Vast moon UFO found in google earth. like jellyfish ?????

[skywalkman2010]

skywalkman2010,

If you don't know how the images get there, what the source material is, what is the transcripton process, etc., then how can you claim giant jellyfish shaped UFO's????
Utter foolishness. That's not how things work here at SDC.

I'd strongly suggest you read the Community Guidelines before you get in over your head...or rather further in over your head.

Here they are:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12860

You read it?

Summary:
Do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments against your fellow community member.

“how foolish your assertions are”
“Utter foolishness”

Shut up your mouth！

 

[yevaud]

You are more than a bit off there. Allow me to instruct you.

/Mod Hat On

Both of Wayne's comments refer to your assertions, not you in person. In point of fact, you posted just the "foolish" part (of the second comment), without providing context, which is misleading.

However, your comment that follows is simply aimed at the person - and is clearly an Ad Hominem. Thus, you have now become the one who has engaged in a personal attack. Your are hereby officially warned.

/Mod Hat Off

(Edited as I was unclear)

 

[nimbus]

skywalkman2010,

If you don't know how the images get there, what the source material is, what is the transcripton process, etc., then how can you claim giant jellyfish shaped UFO's????
Utter foolishness. That's not how things work here at SDC.

I'd strongly suggest you read the Community Guidelines before you get in over your head...or rather further in over your head.

Here they are:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12860

You read it?

Summary:
Do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments against your fellow community member.

“how foolish your assertions are”
“Utter foolishness”

Shut up your mouth！

Ca n'a rien d'ad hominem. C'est exactement ce que c'est, ce que t'avances. T'as meme pas recherche le sujet que tu cherches a redefinir. Autrement dit, tu ne sais pas completement de quoi tu parles. C'est pas loin du tout de ce que veut dire "foolish" en anglais:
devoid of good sense or judgment
ce qui est pas la meme chose que "fou" en francais.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Apparently you don't undestand the words.

I CLEARLY stated your assertions are foolish, not that you are.

 

[nimbus]

"Vast rocket UFO found in SpaceX video coverage. like giant wasp from Mars????"

See how that's a foolish assertion to make?

 

[yevaud]

Returning to the OP - assuming our new poster is more contrite - I have gone to your blog and scrutinized many of the images you have there (and replicated here). In literally every case, these are small foreign objects that appear gigantic. They cast no shadows. Most would conform to no sensible engineering scheme for any manner of space-capable vehicle. Some of them are clearly recognizable as mineral in origin, with striations, and certain familiar angles and bevels.

In short, you got nothing.

And, part deux, it's quite easy to create any manner of angle or shape, all based on what would be considered an arbitrary selection of objects. As I once said to someone who postulated what you do, I can take any three random objects on my desk, and create nifty and "significant" angles.

 

[skywalkman2010]

Returning to the OP - assuming our new poster is more contrite - I have gone to your blog and scrutinized many of the images you have there (and replicated here). In literally every case, these are small foreign objects that appear gigantic. They cast no shadows. Most would conform to no sensible engineering scheme for any manner of space-capable vehicle. Some of them are clearly recognizable as mineral in origin, with striations, and certain familiar angles and bevels.

In short, you got nothing.

And, part deux, it's quite easy to create any manner of angle or shape, all based on what would be considered an arbitrary selection of objects. As I once said to someone who postulated what you do, I can take any three random objects on my desk, and create nifty and "significant" angles.

your raison sounds logical
if everyone could talk by this way early
It was not a waste of time!

ciao

 

[Smersh]

Returning to the OP - assuming our new poster is more contrite - I have gone to your blog and scrutinized many of the images you have there (and replicated here). In literally every case, these are small foreign objects that appear gigantic. They cast no shadows. Most would conform to no sensible engineering scheme for any manner of space-capable vehicle. Some of them are clearly recognizable as mineral in origin, with striations, and certain familiar angles and bevels.

In short, you got nothing.

And, part deux, it's quite easy to create any manner of angle or shape, all based on what would be considered an arbitrary selection of objects. As I once said to someone who postulated what you do, I can take any three random objects on my desk, and create nifty and "significant" angles.

Thanks Yevaud - good points and good post.

...Why do people make simple things so complicated? :?: :?: :!:

Hi skywalkman2010, actually it is you who are making things complicated, by making assumptions that these objects are of extraterrestrial origin. Others here are trying to point out the most likely explanation that they are caused by bugs or dirt on the camera lens, or a glitch in the photographic procedure or some other mundane explanation, any of which are far more likely than that they are photographs of ETs. (Open minded as I am on that subject, as you will see if you read any of my posts and threads on UFOs elsewhere in the Unexplained section.)

And as others have pointed out, if you truly have reason to believe they are of ET origin, the onus is on you to prove it, not on others to prove they are not.

...You know how Google gets those images to use on Google Moon? ...

I started a thread on a similar subject myself quite some time ago in which part of the discussion was about how Google get their images for Google Moon. You might be interested to read through it ...

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20998&hilit=google+moon

 

[silylene]

Some images of squashed bugs. I think these are what got caught between the photo and Google's scanner. They should clean their glass plate more often!

