There really are man-made structures on the moon PROOF

Originally posted by SS,Naga

Also, not one comment regarding my post (above) of Ingo's RV'ing structures he saw on the Moon. It carries far more weight than the fuzzy shots offered as 'evidence,' or 'non-evidence.'

I agree with you on Ingo but most here consider RV in the same group as Channeling and don't count it as evidence. But then those same people don't look at real documents either

I have a copy in pdf if anyone wants it... just u2u me for the link

Originally posted by internos
The purpose of the video is obviously to promote the website, and the purpose of the website is obviously to Sell an E-Book:

Well Hoagland also sells books at 60.00 a pop for Dark Mission and people don't seem to have a problem with that...

This one is only 5 bucks for the E-book version, hardy going to get rich on that now is he?

Its funny how many people are against books on ATS yet post material on a board that makes a living off the same material

Its funny how skeptics tout Bad Astronomy as a great debunker but forget to mention that Phil makes a living selling books and lecture tours by debunking

Jim Orberg also makes a living selling books and giving talks debunking

So why is it such a disturbing thing for the anomaly people making a buck?

Originally posted by zorgon
Seems you guys are deliberately blind... and you call ME a troll?

Well, what else can we call someone who claims that the sunlight is coming from the left of a cropped photo in order to bolster a "moonbase" claim when it's plainly obvious from the source photo that the sunlight is from the right? A source photo that they, themselves, refer to. So plainly obvious that there's no way this person could simply be making a mistake?

What do you call someone like that?

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
What do you call someone like that?

A lemming teaser perhaps?



I mean heck the same old same o gets boring after awhile. Don't you guys have something better to do than lurk in all the anomaly threads?

And if you think I am a troll...

you know what they say about feeding

TTFN got new threads to create...

[edit on 01-01-3045 by zorgon]

[edit on 16-12-2008 by zorgon]

I thought that the pics were interesting. I liked the one that looked like hangars built into the side of a mountain.

I'm not new to the subject and I have read "Alien Agenda" and a couple of Hoagland's books.

Let's say that they photos are what they appear to be, structures on the moon. What next?

How old are these structures? Who put them there? Are "they" still there? Are they aliens, or are they us?

The structures are just the very tip of a very big and complicated iceberg.

Check out the US Army project called project Horizon. This was a project headed by Dr. Von Braun, which called for the establishment of a permanent manned missile base on the moon. This was not a theoretical program. Horizon had been given the green light and had a multi-million dollar budget and was several years along in their program before JFK suddenly announced that NASA was going to the moon. In fact the Saturn launch vehicle was designed for project Horizon. This was the only way that Apollo made it to the moon in 8 years. Saturn was well established by project Horizon and Von Braun was the man in charge. Project Horizon was supposed to land on the moon and set up shop by 1967. Who knows, the structures might be Horizon.

Or, maybe the human race has a secret past history. We have been around for hundreds of thousands of years but recorded history is only 5 thousand years or so, a drop in the bucket. Considering that almost all of modern technology has been developed over the past 1000 years. Who can say that we haven't passed this way before? Maybe these structures are proof that the human race has risen and fallen many times, perhaps in sync with the ice ages? Who knows how far we might have gotten?

Then of course there is the alien possibility. If the structures are alien in nature, how long have they been there? All of human history? More? All of lunar history? Who could say? It this is the case, let's hope that they are friendly.

reply to post by King neptune117


I'm not poo poo'ing. Just saying that's about what 6 billion year old structures would look like now.

Ever seen the History Channel "Life After Humans?"

Earth looks like the moon after about 400 years.

No biggie.

This has all happened before, and will again.

(You just won't be there!)

Originally posted by zorgon
Well Hoagland also sells books at 60.00 a pop for Dark Mission and people don't seem to have a problem with that...

This one is only 5 bucks for the E-book version, hardy going to get rich on that now is he?

Its funny how many people are against books on ATS yet post material on a board that makes a living off the same material

Its funny how skeptics tout Bad Astronomy as a great debunker but forget to mention that Phil makes a living selling books and lecture tours by debunking

Jim Orberg also makes a living selling books and giving talks debunking

So why is it such a disturbing thing for the anomaly people making a buck?

Ron, i was talking about the OP: and the OP is about a PROMOTIONAL video, so we are not even able to discuss any evidence, not to mention the word PROOF all caps that i would have replaced with some HUGE question mark.
No, i have no problem with people making money selling crap, i aven don't care of those who sell drugs, so since their activity does NOT affect my life in any way, it doesn't matter to me.
What i don't like is:
1) That this stuff is getting some attention only because it's supported by a website which purpose IS to sell e books for sure, while we don't even know whether there's some actual research behind that stuff: the only image i've been able to track down speaks by itself. Do you really think that something serious can be done using an image wich only (BARELY) distinguishable feature is a 170 km wide crater?

If yes, then how comes that when you research this type of stuff you always look for some better images available? Ron you know better than me that such stuff can't be taken seriously, especially since you are running a website which host some very accurate research, for FREE.

