Structures/bases on the far side of the moon - where is ATS at

a reply to: Rob48

Being a more recent article it does skip past a lot of his previous work exopolitics.org...

As for the question on the long exposure, he did look it in the article. One question I have about it, why are the stars not trailing as well if it was a long exposure? The trails may not be as long as the moon depending on the moon orbit, but the stars will still trail as Mars rotates.

a reply to: eriktheawful

I am not sure how to respond to the claims about Buzz. The way I remember it it was at a book signing or similar event, there was no video of it or no video got out into the media about it. I expect it would of been tough on all of them to have so many people disbelieve what they went through and hate these misconceptions. As for just how hard he did or did not hit or bump someone, he had a reputation of standing up for himself.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Rob48

As for the question on the long exposure, he did look it in the article. One question I have about it, why are the stars not trailing as well if it was a long exposure? The trails may not be as long as the moon depending on the moon orbit, but the stars will still trail as Mars rotates.

There aren't any stars visible: they're not bright enough compared to Phobos.

The white speckles you can see are simply sensor noise: they are visible over the land as well as the sky:

a reply to: kwakakev

It was a moron who asked a stupid question too many on doorstepping Buzz, Buzz hit him. The video is widely available and hugely enjoyable.



A Judge dismissed the resulting case on the grounds of provocation.

Sibrel, on the other hand, is a convicted criminal thug.

a reply to: Rob48

The white speckles on the ground is consistent with some of the specks in the sky. There are a lot of specks in the video with the Michael Salla article you linked to, with a lot of different intensities. While I am not familiar with the camera in question and its particulars, to say that no stars got picked up in any way looks weak.

Another problem about being a time lapse photo is the irregular sides of the object. Movement leaves a straight line due to motion blur in time laps photos.

a reply to: kwakakev

Irregular sides? According to Salla, the problem is that the shape is NOT irregular, whereas Phobos is irregular:

They are thought to be captured asteroids and are irregular in shape. This is significant since as Waring points out, the objects in the Curiosity Rover image is not irregular

As for the stars, do you realise how close to the surface Phobos is? A correctly exposed image of Phobos is not going to capture stars.

Look, it is Phobos. This isn't a theory of mine, it is a fact. Why do you think the MSL team took these photos at this specific time in this specific direction, if not to capture Phobos setting?

In another thread I took screenshots of Stellarium at the appropriate time: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Repeated here for those who can't be bothered to click:

Here is what you should have seen from the approximate location of Curiosity at 4:52:15 on 2014-04-28 (obviously the Stellarium landscape doesn't show the hill in front of the rover)

And here is the image captured at that time:


Four minutes later at 4:56:09:

And the Curiosity image:



In conclusion: Michael Salla hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

a reply to: Rob48

The irregular side I was talking about was in the video, might just be due to video compression. If you did check it out in Stellarium and it does match up as Phobos I cannot argue with that one. Well done.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

A Judge dismissed the resulting case on the grounds of provocation.

What's interesting is the women in the yellow shirt escorting him around trying to get Buzz away from him. Right before the punch, she walks away and doesn't even flinch when the punch is thrown. Its like she knew exactly what was going to happen.

originally posted by: Shadoefax

originally posted by: glend

First question we should ask ourselves, if they found alien artifacts on moon or mars would they tell us?

Soon we won't have to worry them telling us anything. There are several privately funded moon explorations in the works, including Google's Lunar X Prize.

Instead of relying on a secretive government that has an agenda, we the people can just go see for ourselves.

except we can't.
everyone with enough money and a brain can send a probe up there, right?
and so many years after a landing on the moon, noone did, except government agencies like nasa?

do you really think they'll be allowed to get there? i'm not so sure about it. accidents happen, right?
or perhaps they will get there, they will be blackmailed, the whole operation will be contained and the results of their research censored and released to the public as 'hey, your people were there, there's nothing there, see?'

which makes me think, who are you working for again?

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: Shadoefax

originally posted by: glend

First question we should ask ourselves, if they found alien artifacts on moon or mars would they tell us?

Soon we won't have to worry them telling us anything. There are several privately funded moon explorations in the works, including Google's Lunar X Prize.

Instead of relying on a secretive government that has an agenda, we the people can just go see for ourselves.

The sad thing is: If those private companies don't show that anything is there, people will still be screaming "Cover up!" and claim that the companies were threatened by the Govs.

the sad thing is people will think it's all just a conspiracy theory without having all evidence at hand.

how much 'independent research' into different matters was backed by those who oppose the truth? how much truly independent research was contained and its authors blackmailed? organic foods and GMOs, natural medicine and drugs, free energy and fossil fuels? and - surprise surprise - people still do believe their crap.

what makes you think it'll be different with the moon?
there is one thing the governments will never give up willingly: the truth.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Jiggy, I've always appreciated the way you express yourself on the boards.