 

[yevaud]

Yes, and look at the nifty angles the dearly departed fuzzy-wuzzy has made!

 

[skywalkman2010]

Returning to the OP - assuming our new poster is more contrite - I have gone to your blog and scrutinized many of the images you have there (and replicated here). In literally every case, these are small foreign objects that appear gigantic. They cast no shadows. Most would conform to no sensible engineering scheme for any manner of space-capable vehicle. Some of them are clearly recognizable as mineral in origin, with striations, and certain familiar angles and bevels.

In short, you got nothing.

And, part deux, it's quite easy to create any manner of angle or shape, all based on what would be considered an arbitrary selection of objects. As I once said to someone who postulated what you do, I can take any three random objects on my desk, and create nifty and "significant" angles.

Thanks Yevaud - good points and good post.

...Why do people make simple things so complicated? :?: :?: :!:

Hi skywalkman2010, actually it is you who are making things complicated, by making assumptions that these objects are of extraterrestrial origin. Others here are trying to point out the most likely explanation that they are caused by bugs or dirt on the camera lens, or a glitch in the photographic procedure or some other mundane explanation, any of which are far more likely than that they are photographs of ETs. (Open minded as I am on that subject, as you will see if you read any of my posts and threads on UFOs elsewhere in the Unexplained section.)

And as others have pointed out, if you truly have reason to believe they are of ET origin, the onus is on you to prove it, not on others to prove they are not.

...You know how Google gets those images to use on Google Moon? ...

I started a thread on a similar subject myself quite some time ago in which part of the discussion was about how Google get their images for Google Moon. You might be interested to read through it ...

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20998&hilit=google+moon

I will travel to moon 3days, I should check it when i come back, thank my moon brother :ugeek:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Now you're getting into trolling territory. Time to call the janitor. Cleanup in isle "U"

 

[skywalkman2010]

Some images of squashed bugs. I think these are what got caught between the photo and Google's scanner. They should clean their glass plate more often!

It's so funny.good job
You find a powerful trail

It's more interesting to look for a fingerprint in google moon instead of a UFO

Please show me a photo of the google's scanner glass plate which has cohered a sick dead fly or spider! :mrgreen:

 

[BurgerB75]

Show us a photo you took that proves it wasn't a bug on the glass.

 

[skywalkman2010]

Now you're getting into trolling territory. Time to call the janitor. Cleanup in isle "U"

Excuse me ,a slip
travel to rome ,not moon

let you down probably will, my captain. Please speed up :arrow:
I will come back,see you

 

[skywalkman2010]

Show us a photo you took that proves it wasn't a bug on the glass.

wow it's you getting into trolling territory.
Beware of moon ET :ugeek:
good luck

 

[MeteorWayne]

I already told you you may address me as Wayne, MeteorWayne or MW.

You call my "my captain" again, against my user demanded request, you will be fried.

Fair Warning...

User Meteor Wayne

 

[skywalkman2010]

I already told you you may address me as Wayne, MeteorWayne or MW.

You call my "my captain" again, against my user demanded request, you will be fried.

Fair Warning...

User Meteor Wayne

You said in another post ,i haven't seen it while i postded here
however captain is not a derogatory term :roll:
please donnt reply me, i wanne to have a dinner
see you

 

[BurgerB75]

Show us a photo you took that proves it wasn't a bug on the glass.

wow it's you getting into trolling territory.
Beware of moon ET :ugeek:
good luck

If you consider that trolling than not only do you not know what the term means but it means you are as well as my statement is quite similar to your "demand" from the previous post to mine.

 

[skywalkman2010]

another of NASA's smudging out of a structure on the moon. if you zoom in you can see they let a little bit show through because they did a bit of a sloppy job at it.


last post

see you

 

[BurgerB75]

Can you provide the link to that picture on NASA's site?

And nice dodge of my post there.

 

[skywalkman2010]

Can you provide the link to that picture on NASA's site?

And nice dodge of my post there.

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evid ... ctures.htm

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evid ... bjects.htm

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clm/

 

[BurgerB75]

Not seeing NASA urls there bud. You stated that NASA doctored the photos. Where are these photos on their site?

In addition, where in the image on the last link you provided is the picture you posted?

 

[yevaud]

A very major dodge indeed. The "smudge" is clearly something added via MS Paint, which tends to make those linear smudge bars like that.

 

[skywalkman2010]

a big sick fly on the lens :lol:

The timing of the photographs is also of note.
Frame 64 was taken at 19.36 and then the first image with the object Frame 65 was taken at 20.16. Frame 65-70 were all taken within 2 minutes approx. Frame 71 which is missing at 21.37 and frame 72 not until 22.40.

origine
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS0 ... 4-65_3.JPG

1. http://alienforces.files.wordpress.com/ ... 4-65_3.jpg
2. http://alienforces.files.wordpress.com/ ... 4-66_3.jpg
3. http://alienforces.files.wordpress.com/ ... 4-67_3.jpg
4. http://alienforces.files.wordpress.com/ ... 4-68_3.jpg
5. http://alienforces.files.wordpress.com/ ... 4-69_3.jpg
6. http://alienforces.files.wordpress.com/ ... 4-70_3.jpg


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsAQB20gFPA[/youtube]