Alien Anomalies

ICEMAN · Senior Member

RE: The JAXA Hoax

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Thanks Iceman. Skepticism should be taught in schools as a first approach to finding the truth . Incredible analysis. doh

-- Frutty

ICEMAN · Senior Member

On top of this building which I think is no crater, but rather dome, you can see quite clearly something Symbols

This appears to be a church or chapel you see the cross on top of the building, he face to where might be the entrance to the house.

Cross-Dome,2.jpg tc_050_1-rotate be angle-top-lgogo.jpg

The Cross on top of the building

Now I'm going to repeat what I've repeated a Thousand times before, Never Believe a Word of what NASA says, it make you blind.

ICEMAN · Senior Member

Hello fruitnut1. I understand what Surrey this landscape is in your eyes to solve the problem did I turned the upper image 90 degrees, and the lower 180 degrees and lack of balance of the image disappears.

tc_050_1-rotate be angle 90.JPG

90 degrees

tc_050_1-rotate be angle 180.JPG

180 degrees

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:

Hey man please stay in the forum I love debate.

Sorry, man, I'm going to need a Fruitnut-to-English translator to make any more progress in this discussion.

Maybe you can save this thread in a file and this service will do it for you (j/k) smile

http://translators.gsfc.nasa.gov/home.jsp

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

fruitnut1 wrote:

Hey man please stay in the forum I love debate.

Sorry, man, I'm going to need a Fruitnut-to-English translator to make any more progress in this discussion.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien wrote:

Can anybody who understands what Fruitnut is trying to say about a "hole in the air" (or is it a "hole in the vacuum"?) translate or interpret? Please? I have no idea what he's trying to explain!

Here's my side of the discussion:

"Um ... it's a crater, dude."

The other side of the argument is ...?

Hey man please stay in the forum I love debate.

I wish you prompt more people into getting involved.

In the meantime I will post this image, that may bring more confusion or make things clearer, depending on the state of mind of the beholder.

-- Frutty confuse

OBrien · Member

Can anybody who understands what Fruitnut is trying to say about a "hole in the air" (or is it a "hole in the vacuum"?) translate or interpret? Please? I have no idea what he's trying to explain!

Here's my side of the discussion:

"Um ... it's a crater, dude."

The other side of the argument is ...?

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

ok. Obrian, My point of view is that fakery must be consistant to some degree so the link you reference has the same "crater", again in my point of view still "in the air".

I can tell the difference between a "hole in the air" and a crater, because my sense of perception indicates this hole is suspended in the vacuum (there is no terrain underneath to support it). However if you are as curious as I am and can decipher the image you'll realize that the support is in there. Physics are still valid on the Moon! smile

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

OBrien wrote:

If the smaller of the two "craters" is not a crater but a "hole in the air" can you explain how it is visible from an observer on Earth with a small telescope?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rupes_Recta.jpg

What is a "hole in the air"? And how do you tell the difference between a "hole in the air" and a crater?

Besides that image, do a Google image search on "Rupes recta." There are about 5000 images of this double crater (Birt & Birt A). Do they all show a "hole in the air"? Are they all faked?

OBrien · Member

If the smaller of the two "craters" is not a crater but a "hole in the air" can you explain how it is visible from an observer on Earth with a small telescope?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rupes_Recta.jpg

What is a "hole in the air"? And how do you tell the difference between a "hole in the air" and a crater?

OBrien · Member

fruitnut1 wrote:

OBrien wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:

OBrien wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:
I am not allowed to post an approximation of the real image behind, as my methods have shown to be unorthodox, and up to now, no independent graphics expert has taken interest in analyzing the astronomy pictures genuineness we are periodically fed with.

Let's see if we can use standard, orthodox methods. Please provide reference information so that we may retrieve the image you started with.

ok, follow the arrows. If you are willing to see the fakery in this image in particular I have highlighted the most tampered areas ... just a suggestion ...

-- Frutty

Please provide information about the tmage (image number, filename, link, website, archive information or the like) that would allow someone to access the original image and its associated data. An independent researcher would like to start with the original source material.

