NASA obvious fake footage

a reply to: tachyonator9

You are really pathetic

Naw mate im dyslexic.

But you project away.

quoting a just posted post that obviously needed to be edited because of typo in quote tag.

Say what now?

It's not my fault you are slow to respond or failed to make sense with an incomplete post.

In any case, you are endlessly ignorant and foolish.

So back to the silly name-calling?

How very refreshing.

If you could simply provide some actual proof as to the repetitive nonsense you're attempting to punt from some kind of actual reputable source(Personal blogs certainly don't count)that might be nice.

originally posted by: andy06shake
So you cannot do so imagine that?

I did very clearly on the linked site but you could not get it imagine that.

As to you blog homepage, aye that's all complete and utter tripe im afraid and hardly constitutes facts or real science.

Only tripe is the crap you post. And what would you know about real science lol. It's hilarious that you even mention word science, you don't even understand basic formulas of physics and electromagnetism vril12.wordpress.com... God forbid if i asked you how to, say measure the resonant frequency of an RLC tank, in 3 different ways, not to mention even more advanced stuff.

Daft conspiracy-orientated web pages on the internet hardly constitutes real research or truth.

12 years member of ATS forum and he says "Daft conspiracy-orientated web pages", looool. Only daft is the bs you post.

Thing is some of us have been down this road and read the same guff you choose to actually believe as facts since it became available online in the mid 90s.

They are just daft stories and fiction, completely unsubstantiated by actual facts and credible scientific evidence.

Blind ignorance, cold shower awaits you.

And your problem is you obviously don't own a telescope.

And your problem is you obviously don't own a brainoscope.

As to the silly daft name-calling and screaming words in block capitals, well again that says a lot about you.

LOL you hypocrite, you did not stop the namecalling and insulting, and i wrote two words in capitals in whole post and you called that "screaming words in block capitals" buahahhahah, you are hilarious, the amount of bs you write is endless and it says a lot about you.

Do tell?

I've never heard of those before, please teach us all something we don't know.

You really need to stop going to sleep with "Iron Sky" on repeat my friend.

My my, if you only knew. As i said, cold cold shower awaits you.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Naw mate im dyslexic.

But you project away.

Nope, "mate", you may be dyslexic, but you most certainly are pathetic.

Say what now?

It's not my fault you are slow to respond or failed to make sense with an incomplete post.

"Slow to respond" buahahahah, clearly you think goal is to post a pile of bull-crap as fast as possible without satisfying even the basic level of intelligence. If i posted the bs as you do, i could spit out 20 posts a minute, and what would be the value of that. You quoted unfinished post that clearly needed to be tag-edited. Just further shows your true "colors"

So back to the silly name-calling?

How very refreshing.

Calling you ignorant and foolish is surely not "name calling" but stating obvious facts. That is the least you should be called. You did not stop the name calling.

If you could simply provide some actual proof as to the repetitive nonsense you're attempting to punt from some kind of actual reputable source(Personal blogs certainly don't count)that might be nice.

There, still calling advanced truth "repetitive nonsense", asking for "reputable source" altho i, for example already attached a screenshot from an fbi document talking about a 75-100 yard wide Nazi saucer.

Some basic reading and cognitive skills on your side in your future responses might be nice.

a reply to: UpThenDown

Here, i'll ease your doubts. Start with reading the attached NASA paper and included contactee book chapters, all your "questions" will be answered.

vril12.wordpress.com...

a reply to: tachyonator9

More nonsense.

Nice to see I've obviously managed to grind your gears and own some head space all the same.

So anyhoo if you could simply provide some sort of actual tangible evidence to support your fantastical claims of cities on the moon that might be nice.

Where is that now?

And again i remind you that personal blogs and pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo hardly constitute such.

As to understanding mathematical formulas and electromagnetism, well you fire away, and ile chime up when you present something i cannot get my head around or comprehend.

Also, i think you may find it's your own level of education that's in question, considering the nonsensical fantastical beliefs you choose to entertain, without any real sorts of proof to suggest that's the case.

Plenty of evidence of impact craters on our Moon, cities, and breakaway civilizations, not so much, or even at all.

a reply to: andy06shake

Only gears you managed to grind is your own with your own headspace.

