Alien Anomalies

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

RE: Report 190 comments

ICEMAN · Senior Member

Chandre wrote: Timewarp, that is very interesting. Do you believe there is a dome over the area ? Perhaps being hidden by the 'crater' application ? Iceman and I did some work in a previous post about that and we thought we could see a dome, ICE can you remember which thread that was ?

I don't rememper it. Sorry it is more to say about this imags bud I have no time for posting bud until I'll be back heri is somthing to examine.

10074964,2,2.jpg

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

Timewarp, that is very interesting. Do you believe there is a dome over the area ? Perhaps being hidden by the 'crater' application ? Iceman and I did some work in a previous post about that and we thought we could see a dome, ICE can you remember which thread that was ?

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Shown below are two images of the area in question. I am convinced by the number of lunar images I have analyzed that whoever is on the Moon have been there a very long time.

Furthermore, I believe that a great degree of what we see on the surface is artificial.

Have a look at the images and see what you think.

Please use the main image to locate the following.

What we would appear to be dealing with here is evidence of a very clever intelligent life existence. Due to recent research that I have been carrying out it would not surprise me if their long lost ancestors originally came from Mars.

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

Finding links to the RAW scientific data would be the icing on the cake but the chances of us being given that opportunity borders on wishful thinking. There again, you never know what could be round the corner.

I am currently doing some research on this image and will make a post shortly.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Look gm.

If you are the best in your field you have two options. Either make a decent living and succeed or be ostracized forever.

If you choose the first option, then you will have to sell yourself out. That's what happens with most of bright scientists, they are sell-outs.

If you choose the second option you will choose going up the hill backwards. The farce has been consolidated before you or me were born. So it's easy to see why wikipedia, BBC, national geographic, scientrific american and a big etc , are permeated with bs 99% in content.

-- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Based on what I know I have already said that I think some of the rilles(not all, by any means) are made by a machine. Although we need to be aware of the underlying rock structure too, whether there is a crater nearby that could have generated a 'flow' etc.

However, some rilles are almost straight which is unlikely but possible (again depending on the rock types etc). Many rilles start an/or end at craters which are explained by an 'outflow'. Some rilles inexplicably miss craters and manage to weave their way around them, often lots of them too. Some rilles, like the one in the report, go across craters, up and over the edge which I think is a strange thing for a standard rille to do.

I really wonder what kind of hypotheses are dreamt up to explain all these different kinds of rilles. Is there a site like "ask an astrobiologist" where we can "ask an astrogeologist" ?
Is there a site that shows examples of 'unusual' rilles and asks for an expert opinion?

Wikipedia states
Leading theories include lava channels, collapsed lava tubes, near-surface dike intrusion, nuee ardente (pyroclastic cloud), subsidence of lava-covered basin and crater floors, and tectonic extension.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Also Chnadre, tell mr skipper if he wants to have a private discussion on how to get to the details of tampered images, I am available. If so let him set date time and means of communicating.

Let me know, we are as near as can be or as far as you guys want it to be.

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Chandre in regards to your last communication I will repeat the method space agencies use since times of yore to hide the details of adcanced civilization in our solar system currently beyond our or their ken.

If everybody understands this we won’t have to depend on any third party and the truth we can rebuild by ourselves.

Everyboidy can make it out from this comment I posted as a response to Mr. O’Brien in this same thread. Also tell Mr. Skipper to read it carefully. Any questions on how to proceed about are welcome.

“I'll try to be as clear as I can.

The rilley (main point of discussion here) is not in fact a rilley. Is your perspective that is beeing fooled.

In fact what you perceive as a rilley is a canal at the top vertices of the roof like triangular scaffold of the humongous structure at the left "crater", Which as I have already explained is not such.

So for example if you see something that seems to be on the ground it might be on top and the other way around.

What is difficult to understand? Your perspective is being deceived. Things you see as flat terrain look like that because the encompassed structures, valleys and accidents are all equalized in LUMINOSiTY.

When we see a picture, it makes sense because of the shadows. What if the shadows are equalized in luminosity with the rest of the photograph? You would not see any detail in it, we would see a photograph from space.

Now the main point is that you can see what is behind ANY picture from space by simply loading it into some graphics software and performing a threshold scan in less than a minute.