Take it easy O'brian. The references are given in the first post of this thread (blue hyperlinks).
-- Frutty

Thanks! Didn't see the links there.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:

OBrien wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:
I am not allowed to post an approximation of the real image behind, as my methods have shown to be unorthodox, and up to now, no independent graphics expert has taken interest in analyzing the astronomy pictures genuineness we are periodically fed with.

Let's see if we can use standard, orthodox methods. Please provide reference information so that we may retrieve the image you started with.

ok, follow the arrows. If you are willing to see the fakery in this image in particular I have highlighted the most tampered areas ... just a suggestion ...

-- Frutty

Please provide information about the tmage (image number, filename, link, website, archive information or the like) that would allow someone to access the original image and its associated data. An independent researcher would like to start with the original source material.

Take it easy O'brian. The references are given in the first post of this thread (blue hyperlinks).

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

fruitnut1 wrote:

OBrien wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:
I am not allowed to post an approximation of the real image behind, as my methods have shown to be unorthodox, and up to now, no independent graphics expert has taken interest in analyzing the astronomy pictures genuineness we are periodically fed with.

Let's see if we can use standard, orthodox methods. Please provide reference information so that we may retrieve the image you started with.

ok, follow the arrows. If you are willing to see the fakery in this image in particular I have highlighted the most tampered areas ... just a suggestion ...

-- Frutty

Please provide information about the tmage (image number, filename, link, website, archive information or the like) that would allow someone to access the original image and its associated data. An independent researcher would like to start with the original source material.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Ohh, I forgot I also described the method of tampering used, so whoever wants to see the approx real pic, try to reverse the tampering method I hint they used.

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:
I am not allowed to post an approximation of the real image behind, as my methods have shown to be unorthodox, and up to now, no independent graphics expert has taken interest in analyzing the astronomy pictures genuineness we are periodically fed with.

Let's see if we can use standard, orthodox methods. Please provide reference information so that we may retrieve the image you started with.

ok, follow the arrows. If you are willing to see the fakery in this image in particular I have highlighted the most tampered areas ... just a suggestion ...

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

fruitnut1 wrote:
I am not allowed to post an approximation of the real image behind, as my methods have shown to be unorthodox, and up to now, no independent graphics expert has taken interest in analyzing the astronomy pictures genuineness we are periodically fed with.

Let's see if we can use standard, orthodox methods. Please provide reference information so that we may retrieve the image you started with.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien wrote:

One single drop wrote:

Cannot follow your claims. The image looks very normal, doesn`t it ?

Agreed. How does a small crater overlapping a large one become a "hole in the air"?

This is exactly the landscape of the moon we have been psychologically adapted to believe is right, through years of conditioning and soft brain washing.

I am not allowed to post an approximation of the real image behind, as my methods have shown to be unorthodox, and up to now, no independent graphics expert has taken interest in analyzing the astronomy pictures genuineness we are periodically fed with.

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

One single drop wrote:

Cannot follow your claims. The image looks very normal, doesn`t it ?

Agreed. How does a small crater overlapping a large one become a "hole in the air"?

One single drop · Senior Member

Cannot follow your claims. The image looks very normal, doesn`t it ?

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Japan's lunar orbiter Kaguya (SELENE-1), is orbitting the moon and sending photographs of its surface back to earth.

Bad news. Bad habits turned into customary visual deception.

They continue employing same techniques from days of yore, of hiding the real Lunar terrain.

Take a look at this release from last year (November 28, 2009). The green arrow point to what you, after inspecting it, would agree is a "hole in the air". It has no supporting terrain of its own, so common sense would mandate it's resting in the air.

The rest of the arrows point to walls that have been hidden by equalizing their luminosity with that of the surrounding terrain in fact several chasms have been turned into flat terrain by art of magic. They continue playing the same movie.

Jaxa Hoax.jpg

If you could see what they are hiding you would not believe it. Also notice we are already in 2010, and they continue releasing photos in black and white. Just like those of the Lunar Orbiters back in the 60s. Why? It's the most cozy way to tamper pictures in order for blunders not to be that evident. The real color of the moon's surface is nothing like we've ever seen before.

-- Frutty

References

Image

Relateed Blog entry