So you just regurgitate the same bs about a "tangible evidence". Funny how you quickly "forgot" the topic of Nazi saucers now that FBI document has been brought up.

Don't worry about cities on the Moon, you got waaaaaay more than enough of catching up to do before that.

Look how you sleazily calls it "personal blogs", and advanced Higher Science / Occult Truths you call "pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo", lol. The irony.

As for physics / electronics formulas and understanding...here is an easy one for you, does parallel RLC tank behave capacitively or inductively above resonant frequency and why.... now google fast, let's see how you get your "head" around that

You in vain try to invert things, it was clear to to me from the first moment you are uneducated and ignorant as a brick. And don't try to dodge with pathetic attacks on advanced Truths. We are not even talking Moon cities now or even Nazi saucers, we are now 100% conventional. You have no idea whom you have stumbled against. I have ground you to dust already and will proceed to ground you into subatomic particles until you dissolve back into ether without even making an effort.

Let's hear your "reply" to question one and we'll proceed from there. Let the games begin

a reply to: tachyonator9

Tell you what ile get hands-on with the electronic and electrical engineering query when you manage to provide actual evidence of cities on the moon.

My degree is in Information Technology & Media Studies, not electronic engineering, although i do have an NC pertaining to the area of study.

Google would give you something to the approximation of what's below for an answer all the same.

a parallel RLC tank circuit behaves capacitively above the resonant frequency because the impedance increases with frequency, resembling the behavior of a capacitor, even though the current lags the voltage due to the presence of an inductor.

But again if you could simply present evidence of cities on our Moon as opposed to impact craters ile be eternally grateful.

I doubt you have a degree in anything but foolishness.

The answer google gave you is half of the answer at best. More precise answer would be that parallel RLC tank behaves as an exact opposite of series RLC tank in which inductive reactance predominates above resonance and capacitive reactance below it just like it does for individual components, according to XL= 2πfL XC= -1/2πfC and F = 1/2π√LC . Parallel RLC tank at resonance has theoretically infinite impedance meaning that no current flows except the resistive losses, with voltage and current obviously 90°out of phase, etc.

And who said i want to prove the cities on the Moon, i clearly said my goal is not to prove them so stop stupidly repeating the same nonsense.

a reply to: tachyonator9

I doubt you have a degree in anything but foolishness.

You do however seem to believe that there are cities on the Moon as opposed to impact craters without any sort of real evidence to suggest thats the case other than the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo and personal blogs you attempt to submit by way of evidence.

Again it is not my level of education that's in question.

The answer google gave you is half of the answer at best. More precise answer would be that parallel RLC tank behaves as an exact opposite of series RLC tank in which inductive reactance predominates above resonance and capacitive reactance below it just like it does for individual components, according to XL= 2πfL XC= -1/2πfC and F = 1/2π√LC . Parallel RLC tank at resonance has theoretically infinite impedance meaning that no current flows except the resistive losses, with voltage and current obviously 90°out of phase, etc.

Smashing, would you like a hat and a balloon?

And who said i want to prove the cities on the Moon, i clearly said my goal is not to prove them so stop stupidly repeating the same nonsense.

Im sure you said in this thread a few pages back that there were cities all over the Moon.

Are you now claiming there are no cities on the Moon?

Make your mind up, please.

Again just present evidence of the tangible sorts to support your claims.

I'm beginning to think you are a child.

a reply to: tachyonator9

thanks for the link, but there is nothing in that link about population size (which you estimated at 250million to 1 billion) so where are you sourcing that, nothing about an atmosphere , nothing about if the water is irradiated, nothing about if they need police, nothing about most of the questions i asked you which is fine but where are you finding your answers?

there was a lot about someone taking a shower and lots of anecdotal talk of great meals and ladys in pastoral clothing but little to none (and i am being generous) evidence of anything you are claiming as fact, are you sure you gave me the correct link?

originally posted by: andy06shake
You do however seem to believe that there are cities on the Moon as opposed to impact craters without any sort of real evidence to suggest thats the case other than the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo and personal blogs you attempt to submit by way of evidence.

