Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

reply to post by zorgon



Well, in that case. I feel sorry for ya'.

Originally posted by johnlear
Zorgon, do you have any ugly pictrures we can show the folks? Thanks.

Hmmm let me see... I was looking up some Alien 'critters'...

Does this qualify?

Originally posted by sr71bObviously I am not ready to see what you see.

Yes quite true... it is obvious... bug of you to admit it

Originally posted by PartChimp
....proof other than grainy pictures

You know... you guys and your 'nothing but grainy pictures' line are really just hurting your own case and making yourselves look like fools... Anyone that has actually paid attention to any of our threads knows there are tons of documnents and official sources as well as pictures...

So the constant 'whine' about 'fuzzy images' only make you look the fool...

and when you resort to personal attacks and 'character judgements' rather than argue the subject, well just shows you have nothing to present and need to grasp at straws to move the focus away from discussion...

"via mentally questionable individuals."

What makes you the judge of this? Are you an expert in the feild? have you ever met any of those you place in this group? And with comments of this type... why should I take anything you say seriously?

LOL for me... once ya start down the 'insult' road. you have lost your case...

Any proof against their theories are immediately classified as "disinformation".

Proof? What proof? I have yet to see one skeptic offer me ANY proof that there is no mine on the moon, there is no base on Mars and there are no secret space stations... If you have such proof, by all means show me... otherwise yours is just a theory... Just because YOU don't believe it does not constitute proof... and don't give me that cop out "you can't prove a negative'

You just stated there was proof against our theories... cough it up...

Any kind of common sense approach you may use toward showing them that their theories are bunk immediately labels you "uninformed" or "not ready for the truth" in their eyes.

Common sense is useless if you are not in possession of all the facts. If you do not have all the facts you are then 'uninformed'. Since you make no effort other than verbal debunking IE you never check if MAYBE we are right... then 'you are not ready for the truth'

Very simple common sense really

I only want the truth, to be honest.

Do you really? Fine then... what are you willing to do to find the truth... a truth that would be outside your accepted norm? What would it take?

[edit on 28-10-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Common sense is useless if you are not in possession of all the facts. If you do not have all the facts you are then 'uninformed'. Since you make no effort other than verbal debunking IE you never check if MAYBE we are right... then 'you are not ready for the truth'

[edit on 28-10-2007 by zorgon]

This is where you and i meet our definitive fork in the road. You think that you can ridicule people whose opinions differs from yours with this immature half-cocked smarmy cynicism you suffer because you have to be right. Your ego will not allow interlopers to harm the frail exterior of your contrived theories.

Let me list some techniques that seem to be your favorite:

Question is posed to Zorgon (or John Lear, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference at this point). Here are a few responses which will assuredly follow. A) A snide, off handed remark used simply to deflect the question. B) A complete evasion of the topic, because hey, you only scan this website what, eight hours a day? I'm sure you miss questions posed to you in your favorite forum. C) You will throw lots of interesting pictures into your response; that unfortunately have nothing to do with the topic at hand. D) You will try to attack a truth-seeking persons self esteem by deeming them "not ready" to see what you see, even though you are the one(s) who are seemingly seeing something in nothing.

These are not personal attacks either; this is information that anyone with a computer and an index finger can find in this forum. Luckily for this forum, and for the spirit of debate, these tactics don't work on those who would see these ideas for what they really are.

LOL for me... once ya start down the 'insult' road. you have lost your case...

Oh for the shame of hypocrisy... If this is a personal creed of yours, wouldn't you have stopped posting here a very long time ago?

[edit on 28-10-2007 by PartChimp]

Originally posted by PartChimp Your ego will not allow interlopers to harm the frail exterior of your contrived theories.

Ego? No not at all... its my knowledge from direct sources that gives me the confidence of knowing I am right...

You don't like my theories... fine
You don't like my style... fine
You don't believe anything I say... fine

Your right our roads are wide apart...
but I believe yours leads to the washed out bridge around the next corner...

Originally posted by zorgon
Ego? No not at all... its my knowledge from direct sources that gives me the confidence of knowing I am right...

Then why haven't you proven anything with your "direct sources," yet?

Nothing I have seen here has made me question the possibility of a secret space station.

How about a picture of what it looks like, or maybe a copy of the blueprints?

Well, it's possible to have a clandestine orbiting space station up there....but so highly improbable after you logically look into it.

Ah man I can't locate the thread about the malfuctioning ball joints on the STS solar aray.

You'll need to forgive me for wander off topic

Its my guess that the vibrational problems identified inside the ball joints
has been created by the nanotechnology of the special heat/cold paint additives.

reply to post by Skydancer


Yeah, it is also too bad about the 2B solar wing.

All that work....

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Nothing I have seen here has made me question the possibility of a secret space station.

Marvelous! So you don't question the possibility of of a secret space station.