Let's think about this though ... logically. The Moon is an inhospitable place. Not much gravity, not much water, no air to speak of. The Earth is just a hop, skip, and a jump away. Now ... who the heck is gonna build something up there? NASA surely hasn't. So, who does that leave? An ancient Earth civilization that's left out of the history books ... or aliens.

As for aliens, if they've made it all the way across interstellar space, it's doubtful they travelled with the resources to setup an outpost. Doubtful that they'd come here to set up an observation post on our nearest satellite just to watch (are we really that interesting?).

I don't know about any ancient Earth civilizations. I leave that to the readership of these forums for speculation. In my book, that's the 1% I give to Sky.

logically, you're missing one possibility.
that our moon is in fact an artificial object.

and as for resources, if they're capable of interstellar travel, you have not even the faintest idea what else are they capable of.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Kandinsky
The fact remains that there's nothing to see up there and it makes our little corner of space all the more lonelier for its absence.

Given how sparse intelligent alien life appears to be so far, it wouldn't make sense for them to leave substantial numbers of artifacts on every little speck of rock floating in the galaxy, our relatively ordinary Moon included.

Once again, here is an illustration of how people fail to grasp just how big space is and just how insignificant our place in it is.

relatively ordinary? you're joking, right?
i'm far from putting the humanity at the center of the universe - quite the opposite - but our moon is everything but ordinary if looked at as a space rock.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
It does't really matter what the consensus is. A substantial proportion of 5 year olds believe in Father Christmas, but this is not proof that Father Christmas exists as a real person.

What matters is evidence, and there is no evidence of an alien presence on the moon that stands up to any scrutiny.

The 'evidence' that is given is generally either from well meaning and over-enthusiastic misinterpretation of poor quality photographs, or lies from people making money. Alien base myths are founded on mistakes and lies, not facts.

We have detailed surveys of the moon by 3 different space agencies. No artificial structures other than those that should be there from Russia, China and the USA. We have telescopes capable of resolving the details that people claim are there. No bases.

No amount of wishful thinking is going to make those aliens appear.

no amount of wishful thinking is going to make people believe that 3 space agencies from russia, china and the usa have a black sheep amongst them, telling people the truth.

please, post links to the full (visible) moon surface photos with 1 meter resolution, that come from independent sources and were made with privately owned telescope. i'm sure you have them, because you're so sure there's nothing up there like you've been there.

what do we have? we have a hint, a clue, that there's something up there. many clues, from many different sources.
should we just ignore them? just because nasa & co say 'we've been there, there's nothing up there, move along folks'?

to all debunkers: what you're doing here, is not debunking. it's simply denying. you're telling people the subject is not worth research, without giving any evidence to support your claim, while wasting your precious time on it - why? does it pay so well?

debunking is based on giving an evidence to the contrary. you may prove that 99.99% 'anomaly' photos are bunk, but that doesn't prove that there's nothing up there - that only proves that those photos are bunk.

and let me state the obvious: governments and their agencies are not considered sources of facts - they're just sources of information that in almost every case needs to be verified and, most often than not, turns out to be a lie.

so if you're blindly believing in whatever nasa says, you're just a sheeple.
if you're pushing that 'truth' down other's throats, you're starting to look like someone with an agenda.

we don't have as many means of checking what's up there as some governments have, but that doesn't mean we should blindly believe them, even if there's only a slightest possibility that they're lying.

a reply to: jedi_hamster
So if nobody goes there, it's a conspiracy. If people do go there and say that yes, the moon is just a big barren rock, it's a conspiracy too because they have obviously been "got at" by the government.

Talk about begging the question.

And again, who do you mean by "the government"? There are 200-odd countries on the planet, of which about 30 have space programmes (if you include the 20 member states involved in ESA).

Are they all "in on it"? If China found secret moon bases when they mapped the whole moon down to 20ft resolution recently, don't you think they might have said to the Americans and Russians "Er, why didn't you mention this?"

Why do people find it so hard to believe that there isn't a unicorn at the bottom of the garden?

you cant just interpret some rock formation as 'alien structure' or 'alien base' ..

everything there is too low resolution to identify it as more than natural formation..

use your thinking cap when watching these movies/pics and dont let your 'belief' override your judgment.. unless you want to believe it soo much that you dropped your analytical thinking..