Firstly, i don't believe, i KNOW there are cities on the Moon. "without any sort of real evidence" only speaks about your blindness and lack of ability to discern the facts. And you again idiotically call advanced superconcentrated occult Truths "pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo", only further proving your blindness and ignorance.

Again it is not my level of education that's in question.

Again, it IS your level of education that's in question and we have just seen an example for that and your pathetic excuses.

Smashing, would you like a hat and a balloon?

Smashing googling skill, would you like a hat and a balloon?

Im sure you said in this thread a few pages back that there were cities all over the Moon.

Are you now claiming there are no cities on the Moon?

Make your mind up, please.

Again just present evidence of the tangible sorts to support your claims.

You are clearly incapable of understanding English altho it is your native tongue and that in itself is sad.
I said there are cities, i never said i want to prove it, especially not to you. Learn to understand English.

I'm beginning to think you are a child.

I'm beginning to think you are a baby monkey randomly hitting the keyboard.

a reply to: UpThenDown

Apparently, the Moon does indeed have an atmosphere of sorts which is often referred to as an "exosphere"

Said exosphere having an average density estimated to be about 100,000 times less than Earths atmosphere at sea level.

Its composed of various gases some of which include helium, neon, hydrogen, argon, methane, and carbon dioxide but at extremely low densities compared to our own atmosphere.

originally posted by: tachyonator9
a reply to: UpThenDown

Here, i'll ease your doubts. Start with reading the attached NASA paper and included contactee book chapters, all your "questions" will be answered.

vril12.wordpress.com...

That does not seem to be a "NASA paper"?

a reply to: UpThenDown

Obviously you did not read neither the NASA paper about many observations of clouds on the near side, neither the 3 contactee book chapters (Adamski, Menger and Nelson), for if you did you would never write "nothing about an atmosphere" "if the water is irradiated" "if they need police" etc. For it is clearly described in all 3 chapters air is breathable, there are references to flora and fauna, no mention of any toxicity, and it is described perfectly clearly in all 3 cases that these people live in absolute peace, clearly without a need for any type of police.

You would learn all that IF you did read. Are you sure you did not just skip through it all very very superficially.

a reply to: tachyonator9

Why are you replying to yourself?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2That does not seem to be a "NASA paper"?

ntrs.nasa.gov...

“Lunar transient phenomena have been observed for almost 1 1/2 millenia, both by the naked eye and telescopic aid. The author has been collecting these reports from the literature and personal communications for the past 17 years. It has resulted in a listing of 1468 reports representing only slight searching of the literature and probably only a fraction of the number of anomalies actually seen.”

“Small whitish cloud”

“Nebulous appearance”

“Looked like a cloudy spot”

“Looked like a cloudy spot”

“Black moving haze or cloud”

“Cloud less intense”

“Conspicious bright spot. Also on 7th, absent on 8th. Cloud-like effect where light had been on 8th.”

“Faint, but unmistakable white cloud not seen before.”

“Gas cloud over it & its companion; everywhere else was fine detail”

“Fog in W. part of crater. Faint shimmer like thin white cloud”

“Traces of cloudiness on E. slope at 2115h.”

“G. Ward (a lunar observer for 15 years) observed an area just south west of Mersenius C to be blurred and in a greenish cloud. […] The observer checked other areas but did not see any similar effects. They also rotated and changed eyepieces, but this made no difference to the TLP.”

“2 faint clouds in the E. part of crater.”

“Fog in W. part of crater. Faint shimmer like thin white cloud”

“Odd, misty look as if vapor were in or about them.”

“Interior of crater had a cloudy apperance.”

“Light cloud or mist at edge.”

“Dense clouds of vapor apparently rising from its bottom & pouring over its SW wall towar Herod. He says no activity till day after sunrise & ceases a few days before sunset.”

“Variations in vapor column. Crater D covered.”

“Filled with pale luminous haze tho all surrounding features were sharp & normal. Walls also hazy.”

“Cloud rising from Fis marked.”

“Sudden appearance of white spot like a cloud. Moved across the crater.”

“Areas E. of Picard appeared featureless. Cloud-like patches.”

“Oval dark area near center, disappeared in 15m.”

“Enveloped in obscuring, cloud-like mist.”

“Obliterated by a hovering cloud. […] Wilkins saw burst of light and dust cloud.”