How about a picture of what it looks like, or maybe a copy of the blueprints?

Already posted the 198 page contractors report and related patents in the first thread... (don't have the link handy right this second)

Gotta interrupt the proceedings....

Seems NASA is up to something and Congress had to step in on one part of this breaking news

Well it looks like the 'crap' is about to hit the fan....

I have started a new thread on this but we all need to watch the developments unfolding... this is going to be BIG
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Congress is already involved and the stories have already hit main stream media over the last week...

NASA Scientist Ken Johnston fired...
Was ordered to destroy Apollo and othe Moon images...

He refused...
And is going public!!!!

“I have nothing to lose. I have quarreled with NASA and I got fired,” Ken Johnston said.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007
U.S. scientists unveil NASA’s secrets about cities on the Moon and microbes on Mars
english.pravda.ru...

Oct. 25, 2007
NASA Dismisses Former Apollo Photo and Data Manager from JPL Educational Program Missing Apollo Data to be Shown at National Press Conference
www.sys-con.com...

22 Oct 2007
Possible Connection Between Next Space Shuttle Discovery Mission and Classified NASA Findings
www.earthtimes.org...

As “Dark Mission” gets into circulation and everybody starts jockeying for position I want to make it clear that Hoagland/Bara’s statement on light scattering at sunrise on the moon is explained as their “shattered lunar dome model”.

While there may indeed be shattered domes on the near side, most notably on Mare Crisium and in the pictures from Apollo 12 and 14 that it is my opinion that the light scattering at sunrise, and other phenomena observed by Firsoff, along with those of D.P. Avigliano, Comstock, Pickering, Haas, Wilkens, Barcroft, Lipski along with opinions of:

(In no particular order)
William Herschel
Mestrius Plutarchus
Nicolaus Copernicus
Aristarchus of Samos
Hans Kepler
Peter Andreas Hansen
William Leitch
John Herschel
William Whewell
Asaph Hall
Mikhail Vasin

is due to a breathable atmosphere on the moon.

My opinion is that the atmosphere is thicker on the farside and requires no domes. The atmosphere on the near side I believe is about equal to 18,000 feet above sea level here on earth and thus requires domes over inhabited areas.

It is my opinion that there is no way that the powers in charge here are going to let the ‘breathable atmosphere on the moon’ become public knowledge.

I also want to make it clear that although I haven't finished the book that all constructs on the moon are referred to by Hoagland/Bara as "ancient", when in fact, it is my opinion that there is currently a civilization on the moon with whom we are actively pursuing mutual agendas which include mining and exploration.

I expect a heck of a show.

Originally posted by johnlear



is due to a breathable atmosphere on the moon.

My opinion is that the atmosphere is thicker on the farside and requires no domes. The atmosphere on the near side I believe is about equal to 18,000 feet above sea level here on earth and thus requires domes over inhabited areas.

hey john!...

what do you think would make the atmosphere different on either side of the moon?...also i think your a top bloke!

Originally posted by ..AuStRaLiA..

Originally posted by johnlear



is due to a breathable atmosphere on the moon.

My opinion is that the atmosphere is thicker on the farside and requires no domes. The atmosphere on the near side I believe is about equal to 18,000 feet above sea level here on earth and thus requires domes over inhabited areas.

hey john!...

what do you think would make the atmosphere different on either side of the moon?...also i think your a top bloke!

Due to the gravity difference (the moon doesn't spin like normal).

Though, I don't buy into it all, some of the news is starting to make me think (only think) otherwise.

Recently in the shuttle thread someone brought up "cloaking devices" This was said as a joke, a tactic skeptics like to use to hide their ignorance...

Okay so PAY ATTENTION..... CLOAKING is for real...

What I am about to post will cause repercussions I am sure... and there are some on here who will cringe and probably make a few phone calls (you know who you are) The skeptics will bristle and gaffaw...

Army tests James Bond style tank that is 'invisible'
SOURCE

Adaptive Camouflage
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
Aug 01 2000
[Note: Needs Registration... you may not get accepted...I don't know]

NASA Tech Briefs

I have forwarded both of these to my source and there are already some interesting 'events' triggered by these releases... (mainly due to patent issues)

Imagine for a moment a 'spray' that used nanotech... when you spray this 'paint' onto something, then 'beam' energy at it... the object so protected takes on the surrounding color IE a plane in the sky looks like the sky its flying in...

Imagine for a moment that this 'beam' energy was created when you power up HAARP...


Imagine this 'material' was developed in space...

Yes I know I have quite an imagination...

BUT
Those that KNOW are choking on their coffee right about now...
The Skeptics will call me crazy... but hey they already do that...
But those that want to know will take the hints and do some real digging...

Now here is a little note from the holder of this patent...

