Doco - The Greatest Story Ever Denied - Part II Moon Rising.

Anyone who believes we are being lied to about the colour of the moon, and that there are structures and artificial objects "miles wide" just needs to go to a shop and buy a telescope.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Not the case at all.

Astronauts walking on the moon have found the soil to be orange in colour.

originally posted by: andre18
There's a fair difference between tampering photos to airbrush out structures, hair crosses and stars, as a posed to what i would preferably call photo recovery of black and white restored to its original colour. How would you know what is an apparent impression and what is an actual depiction?

Okay first off, it's not its "original colour" as he ADMITTED that he took colours from earth photography and used the same ones on the moon. Second, with his highlighting, you can clearly see highlit items that arent there in the untouched photos. One part he tried to make look like a human hand.

Are they biased, or simply convinced by the evidence....

How exactly would they be convinced? That would make them the worst scientists ever. They havent even been to the moon or seen clear photos of the alleged constructs, and yet are CERTAIN that it is a civilisation? Absurd. Thats not science.

Here's their typical evidence:

What exactly does this low resolution photo prove? Nothing. You cant even tell what, if anything, is there!

To discount this is one thing, quite irrelevant though, because at least 2 other apollo astronauts claim they saw things during their time in space. I would say you're too picky.

Yes, im too picky for discounting an alleged earth-shattering quote with NO source.

however... you nor me know how the military works.

No, im afraid, I do. And they dont release what would be the-most-classified-information-in-the-world to anyone.

a reply to: JimOberg

I looked though that site and I'm not impressed in the slightest. Especially the mothership explanation. I understand the meed to make sense on what is assumed a purely 'real world' rationality. But if that's the all the experts can come up with, it shows a lack of ability on their part to explain a larger reality they simply choose not to accept.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Not the case at all.

Astronauts walking on the moon have found the soil to be orange in colour.

They found some orange soil in one spot on one mission. It is not all orange.

a reply to: andre18

Yeah, Jim Oberg's web site is a little dry. It would definitely be a lot better if he made some stuff up about aliens. Integrity is so hum drum.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Regardless, you're absolutely right when you say anyone can buy a telescope (and then learn how to use it) and look for these structures. However, no one has. They may be up there but no one has bothered to look. Simple as that. The best telescopes have gotten this quality resolution and closeness.

upload.wikimedia.org...

You're standard $15,000 telescope isn't going to get anything that close, a nice picture of the entire moon sure but not satellite quality.

a reply to: andre18

I take your point, but that crater at the top of your image is Asada, near Taruntius, and is 13 km across. There are lots of amateur images of that area that would show up a feature 'miles' across.

You could also argue that even without a high powered scope you still have access to countless sources that easily disprove the claim of alien structures - after all, you just found one that disprives a claim made by some that that crater is a satellite dish.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: JimOberg

I looked though that site and I'm not impressed in the slightest. Especially the mothership explanation. I understand the meed to make sense on what is assumed a purely 'real world' rationality. But if that's the all the experts can come up with, it shows a lack of ability on their part to explain a larger reality they simply choose not to accept.

Looked like a pretty fair explanation to me, but there are those who simply choose not to accept real world rationality.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: JimOberg

I looked though that site and I'm not impressed in the slightest. Especially the mothership explanation. I understand the meed to make sense on what is assumed a purely 'real world' rationality. But if that's the all the experts can come up with, it shows a lack of ability on their part to explain a larger reality they simply choose not to accept.

Thanks for giving it a look. It may grow on you. Any followups, I'd be happy to discuss on a new thread or message.

Sweet, got the Chinese one bookmarked.

Looking forward to watching it tonight.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Regardless, you're absolutely right when you say anyone can buy a telescope (and then learn how to use it) and look for these structures. However, no one has. They may be up there but no one has bothered to look. Simple as that. The best telescopes have gotten this quality resolution and closeness.

upload.wikimedia.org...

You're standard $15,000 telescope isn't going to get anything that close, a nice picture of the entire moon sure but not satellite quality.

That's because, with the moon, after about $3k worth of telescope, lenses and mirrors are not your limiting factors. Even Mt. Palomar would not be able to do much better.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: gortex

I would not venture into disbelief simply because one crater was mistaken for a ufo. The body of his work demonstrates the moon is alit with aliens structures. To completely compromise the entirety of someones work due to one error isn't intelligent thinking. Who ever wrote that is obviously trying to discredit him.