The main point is also that people believe pictures from space are sacred and analyzing them via software imaging tools, would be blasphemous.

Hope this helps,”

I am also attaching the deobfuscated image of the rilleys on Mars reversing the technique used by space agencies as described above. I hope to encourage everyone

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Chandre wrote:

OBrien is right.

We should educate ourselves when arguing about areas we know little about...But that education should not just be limited to the 'official' party line.

I educate via Google, I read as much as I can on the subject and then I normally choose what resonates with me or feels closest to the truth or just makes the most sense.

I found this about rilles

http://www.rense.com/general71/p1.htm

I know that we have also discussed this before on the Forum and explored plasma discharges so its not new...

Good article Chandre. BTW do you want me to give you my artist conception as to what is behind the rilles on Mars?

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

Hows this for interesting rilles, and its on Mars

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA13252.jpg

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien is right.

We should educate ourselves when arguing about areas we know little about...But that education should not just be limited to the 'official' party line.

I educate via Google, I read as much as I can on the subject and then I normally choose what resonates with me or feels closest to the truth or just makes the most sense.

I found this about rilles

http://www.rense.com/general71/p1.htm

I know that we have also discussed this before on the Forum and explored plasma discharges so its not new...

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Correction to legend of the amateur's picture

Three images were stitched to create an overview of this lunar sea. Well-known landmarks are the large craters Langrenus and Petavius Rilles, the Goclenius Rilles and the small, mysterious double crater Messier with it's dragonfly-shaped rays.

Acquisition date: May 9, 2008. DMK with Barlow, yellow filter.

So in short what I am showing here are discrepancies between the amateur's goclenius Rilles and the Apollo riilles.

Case closed.

Next please! smile

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

I am sorry folks I was mislead by O'brien.

The initial analysis I made was right the legend of the amateur image states:

Three images were stitched to create an overview of this lunar sea. Well-known landmarks are the large craters Langrenus
and Petavius Rilles and the small, mysterious double crater Messier with it's dragonfly-shaped rays.
Acquisition date: May 9, 2008. DMK with Barlow, yellow filter.

Source to image: http://www.footootjes.nl/Astrophotography_Lunar/20080509_MareFecunditatis_cropped_PI_wv12_greypad_HPF0.004_W50L46_corr.jpg

Source to context web site: http://www.footootjes.nl/Astrophotography_Lunar/Astrophotography_Lunar.html

So I'll respost my original analysis:

Disregarding the obfuscation of the next images, to settle this issue once and for all and Show that Mr Skipper was right. The images below geographically belie each other. Though Apollo's shows a hint of structures, in the amateur's take there is no sign of them. /download.spark?ID=764836&aBID=47797

You can clearly see a portion of the upper part of the apollo's photograph has been visually equalized in a rectangle shaped area, which gives the impression the rectangular basin has been cut off. The rilles display incompatible outlines too.

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

After being correted by O'brien, and disregarding the obfuscation of the Apollo image, to settle this issue once and for all and Show that Mr Skipper was right.

The images below geographically belie each other. -- Don’t know why O’brein rotated the second image 180 degs. This is the correct view.

The scan analysis allows us to see the doctoring of Apollo’s image against the amateur picture. In fact The scan analysis again confirms this is no crater and the supposed rilles run on top of the rim rather than below.

Goclenius Rectangle.jpg

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien wrote:

It's easy to see why you're having troubles, Fruity. You've completely missed where the crater is in the photograph from Earth!

Your comparison isn't looking at the same areas!

If you choose the other link I provided, you'd see a much larger magnification version

Once you're looking at the same thing in both images, it makes it a lot easier to do an actual comparison

Hmm I stand corrected Thanks. However take into account the previous discussion and don't focus only on my mistakes.

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

It's easy to see why you're having troubles, Fruity. You've completely missed where the crater is in the photograph from Earth!

Your comparison isn't looking at the same areas!

Picture 2.png

If you choose the other link I provided, you'd see a much larger magnification version

Picture 4.png

Once you're looking at the same thing in both images, it makes it a lot easier to do an actual comparison

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

qmantoo wrote:

I am not playing this game any longer. Either you mark where you see the anomalies are, or you stop posting humungous pictures with vague arrows and accompanied by vague statements. It is a complete waste of time. Q.