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: jedi_hamster
So if nobody goes there, it's a conspiracy. If people do go there and say that yes, the moon is just a big barren rock, it's a conspiracy too because they have obviously been "got at" by the government.

we can't go there - we, the people. the average person has no means to go up there or send a probe.
photos of the moon surface, made with a telescope good enough to debunk all claims about any structures on the surface, made by independent researcher (perhaps willing to share his/her personal details so their neutrality may be verified - because photos from government people could be tampered with), would be a proof (for the moon side we can see). perhaps what we need is some breakthrough in amateur-level optics, so that everyone could build a telescope stronger than anything average person's money can buy.

but that still leaves what's on the other side and what's underground, and you can't fight what you can't reach. to prove there's really nothing up there, you would have to go up there with a shovel, set up a live transmission with a camera on a tripod and start digging. that would be true debunking in case of our moon. sadly, there's not much of other ways.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: jedi_hamster
Are they all "in on it"? If China found secret moon bases when they mapped the whole moon down to 20ft resolution recently, don't you think they might have said to the Americans and Russians "Er, why didn't you mention this?"

and what makes you think they didn't? what makes you think they would ask using official channels?
what even makes you think the americans and russians didn't mention it to them earlier?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: jedi_hamster
Why do people find it so hard to believe that there isn't a unicorn at the bottom of the garden?

it's not hard to believe. it's just we can't look at the bottom of the garden to be sure, nor can you, so it is extremely hard to believe you, when you have in fact the same amounts of verifiable facts at hand as we have.

so what you're stating isn't a fact, it's just your opinion, and you're pushing it down other's throats as an absolute truth. do i have to repeat what impression does it make?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

But why would you even think there was something hidden in the first place, with zero evidence? Do you assume there are aliens everywhere that you cannot personally observe to verify that there aren't? That seems a pretty odd viewpoint.

I'm all for hunting for extraterrestrial life, but our own moon is just about the least likely place we could ever hope to find it!

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: jedi_hamster

But why would you even think there was something hidden in the first place, with zero evidence? Do you assume there are aliens everywhere that you cannot personally observe to verify that there aren't? That seems a pretty odd viewpoint.

I'm all for hunting for extraterrestrial life, but our own moon is just about the least likely place we could ever hope to find it!

when something is hidden, there's usually no evidence of it at the beginning, right? that's the whole purpose of hiding something.

- we cannot see the other side and there are no photos of it from independent sources.
- afaik, there are no good-resolution-enough photos of the side that we can see, that are from independent sources, either.
- we have no idea what's under the surface.
- nasa was caught up tampering with photos more than once already.
- even not considering what a bunch of liars the governments are, the above is a reason number one not to trust nasa and other space agencies.
- moon doesn't quite give the impression of being a natural space object. at all.

and these are just a tip of an iceberg. so yeah, why would i consider such possibility at all.

but see, that's the thing. i'm considering such possibility. i don't assume. you do.

just give yourself a favor and stop enforcing your own opinions on others. it's just an opinion, everyone is entitled to his own.

as for me, i don't have one - there's not enough evidence from independent sources, so i embrace the possibility that something may be up there. artifacts? physical anomalies? aliens? who knows? perhaps just a space dust.

but the more i see people like you, running through threads like this, screaming 'there's nothing up there, no way, it's silly, why are you even considering that, it's the least likely place, no way, go away!' - the more i think someone really doesn't want this to be researched.

and that begs one question: why.

do you also believe that the famous remote viewer mr ingo swann was tasked by US Intelligence to remote view the moon and he saw gigantic towers, entities working inside craters, bridges, tractor tracks, roads, buildings, saucer shaped things..

read the book 'Penetration' by ingo swann

then again who would believe such things exists on the moon ? it would be detected by now if there is anything strange in the moon.. heck NASA mars guys practically goes bonkers everytime there's a cute looking rock in mars and publicly announce there's-life-on-mars every chance they got..

originally posted by: milomilo
do you also believe that the famous remote viewer mr ingo swann was tasked by US Intelligence to remote view the moon and he saw gigantic towers, entities working inside craters, bridges, tractor tracks, roads, buildings, saucer shaped things..

read the book 'Penetration' by ingo swann

then again who would believe such things exists on the moon ? it would be detected by now if there is anything strange in the moon.. heck NASA mars guys practically goes bonkers everytime there's a cute looking rock in mars and publicly announce there's-life-on-mars every chance they got..

i'm not sure about ingo swann. something tells me he may be a hoaxer riding on the wave, i'm not certain though.

but sure, who would believe? with all the photographic equipment we can buy, we can't make any decent photo of any of the many black project flying vehicles USAF has, so there's no way there's something on the moon we don't know about, right?

btw, how much do they pay?