If you are one to be gulled into disbelief because one person finds a mistake and then claims that's enough to subject everything to error, realise that's the mark of an employee paid to find any holes that can be used against him, so to keep this info out of viral spreads.

a reply to: draknoir2

Even in some of the most hard core of well documented ufo films, there's always unknown fakes the director wasn't aware of at the time. What's important, is the implications of the moon photos for all the world to know. Also, the first doco was made in 2009 before the rod case was figured out and debunked. Criticism unfounded.

Mistaking a crater for a UFO is more than "just one simple error." It shows either A-delusional thinking, or B-outright lying. These guys are all lying hucksters with books to sell. They make a living on your disbelief.

originally posted by: andre18

There's a fair difference between tampering photos to airbrush out structures, hair crosses and stars, as a posed to what i would preferably call photo recovery of black and white restored to its original colour. How would you know what is an apparent impression and what is an actual depiction?

Yet another thread on this subject about someone who really knows NOTHING about photography and digital imaging backed by a member who it seems also knows NOTHING about the subject!

Want to prove that removing cross hairs changes the fact that they went, or that structures or stars are airbrushed out

Many members on here are EXPERIENCED photographers unlike Joe and we have our own thread with examples of our work regarding astrophotography!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Ridhya
Okay first off, it's not its "original colour" as he ADMITTED that he took colours from earth photography and used the same ones on the moon. Second, with his highlighting, you can clearly see highlit items that arent there in the untouched photos. One part he tried to make look like a human hand.

You're missing the point entirely. I agree his work on the photos isn't what one might call professional. But he himself has said anyone can do this, it's not difficult to do what he's done (apparently). Might someone else (like you) come along and attempt the same application to the photos I'm sure there's plenty too uncover. Also, i don't believe the colour is i guess a litral attempt at what is true luna colours but an effect that shows 3 dimensional perspective that would be missed only in grey scale, to which these new renders reveal.

Obviously, not only the beginning of the doco is there a photo showing a structure blurred out, but more that show NASA has been altering them for deception. Maybe he's not the best photo analysts, it's not even his profession. However, his work demonstrates there is positive results strong enough, that discounting his effort is ridiculous.

How exactly would they be convinced? That would make them the worst scientists ever. They havent even been to the moon or seen clear photos of the alleged constructs, and yet are CERTAIN that it is a civilisation? Absurd. Thats not science.

But they're not scientists. And they're not doing science. They're rerendering photos. Why would you confuse the two? LOl they're not even trying to be scientists........They're convinced of their own work as easily as any non scientist would. Does that make their work less for it? perhaps, but don't address this as something it's not.

What exactly does this low resolution photo prove? Nothing. You cant even tell what, if anything, is there!

You just walked straight into that. The public NASA photos are all that low resolution. What does that tell you? NASA has the proper resolution that no one publicly has, and so you can tell simply because they're not publicly accessible that there's an attempt to conceal. Had these guys gotten their hands on the high res, this would be an entirely different story. In fact, the only reason he's had to colour them is because of the very fact they're so low in quality. Check mate my friend.

No, im afraid, I do. And they dont release what would be the-most-classified-information-in-the-world to anyone.

Again you just walked into that. If you don't believe they wouldn't release highly sensitive photos of this degree then you're agreeing that they're deceptive in practice, and if there was structures on the moon they wouldn't allow us to find them. Well that's just saying if we did get our hands on something amazing they wouldn't allow it so what ever we find it must be fake.....

That's really bad thinking.......................

a reply to: andre18

But they're not scientists. And they're not doing science.

Yes. You are correct.

They're rerendering photos.

What exactly is that? I think "rendering" photos has to do with computer generated imaging. But now they are re-rendering them? I gave google a shot and came up empty.

Why would you confuse the two? LOl they're not even trying to be scientists........

Yeah....ah, I have to agree again. Even though they aren't trying, they might be pretending, I would go as far as saying "role playing" like actors in a home made porn. We all KNOW they aren't real scientists either but its still hot.

They're convinced of their own work as easily as any non scientist would.

