist said thats what it was.....

Your spelling of "anomalous" is correct. Also, anomaly. Scientists usually do not make comments without irrefutable evidence to back up their comments.

example......

believe it or not many scientist believed the earth was flat

This is an old argument because the ancients knew the earth is round. Any "scientist" that said otherwise is not worth the title "scientist".

many scientists, archaeologists, palientologists, etc.... believed the TRex was the most fearsome predator on the planet.... now it is also an accepted theory that this creature was in fact a scavenger.......

New discoveries are being made every day and species are being re-categorized since we do not have any living examples to observe. A view is not necessarily wrong, it is a temporary conclusion.

scientists once believed that the earth was the center of the universe!!!

Again, people made mistakes on the available evidence and their mindset. The future always brings new knowledge and those with the proper mindset will recognize the errors of the previous claims.

anyway.......... i think you understand now..... i hope anyway

Oh, I understand.

And when I criticize people such as Hoagland, Dean, Lear, etc., and I don't provide the evidence you want is because these are established liars, hoaxers, frauds, and the evidence has been presented here and on the Internet in general and simple research will bring it to your eyes.


[edit on 14-1-2010 by The Shrike]

okay so what exactly did you just say?

no kidding things change everyday.... thats my point.....

as for the evidence on hoagland..... you are missing the point that i thought i stated clearly the first time.....

if you are going to say something is declassified.... debunked..... whatever

PUT THE EVIDENCE THERE.... period.... i dont care how many times its been put there.... that is just an easy way to say.....

my evidence doesnt exist.... go look it up yourself

so again.... link please?

Wow I'm really glad I found this post. I love it, so informative ^_^
Anyone know any others like this they could link me?

reply to post by ArMaP

Thanks Armap for the clear and lucid explanation regarding those so called 'trees' on Mars! But unfortunately you cannot convince some guys here. They have their minds set on seeing them as trees! So be it!

They even see 'skulls' and 'bones' on Mars! Oh yeah! There was a great war on Mars once upon a time where the Borgs assimilated all the Martians and disappeared into the Kuiper belt! No wonder you don't see any Martians around!!

Sorry off topic. Let's get back to them Moon bases!



[edit on 14-1-2010 by OrionHunterX]

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
reply to post by The Shrike

 

I would check out this video before you completely dismiss the possibility of alien archaeology. Just some food for thought.
www.youtube.com...

I'm on safe ground. You see, I attended that presentation and I still have the press package autographed by the participants. Additionally, I had to sign in and so my name is part of the permanent record. I took some photos also of "Astronaut" Brian O'Leary.

Nothing presented was evidential for anything other than wishful thinking. What they showed has been discussed left and right, up and down, here on ATS and on many websites. Speculation was the order of the day.

reply to post by C-Reilly


Go look it up yourself, it's not a challenge. Or I could be wrong. Or you could check the many threads here where others say the same thing in so many words.

Through dilligent research I upped my odds, now up yours.



[edit on 14-1-2010 by The Shrike]