I am sorry but if you missed the train other people surely won't so, make do with what you got

The main concern of this thread has been solved, mainly that Mr skipper was right. What is behind the tampering I have shown only as concept artist and in no way points to the authenticity of what really is being hidden by available images of the Colombos/Goclenus area smile

-- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

I am not playing this game any longer. Either you mark where you see the anomalies are, or you stop posting humungous pictures with vague arrows and accompanied by vague statements. It is a complete waste of time. Q.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Disregarding the obfuscation of the next images, to settle this issue once and for all and Show that Mr Skipper was right. The images below geographically belie each other.

Though Apollo's shows a hint of structures, in the amateur's take there is no sign of them.

You can clearly see a portion of the upper part of the apollo's photograph has been visually equalized in a rectangle shaped area, which gives the impression the rectangular basin has been cut off. The rilles display incompatible outlines too.

Goclenius Rectangle.jpg

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

qmantoo wrote:

I must be really stupid sometimes, but all I can see from the latest pictures are - yes some extra geographical features which may have been flattened, but I see no enormous structures. Are we talking buildings here? are we talking about domes? what? Just saying that they are worst that in nightmares is being uselessly dramatic and does not even give anyone a clue to what you think these structures are. The point being - I dont even know what I should be looking at the picture to recognise. I can see all the arrows and to me they just point to rilles, or other geographical features and nothing "unusual".

I am one of the first ones to 'see' things in a photograph, but this time, I cannot see any craters with some mammoth amazing objects inside.

Try to describe what these anomalous building/domes/animals/whatever structures are please? Maybe even show me an outline to help a poor person to see what you all see.

Fact quickie: Glockenius rectangle: 54 × 72 km.

The fact you see the rectangle very small is because you are seeing it in the monitor of your home computer! doh

Hint quickie: 1 Zoom in and you will be able to glimpse at the statues and sacrilegious figures inside. To be in a nightmare though you would have to have traveled in an Apollo mission as they flew past this mammoth alien complex.

Hint quickie 2: The altar in blue (scroll down) appears in the panoramic view the size of an smiley in your screen.

-- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

I must be really stupid sometimes, but all I can see from the latest pictures are - yes some extra geographical features which may have been flattened, but I see no enormous structures. Are we talking buildings here? are we talking about domes? what? Just saying that they are worst that in nightmares is being uselessly dramatic and does not even give anyone a clue to what you think these structures are. The point being - I dont even know what I should be looking at the picture to recognise. I can see all the arrows and to me they just point to rilles, or other geographical features and nothing "unusual".

I am one of the first ones to 'see' things in a photograph, but this time, I cannot see any craters with some mammoth amazing objects inside.

Try to describe what these anomalous building/domes/animals/whatever structures are please? Maybe even show me an outline to help a poor person to see what you all see.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

ICEMAN wrote:

Frutty you are right. It can be difficult to explain some forms of equipment that we do not know exactly, what I'm trying to say is: this is fine and complete research work that you show here.

Thanks Iceman, good to know there are a few who get the gist of it!

Now here are the rilles. This time taken by a self proclimed amateur at http://www.footootjes.nl/Astrophotography_Lunar/Astrophotography_Lunar.html

I followed the indication by O'brien's original post in this thread and cleaned up the image of the amateur. Well in fact I am doing my own interpretation as a concept artist

Catch this up!

-- Frutty

ICEMAN · Senior Member

Fruitnut1 wrote:

Ok. SO that people understand. The Moon images ... and EVERY OTHER IMAGE from space imagery, is filtered by a process THAT ERASES THE REAL FEATURES OF THE DEPTH of the landscape (to our perception).

I'll say it again. Landscapes are turned to flat terrain by equalizing walls chasms and protuberances.

I'll say it again. It's very simple to find what they were hiding if you use the most basic graphic forensic software techniques.

In the images below you can plainly see there are some mammoth amazing objects inside. I have no idea what they are, but they look immense, more immense than a structured object might appear in our worst nightmare.