Im not sure your argumentation is making this any more believable. So far you convinced me that these folks are playing with photoshop. But you really think they have convinced themselves? I think its more likely that they know their audience and know people will buy their nonsense.

a reply to: andre18
I think you're the one missing the point. If you cant find what you want without modifying photos, then perhaps it isnt there.

There is a photo, which I dont know is actually from nasa, which we dont know what is actually blurred out, if anything, and we dont know if the blur was deliberate or what. So to say that its an alien artifact is a lie, because they dont know that.

You're not making logical sense. If nasa wanted to hide something they wouldnt do such a #ty job "censoring" things. If they are releasing images of "anomalies" it must be deliberate, to make people believe.

I dont believe that they're deceptive. Nobody knows. Alien believers are biased and have the preconceived notion that if there isnt anything that they believe in in photos, it must be hidden. The same thing goes with ancient astronaut believers and ancient mesopotamia. They claim that ancient technology has been found but is just destroyed by archaeologists. Convenient.

Your argument doesnt make any sense. If NASA wanted to cover up aliens on the moon, why would they show photos at all? Why would they go there at all? If it were the case, they would make up excuses not to go and release photos that would not raise suspicion.

Destroy what must be hidden, hide what must be found.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Yeah, Jim Oberg's web site is a little dry. It would definitely be a lot better if he made some stuff up about aliens. Integrity is so hum drum.

That link describes something unrelated to this threads topic so addressing it is a little irrelevant, but what ever..

Giving it a second read, I'm supposed to be convinced a 50 year old Russian rocket - that debris if was truly falling to earth would have been alerted by NASA or any other space observing body ahead of time since they have the access and capability to track and monitor all that's orbiting up there. Also, these ufo's are reported to be flying ever so slowly, with actual beams of light coming off them like any helicopter would have, while searching for something at night.

To account this to a 50 year old rocket is dumb and you know it. What this apparent debunking is really telling me, is they can't accept or don't want to accept a wider reality of aliens flying willy nilly in our air space. Which can only frustrate the ego of scientists that assume if they're here they must want to contact us. such arrogance.

But now they are re-rendering them? I gave google a shot and came up empty.

Haha... don't be silly. You know what i meant. Re - rendering a rendered photo. Calm down.

Im not sure your argumentation is making this any more believable. So far you convinced me that these folks are playing with photoshop. But you really think they have convinced themselves? I think its more likely that they know their audience and know people will buy their nonsense,

That's speculation. You don't know their intensions. Their work though floored is a step in the right direction, proving there is a cover up of the moon. You and i may differ on how much is concealed and is due to these guys own mistakes. But it's clear they are helping reveal a truth.

Excellent video, thanks for sharing. Led me to an interesting book, "Someone Else is on the Moon" by George Leonard. Seems to have kicked off this aspect of Ufology like "Chariots of the Gods" and Ancient Aliens. If volunteers are needed to explore the lunar artifacts, let me know

a reply to: andre18

To account this to a 50 year old rocket is dumb and you know it.

Sure. if you say so. Aliens it is. There are other threads on this so Im not getting into it here but the explanation holds up well. Plus, you can discuss it directly with the person that researched it and he even offered a discussion on it. You did see his reply. yes? I merely suggested that he pepper his web site with made up alien tales to keep people happy and excited about aliens. You know, just tell people what they want to hear. Oh no. Everything has to be verified and true, dates have to be accurate and facts have to be factual. Its like going to a strip club without any strippers!

Haha... don't be silly. You know what i meant. Re - rendering a rendered photo. Calm down.

I actually don't have a clue what that means. A "rendered" photo is not an actual photo as far as I know. So are they taking fake photos and re faking them? I think what they are doing is "rendering" things that aren't there and rendering imaginary aliens.

But if you cant explain their process accurately or at all...you may want to spend some time learning what they are doing

And I am as calm as a cucumber already but thanks anyway.

That's speculation. You don't know their intensions.

Correct again and I stated it as such. Generally, I start my speculation with: "I think its more likely". So you correctly identified that I was speculating.

You and i may differ on how much is concealed and is due to these guys own mistakes.

Based on this flick, I am going to go out a limb here and say zero. As in they proved absolutely nothing other then they know how to use photoshop to color the moon.

But it's clear they are helping reveal a truth.

Nah, they are exploiting peoples confirmation biases. That's what is clear.