“Concealed by a dusky cloud. Appeared to be steam or smoke. No change in 1h. Following week no trace.”

“Gas cloud over it and it’s companions. Everywhere else was fine detail.”

“White gas obscuration. Moved at 20mph decreased in extent. Phenomena repeated.”

“Gas cloud. Motion.”

“Green color, yellow-reddish (over Demonax ? chrom. aberr.?). Diffused cloud seen outside disk over Leibnitz mts. in Cleostratus area.”

“Peculiar haziness in NE (ast. ?) corner of crater. Greenish-yellow tint similar to M. Crisium at FM. Central crater was clearly vis. N. wall showed no detail at all.”

“A kind of vapor cloud seen coming from S. pole, vis. intermittently.”

“Dark cloud covering Conon.”

“Very dark blue dark cloud moving W-E.”

“Think white cloud, intensely variable, faint bright shimmer on Plato.”

“Maroon color covering the ridge of Herod. Cloud disappeared after 10min.”

“Saw a bright, luminous, blue, misty cloud on the NE rim. Obscur. for 1st hr hen gave way to pink & features becam vis. Cloud was tear-drop shape. No movement to glow. Pink cloud glowed too. Very tenuous by 0130h. (Nakamura says there were no seismic events within several hrs. of this time). Another per- on saw it without being advised as to where it was.”

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Question is why did you write "That does not seem to be a "NASA paper" and linked to a page with NASA paper in the same post.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

i think he means this but it is just random sightings mostly via telescopes from what appears to be people contacting Nasa

lunar transient phenomena

which is within this link


MOON LAKES AND CITIES

which after reading i am sorry to say is just someones tale of visiting the moon no evidence of anything, reads like a sci fi novel and to suggest the following already leaves a sour taste in my mouth, about a 1/3rd of way down it says

My finds from google moon clearly showing bases/cities

then has the following photos, if any of these are classed as clearly then we are already of to a bad start as they perhaps (at a stretch) could be open to interpretation but one thing they are not is clear



I have read the links provided and as yet have not found any evidence other than good storytelling

So again my I ask tachyonator9, where is evidence for the answers you gave to some of my questions

thanks

a reply to: tachyonator9

Firstly, i don't believe, i KNOW there are cities on the Moon.

Cheers for clearing that up and thanks once again for the lovely block capitals.

Again, it IS your level of education that's in question and we have just seen an example for that and your pathetic excuses.

Sorry which outlandish pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo nonsense theories am i advocating for again?

Smashing googling skill, would you like a hat and a balloon?

No ta, the dog is afraid of balloons, kind of the same way you are of actual facts and truths.

You are clearly incapable of understanding English altho it is your native tongue and that in itself is sad.

Well, i am dyslexic, as to understanding, i understand the crap you're coming away with is complete and utter pseudoscientific tripe.

I said there are cities, i never said i want to prove it, especially not to you. Learn to understand English.

That's because there are no cities and you can't prove otherwise.

I'm beginning to think you are a child spambot.

I postulate that the thinking part is debatable where you are concerned.

As to being a "spambot".........that old chestnut, really.

How very original.

Canny handle some real questions and fail to be able to provide credible evidence to support the claims you make.

Thus resorting to name-calling and insinuating that people are bots.

Have a nice day.

Im away to see to the Tomato plants, get more sense out of them.

Edit:

I'm beginning to think you are a baby monkey randomly hitting the keyboard.

Well, that's not very nice or intelligent, one might say almost ""childish"".

a reply to: tachyonator9

You seem confused.

Here is a NASA paper which explains Transient Lunar Phenomena:

science.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: tachyonator9
a reply to: UpThenDown

Obviously you did not read neither the NASA paper about many observations of clouds on the near side,

I think i did, sorry to burst your bubble, do not assume I am here to merely be negative, i am happy to read your links and see my above post in that regard

you do realise that the majority of those sightings are from amateurs around the world and not statements from NASA, look in the location column if unsure, from the very first page you have

europe
eurpe
london
germany
england
greece
boston
italy
italy
france

so again please dont assume i have not read them, i am just not putting as much stock into them as you are

again they are not from NASA themselves, it is a document NASA has used to record amateur sightings