NASA obvious fake footage

a reply to: UpThenDown

You still ask for evidence as if i want to prove this to you. Realize, i don't care if you see or not. Not to mention the irony calling my google moon finds not clear, and what did you expect a 8K close ups.

a reply to: tachyonator9

If you do not care then why keep punting the dead horse about the moon having cities?

Would that be for kicks and hoots perchance?

So to summarise, the moon does not have any cities on it, and you do not have any evidence of cities on the moon.

Now back to the garden hose with me.

a reply to: tachyonator9

great dont provide any evidence, not a problem, but dont expect to convinve anyone then without it

and when you say

Not to mention the irony calling my google moon finds not clear

is the page your linking to your own, if so that they raises other doubts from the skeptic in me, are you just trying to gain clicks from ATS members to your own website, also what about my statment is ironic, i have not provided any photos so where is the irony?

and sorry but those photos are utter trash, what do I expect , perhaps not 8k close ups, but certainly better than the lowest of low resolution

originally posted by: UpThenDown
I think i did,,,

You did not burst my bubble and i do not assume you're here to be negative. Asking questions is perfectly fine.
And of course i realize most of those sightings are from astronomers mostly from Europe, obviously "not from NASA themselves, it is a document NASA has used to record amateur sightings"......and? Your point is? So you think all these people were blind, mistook atmospheric clouds for clouds on the Moon, lied....If it was 2-3 reports that may be even taken into account, but with this many no.

Again, i am not assuming you have not read them, as for putting stock, i just wrote probability of all of them "seeing things" is very low.

ATTENTION

I don't know how it is that people can't understand that opinions of each other are not the topic on ATS - EVER - but it's close to time to start issuing Posting Bans to those who ignore this.

BE WARNED IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE POSTING BANNED! This includes comments members make in other threads.

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.

The topic is NASA obvious fake footage

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: tachyonator9

originally posted by: UpThenDown
I think i did,,,

You did not burst my bubble and i do not assume you're here to be negative. Asking questions is perfectly fine.
And of course i realize most of those sightings are from astronomers mostly from Europe, obviously "not from NASA themselves, it is a document NASA has used to record amateur sightings"......and? Your point is? So you think all these people were blind, mistook atmospheric clouds for clouds on the Moon, lied....If it was 2-3 reports that may be even taken into account, but with this many no.

Again, i am not assuming you have not read them, as for putting stock, i just wrote probability of all of them "seeing things" is very low.

correct you did not assume anything you outright caimed the following

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,

So becuase a lot of amateur astronemers in the 1960s saw something from over 250,000 miles away via a telescope you think that is hard evidence?

vague information such as "bright spot in a crater" or "dark shadow on moon surface" yes its great its been documented but you presented it as if it the information was from NASA itself

So again without sounding rude or demonstrative,

can you answer the following questions I asked but this time perhaps provide any sort of evidence to back it up

How large is the civilisation on the moon?
Are they human?
If so did they emigrate from earth?
The civilisation on the moon are fully aware of the civilisation on the earth?
Do they communicate to the earth?
Does the moon civilisation require oxygen or have they established some form of atmosphere?
Do they have animals to eat or is the diet solely vegan?
What is the main source of water to provide hydration?
Does the civilisation on the moon require policing or are they all peaceful and content?

oh wait, I forgot you just made this statement

you still ask for evidence as if i want to prove this to you

shame if this would be the only thing we agree on

a reply to: tachyonator9

Here you go, from my NASA source:

"NORAD tracks more than 10,000 Earth-orbiting objects wider than 10 cm. "Some of them are bound to cross in front of the Moon while we're watching," he says. Objects like Orbcomm are easy to identify as satellites. Tumbling space debris, on the other hand, can be trickier: "A sudden glint of sunlight from a flat surface looks an awful lot like a lunar meteor flash," he explains. "So we have to be very careful. When we see a flash of light on the Moon, we always double-check that there was no piece of space junk passing by at that exact moment."

So yes, a lot of these sightings can be explained.

a reply to: tachyonator9

a reply to: andy06shake

Edit: Before i get myself into bother.

a reply to: vrilodin posiibly tachyonator9

hey mate, calm down if you have had to make a new account, then why are you getting all worked up, its not worth getting banned when discussing the topic

but it does appear you have not provided much evidence yet you made these astounding claims but when questioned on them you took the approach of , I am not here to prove anything, if that is the case, why make the initial claims?

what do we all have in common, skepticism....you are skeptical of NASA and the gooberments (rightly so) we are skeptikal of outlandish claims with no evidence, lets find the middle ground

either way dont get a ban from ATS over it

peace

a reply to: andy06shake

It is obvious that there must be cities on the Moon.

Why else would the Moon be lit up so brightly, at night?

a reply to: UpThenDown

Scores of really interesting conundrums that surround our moon as well.

Its size and distance in relation to Earth are of obvious interest and almost as if it was parked there on purpose.

Then there is its formation, composition, and synchronous rotation to consider.

Hence the reason the likes of the Artemis program and return to the Moon are of immense importance and interest.

Hopefully paving the way for an eventual station/permanent residence at some point in the not-to-distant future.

originally posted by: UpThenDown
correct you did not assume anything you outright caimed the following

You are quoting half of my sentence, and it still applies nonetheless, for, as i wrote, it was clear from your reply that you did not read any of it but skip through at best...

"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."

So becuase a lot of amateur astronemers in the 1960s saw something from over 250,000 miles away via a telescope you think that is hard evidence?

Did i say it's "hard evidence". I did not. I said chances that all of them were mistaken are very slim.

vague information such as "bright spot in a crater" or "dark shadow on moon surface" yes its great its been documented but you presented it as if it the information was from NASA itself

Suuuure, it's all "vague info", and for you it is vague for you are not connecting the dots.

As for the rest of your "questions" they have all been answered, the fact you ask them again as if they have not been deserves just one big LOL and pat on your back...mate, this ain't for you.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes, indeed.

But tidal locking is common with Moons in our Solar system.

I really do not buy the theory that it broke off from Earth due to an asteroid strike.

a reply to: vrilodin

errr ok, now you seem to be losing your rag with me, yet i have not had one single post removed in this thread, i have stayed polite whereas now it seems you are on the attack and for me i will refrain from continuing

take care

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I know, but Earth capturing the Moon, and her going into orbit around our world in the manner that she is has problems associated with it also.

As to the theory that it broke off from Earth, its somewhat open for debate as far as I'm aware.

Apparently through "The Giant Impact Hypothesis" is supported by various lines of evidence.

Edit: PM for you by the way.