-- Frutty
-------------
Frutty you are right. It can be difficult to explain some forms of equipment that we do not know exactly, what I'm trying to say is: this is fine and complete research work that you show here.

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

Gents, you are cracking me up today !!! LOLOLOLOLOL

Frutty, well-spotted on those structures. I know we worked some earlier ones with similar lookd that Iceman referred to as a 'cathedral'. Interesting to see what TW says when he pops in...

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

qmantoo wrote:

No sorry, I still need it IN MY FACE. I cannot see anything apart from craters. All that explanation just confused me....

In your face? ok I got the solution for you. They are already making reservations for a trip to the moon. The ticket (round trip I suppose) costs $200.000.000 US.

Jarrah White, a friend in youtube is receiving donations, look lol smile

-- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

No sorry, I still need it IN MY FACE. I cannot see anything apart from craters. All that explanation just confused me....

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Here is my interpretation, as a concept artist, of what really The Goclenious and Colombo "CRATERS" are all about,based on an observation by Italian Paolo Lazzarotti from the Gutem,berg observatory, and thanks to O'breian at http://www.lazzarotti-hires.com/images/moon/gutemberg-goclenius-colombo20070423.jpg

gutemberg-goclenius-colombo20070423 FRUTTY.jpg

Don't be afraid, but ee are not alone

Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

For people that don't have the least idea what a threshold scan is I though you may spot it in your imaging software by this visual pic from the corresponding tool I use in photoshop, and from which I obtained the B&W images I posted in this thread.

-- Furtty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

OBrien wrote:

Fruity,

So what's the point? You've posted the same threshold image four times without any explanation. (Other than "Look at this. This is proof.")

Any chance that you can attempt a clear, simple explanation?

I'll try to be as clear as I can.

The rilley (main point of discussion here) is not in fact a rilley. Is your perspective that is beeing fooled.

In fact what you perceive as a rilley is a canal at the top vertices of the roof like triangular scaffold of the humongous structure at the left "crater". Which as I have already explained is not such.

So for example if you see something that seems to be on the ground it might be on top and the other way around.

What is difficult to understand? Your perspective is being deceived. Things you see as flat terrain look like that because the encompassed structures, valleys and accidents are all equalized in LUMINOSiTY.

When we see a picture, it makes sense because of the shadows. What if the shadows are equalized in luminosity with the rest of the photograph? You would not see any detail in it, we would see a photograph from space.

Now the main point is that you can see what is behind ANY picture from space by simply loading it into some graphics software and performing a threshold scan in less than a minute.

The main point is also that people believe pictures from space are sacred and analyzing them via software imaging tools, would be blasphemous.

-- Hope this helps,

-- Frutty

OBrien · Member

Fruity,

So what's the point? You've posted the same threshold image four times without any explanation. (Other than "Look at this. This is proof.")

Any chance that you can attempt a clear, simple explanation?

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

I think most of the scientists don't participate in the fiasco, and are truly convinced they are looking at real data.

My theory is that before they can lay their hands on the images they have already been filtered.

Gmantoo once said that two transmissions of tampered images were a ridiculous though to consider.

Not quite so. Only a tampered image and a small code on reversing to the real image. So the theory two transmissions would be necessary is misleading.

As you can see there is no one single bit of information that is lost. Only a very small code to reconstruct the image is needed and that's what we are missing. (Although I have already been able to crack the code of several sets of data from space)

-- Frutty.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Ok. SO that people understand. The Moon images ... and EVERY OTHER IMAGE from space imagery, is filtered by a process THAT ERASES THE REAL FEATURES OF THE DEPTH of the landscape (to our perception).

I'll say it again. Landscapes are turned to flat terrain by equalizing walls chasms and protuberances.

I'll say it again. It's very simple to find what they were hiding if you use the most basic graphic forensic software techniques.

In the images below you can plainly see there are some mammoth amazing objects inside. I have no idea what they are, but they look immense, more immense than a structured object might appear in our worst nightmare.

-- Frutty

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Comparison side by side of Skipper's image and threshold scan by Frutty

Skippers Report #190.jpg

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Same threshold scan image rotated 90% CCW

Skippers Report #190.jpg

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

I think you will need to point out what it is that you see in the modified pictures that you have posted, otherwise people will not understand your point.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

fruitnut1 wrote:

Most of the people interested in space imagery are aware space images are manipulated before releasing them to the public.