I am free to talk about any of my published US Patents which are in the public domain. I am, however, under an edict from DoD under the NSA to 'report any inquiries relative to the 'stealth patent'. I had a phone call from a person who identified himself as an 'Undersectetary of Defense' and the person read a statement to me which I later found was excerpted from the National Security Act, as amended. I was 'ordered' to report any inquiries of any kind, by anyone, to DoD relative to that case (patent). I've only had to do that one time in 20 years when a group of Isreali's, based in Philly, contacted me relative to undertaking collaboration on some 'project' in Haifa. I reported this as instructed and the group 'disappeared' shortly thereafter.

No I will NOT give you the patent number...
No I will NOT give you the name of this person...
(actually those that have followed my posts would have a clue as to who this is )

I WILL recommend that if you do follow up you heed the above note because now you are tugging at the Tigers Tail, and he is looking back at you with big teeth

"My sources" or some other story covering why they can't present any of us with the REAL facts.

If YOU ever did any REAL research you would understand this... but all you do is come in to threads like this and toss around the T&C's (wondering if you actually read them )

With posts like this, would it be fair for me to start posting about the five story, purple giraffe living in my back yard? Y'know- He's behind the fake moon landing.

That would be posting deliberate false information. Posting info from a confidential source is not false information... News reporter protect their sources as well and have gone to jail in that support, so stop being so childish and ignorant. When the DoD come visit your house, you will understand...

I'm for disclosure as much as everyone else on this board- But, where are the facts?

Are you really? Then tell me what have YOU done to find out any facts? Have you called NASA, or the DoD and asked them questions? Have you ever once filed even ONE Freedom of Information Act request form? Just how much DO you want disclosure? Are you willing to cross the line and look into Military websites in the not so easy to access (though still public) sites where they track who you are?

If you can answer yes to any one of these then I may believe your statement... otherwise you are just a hypocrite demanding others do the work and take the risks...

NOTE: The above statement is not directed at any one person... just a generic YOU if the shoe fits... and there are many in here with the same shoe size..


Continued.... stay tuned for Part Two

This is a note directed at Gridkeeper specifically (I know you are out there LOL) and I will expect your U2U....

To our followers I promised I would start showing the 'list'

But as to the rest... this is one of my sources, one who has come forward before and does not mind his name mentioned...

To me and John personally, I can honestly say I was humbled by this contact...

I saw the following picture of the International Space Station taken by
a ground observer which I thought might be useful to add and compare to
the photos you have posted on the secret military space station:

Your web site is fabulous. Give my regards to John Lear. Thanks.

Russ Hamerly, PMP
Senior Project Manager
Boeing IT Services
Work (425) XXX-XXXX

Russ did not take the picture... it was presented to us with this additional note...

You could quote my name as finding and forwarding the image, but be clear that I did not take it. And here's an idea - get the fellow who took the pictures of the secret military space station that you have on your web site to talk to the person who took this one and tell him where to look - he may be able to come up with a comparable photo of the military one.

If you wish to know more about this gentleman you can visit here.. (second from bottom0
www.stsc.hill.af.mil...

Where can I view the picture? Is it still available?

Have you seen these yet, also MI5 are on my case again, their latest phone call is on my youtube page. These may be of interest to you also:
The International Space Station ISS October end 2007

The Space Shuttle, Large Object Near Jupiter, WTF are they?
Regarding the above mentioned subject, see in this video at 3:00, you should be able to see what it is.

While I am sure we will not find and of the secret ones on this site... it is a cool display of satellites I though I would share

science.nasa.gov...

Cool site. I think there there is also a really good chance that there are many secret functions built in (or piggy backed) on standard, non-classified and even commercial satellites. And probably not even active, but there to supplement the informational loss that would occur if some of the classified satellites become inoperable (due to sudden breakdown during a "sensitive" military operation, or from direct enemy action)

I further would postulate that in the event that the military needed to use these functions, they could electronically "commandeer" these satellites. The commercial entities that own and operate these units are oblivious to their potential use.

But then again, I doubt our government is smart enough to do this.......but I would if I were them. Commercial satellites stand a smaller chance of enemy interruption during times of conflict...and if the enemy thinks they have ruin some of your capabilities it would allow you to plan and implement a devastating operation they would not be prepared for.


[edit on 4-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

reply to post by zorgon


Very cool site indeed!

Thanks, Z!

Java Rocks!

I was just clicking on sats at random, and then I found the pull-down where you can access them by name.

Sweet!

Chandra's waaay out there, but no stats for Hubble...hmmm, wonder why?

They've got a lot of sats in an equatorial orientation, how do they keep them apart?

Dang it looks crowded up there!

And that's just the ones they tell us about!


reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts



Good points ITF, probably true, but, no, I don't think they're dumb enough to have not considered, and implemented, what you've proposed.

Interesting food for thought.

Thanks!