It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by The Shrike
So no anomalies from you then...
That was predictable.
That's because the Moon has had a Brazillian since then
It's never too late. Even if it may be too late for some people it's not too late for those that will start their research in the future.
Now it's too late and even if I were to go though the trouble of publishing the results of my research, even on the Internet, it's too late.
Could you please post that letter?
As long as I have Steckling's letter admitting I was right and he was wrong, I'm happy. It's just frustrating seeing the gullibles here on ATS and other forums believing the bs.
To me it looks like a fibre, but if they are on the same place on the Moon's surface on the three photos and in exactly the same position makes it very unlikely to be something on the scanner or on the photo, so I have to agree that the most likely explanation is that it's something on the Moon.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Some researchers say that this object is natural, but others say that it is an artificial structure - but ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubts about the fact that it is actually on the lunar surface:
Yes, that looks like a fibre, but like an artificial fibre, like nylon, while the other things I said looked like fibres look like natural fibres, like cotton.
Armap, Here is fibre for you mate.
Originally posted by ArMaP
.... I have to agree that the most likely explanation is that it's something on the Moon.
If they would appear on the same position on the photos instead of the same position on the Moon, then the most probable explanation is that they were something on the scanner.
Forget almost everything you ever thought you knew about the moon.
NASA's latest missions indicate the moon is much more than a dead, unchanging satellite orbiting Earth. It's a dynamic environment, with changes occurring by the day and week, not over millions of years....
..."We used to think of the moon as this really dead and unchanging place, that the moon was a dead planet. ... There are changes that occur there not over the course of thousands or millions or even billions of years, but are changing over the course of days and weeks and months. That's something people just hadn't thought of until just weeks and months ago. ... This isn't your grandfather's moon anymore."
www.cnn.com...
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1
I don't have any problem agreeing with anything, people just have to show me the right data.
I had already read that article, thanks anyway.
PS: where did you got those metric photos from, the Apollo Image Archive? I will try to download the CUB files.
I was expecting an answer like that.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
I don't really care if you agree anyways. I'm just glad when anyone does.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by The Shrike
Does that mean that you are (or were) an "anomaly researcher" but not an "anomaly finder"?
The Shrike: "I was an anomaly researcher. At no time did I see, or find, anything worth taking to the bank. When you are an anomaly researcher the results are finding or not finding anomalies. If they are visible, as indicated by the person making the claims, then one can criticize the validity of the claim. At no time were Steckling's, or any other "anomalist" past or present, claims valid. However, I'll admit that once in a while someone will post a photo here that shows something that could be of interest but because there is no other information other than the photo, one cannot come to a definite conclusion. But the majority are valueless."
Or does "anomalist research" mean something else?
The Shrike: "See above explanation."
Now it's too late and even if I were to go though the trouble of publishing the results of my research, even on the Internet, it's too late.
It's never too late. Even if it may be too late for some people it's not too late for those that will start their research in the future.[/quote
The Shrike: "While this is true, the amount of work involved starting with acquiring a website, it is now more than I want to involve myself with. I could put the photos Steckling used in his book, which I have on my hard drive, on a Picasa album and add my findings from my various NASA photo books such as the LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE MOON, plus others. But it is now 2009, in hours 2010, and most if not all NASA photos are available online including the above named atlas. So it behooves a true researcher to not accept claims until they've done sufficient research using the vast amount of online tools available. Only a sloppy researcher will ignore the tools and accept the claims. Much as what's happened with Roswell."
As long as I have Steckling's letter admitting I was right and he was wrong, I'm happy. It's just frustrating seeing the gullibles here on ATS and other forums believing the bs.
Could you please post that letter?
The Shrike: "I should get the OP's permission first but at the moment I have a persistent TrojanClicker on my PC and I'm waiting for a call from Microsoft to deal with it yet again (I did a scan that lasted 5 hours and it didn't help!) so I'll apologize to the OP and present the letter below. Keep in mind as you read it that Steckling wants to save face but it was useless as he really didn't accomplish anything with his book since the photos he selected do not show anything unnatural except in his mind and his associates. I was on a Los Angeles radio program countering his claims and the radio host told us to get together, discuss the differences and get back to him. I was ready with my various NASA photo books but as you read in the letter, Steckling declined. He just didn't want to be embarrased in person!"
Thanks in advance.
Photo of the envelope containing Steckling's letter.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/197895f73e30.jpg[/atsimg]
Letter from Steckling acknowledging, sort of, his books errors.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/653c390bc514.jpg[/atsimg]
[edit on 27-12-2009 by The Shrike]
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by The Shrike
Still no anomalies?
I see how this is going to play out...
You'll reply to this post with no anomalies, but you will say nice things about us.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
Thanks WZN.
If you perform the test on most of my anomalies you'll find the same thing - they're actually on the moon.
Whenever possible I check multiple images of the same region to see if the object is still there - then I post the best version and watch as people say that it isn't.
People are so darn skeptical these days and many too lazy to check for themselves before declaring an object non-existent... so I decided to do it for them this time. I even showed 'em how to check in my earlier posts.
Alas.