If we could not use graphic software to scan for traces of blunders left from previous manipulation we would be at a disadvantageous standstill, and running in a figure of 8.

So although the images from space are still worshiped as sacred by some, those aware of the game, should use graphic analysis software as another tool in the box, to see through the tampering, and discover what was it they most likely were trying to hide.

Nothing wrong in it.

Skipper is right, those are not craters, and inside are some outrageous objects for our minds to deal with. Skipper is right people are afraid of an inconvenient truth.
This SIMPLE threshold scan of the image proves Skippers point (rotated 90% CW).

-- Frutty

I forgot posting Skipper's original

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Most of the people interested in space imagery are aware space images are manipulated before releasing them to the public.

If we could not use graphic software to scan for traces of blunders left from previous manipulation we would be at a disadvantageous standstill, and running in a figure of 8.

So although the images from space are still worshiped as sacred by some, those aware of the game, should use graphic analysis software as another tool in the box, to see through the tampering, and discover what was it they most likely were trying to hide.

Nothing wrong in it.

Skipper is right, those are not craters, and inside are some outrageous objects for our minds to deal with. Skipper is right people are afraid of an inconvenient truth.

This SIMPLE threshold scan of the image proves Skippers point (rotated 90% CW).

Skippers Report #190.jpg

-- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

The trouble is that the more well-known you become, the more people take your word as 'gospel' truth. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes, whatever their position - even up to President it seems.

However, whereas what you say may be true, it does look strange that there is both a crater and a rille and the crater wall exists in spite of the rille. It looks as if the rille has climbed up the crater wall and continued on its path.

So althouth Skipper may not be 100% correct, he may also be drawing our attention to other things which need to be explained. As with everything it shows that we need to use our common sense as well, not just read things which re-inforce our beliefs.

My own strange view of this is that there are extremely large mining machines and some of these so-called rilles are tracks left by them.

Hubpages has a couple of interesting article proposals and forum debunkers posts on it, and it is true, what is shown does look as if something was making a 'rille' and then suddenly stopped. Whoever saw a perfectly oblong crater at the end of a rille?

Link to first page on Hubpages

Link to second page on Hubpages

Humanoid · Veteran Member

OBrien wrote:
Is something wrong with Skipper's health? So many of his latest reports are so easily shown to have fatal flaws in their arguments.

My thoughts exactly! Why would anyone not consider the very real possibility of the rille forming after the crater was there is beyond me...

And the previous few reports..oh my, don't even remind me. Can only hope his reporting gets better

OBrien · Member

I'm having some serious problems with Skipper's latest report.

First, there's the assertion that the straight depression (it's called a rille) traverses the wall and floor of the crater, therefore it CAN'T be real since the formation of the crater would have obliterated it, therefore the image MUST be fake.

No mention is made of the fact that the rille could have been formed after the crater was created. I doubt that anyone reading this has the selenological background to determine the formation ages of the features, so speculation has very little actual weight behind it. In fact, one of the ways you determine relative ages is by looking at what features lie on top of other features.

Second, the rille can be conclusively shown to traverse the wall and floor of the crater BECAUSE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS HAVE PHOTOGRAPHED IT FROM EARTH!

See http://www.lazzarotti-hires.com/images/moon/gutemberg-goclenius-colombo20070423.jpg for one example, and the sixth image of http://www.footootjes.nl/Astrophotography_Lunar/Astrophotography_Lunar.html for another.

I suppose one could claim that these astronomers ... one from Italy an the other from the Netherlands ... are in on the fakery and that in league with NASA. That does stretch credulity very, very far, but it IS possible.

However, the amoutn by which you believe or do not believe is irrelevant in that it is a reproducible test. No relying on outside sources ... with a sufficiently powerful telescope anyone on Earth can check for themselves.

I haven't done it myself, no. But the preponderance of evidence says that it's there. And if Skipper really wants to make this argument, he should get a friend or colleague with a telescope to photograph that it's not real.

Is something wrong with Skipper's health? So many of his latest reports are so easily shown to have fatal flaws in their arguments.