2) IF some ATSer whatsoever would have started a thread based on the same exact stuff, i bet that he / she would have been bashed right after the op: ths is what usually happens, i just wonder why this time didn't happen the same.

3) To ask for money (no matter 5,50,500 $ ) would imply to say BEFORE what you are selling: this is NOT being done by the website in question: what is being done is to say: "buy the book, then you'll find out what you bought". As if you go to some market, pay 5 dollars and you will find out what you've bought only AFTER you come back at home: and the bag may contain everything, including rotten potatoes.

reply to post by internos


Maybe you think this research should be "free" but research takes time, time is money, and the fact that the author requests payment (of only US$5.00) to review the entire collection of findings by no means dilutes the evidence presented.

reply to post by zorgon
Well, considering the many interesting photos that have been discussed over the years, and the many qualitative testimonials that have been made, it is true that RV'ing isn't going to be accepted by these baseline types. Do we really need to convince them, anyway? Why bother, I say.

What are they even doing around such subject matter? Do they expect something new? Perhaps a CNN airing of Nasa footage of aliens waving from an alien ship (with the words: "alien" distinctly marked on the ship) on the Moon, hmmm? In this very unlikely scenario, nobody is going to advance anything with such types.

Others, more open, may believe that which isn't very certain (clear) at all.
Ingo is a known man of his word, and if any do a deep enough inquiry into him & his work, they would come to that conclusion, I don't doubt (the open types, mind).

Speaking of which, JL said Ingo was moving to LV, and that he hoped to have the chance to meet with him. I hope that still happens, because they would have some subject material to discuss (off the record, most likely)!
Here's to that!

Originally posted by SS,Naga Do we really need to convince them, anyway? Why bother, I say.

Well I have asked myself that same question many times over the last year.. "Why bother" It takes a tremendous amount of free time to 'keep going' and for what?

Well I answered that question... contacts. Had I quit last year I would not now be in personal contact with Edgar Mitchell... I would never have met or been contacted by many who have real info to share... For that you can throw all the debunkers and skeptics and trolls at me that they want...

But I must admit, looking over the threads lately... well things have been better here

What are they even doing around such subject matter? Do they expect something new?

My thought on that is this... their subconscious mind is trying to get through to them. Inside they truly want to believe, but their conscious mind is still overpowering the message... yet they keep coming to look. (This is ofcourse not including the lifeless trolls who have nothing better to do than show their intelligence with smartass comments ala youtube.)

There are a few who consider it their duty to protect the world and newbies from such material... and will use any tactic to try to disrupt the very ideas we present. Its sad really... because they don't even realize that they are not having any effect

But once in a while you lay out one piece of the puzzle and someone says "Hey wait a minute... I need to check on this..." and another mind is opened.

I don't expect anyone to believe what I present... I want people to look at it and go out and look it up themselves. That rarely happens here, even less at other forums.

Others, more open, may believe that which isn't very certain (clear) at all.
Ingo is a known man of his word, and if any do a deep enough inquiry into him & his work, they would come to that conclusion, I don't doubt (the open types, mind).

Well in my circles he comes highly recommended and at least two people took the time to request a copy... so you see? That is why its worth it.

Speaking of which, JL said Ingo was moving to LV, and that he hoped to have the chance to meet with him. I hope that still happens, because they would have some subject material to discuss (off the record, most likely)!
Here's to that!

Well Ron Blackburn has moved here already and there has been a lot... 'off the record' It would be great to meet Ingo... I wonder if I should wear one of John's Tin Foil Hats





[edit on 17-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by SS,Naga
What are they even doing around such subject matter? Do they expect something new? Perhaps a CNN airing of Nasa footage of aliens waving from an alien ship (with the words: "alien" distinctly marked on the ship) on the Moon, hmmm? In this very unlikely scenario, nobody is going to advance anything with such types.

This is a curious notion. What makes you think this type of thing -- a spaceship with aliens waving from it for everybody to see -- is any less likely than another scenario? Because your expectations have been conditioned to think that UFOs are sneaky little critters that only appear to a select few, and that the truth will only be found by an intrepid group of brilliant but unconventional thinkers in some obscure part of the world (or Web)? Come on, man. They're aliens! Who knows what they might or might not do.

If aliens from other planets actually exist, I don't see why them appearing big as day on CNN is less unlikely than some hunter shooting one in some remote area somewhere and coming home with it in a gunny sack.

Either way, a CNN appearance, backed up by good, solid evidence verified by independent experts wouldn't be the worst kind of proof, after all. Hey, if you're going to dream, dream big.

reply to post by Nohup

You are entirely right! My mistake.

Anything can and will happen, most especially when least expected.

Threads like this are a complete joke and a laughing stock to real research.
1. To the guy with the King Arthur avatar rip off, adding false color to images and then giving arbitrarly determined colors to individual features isnt proof, its artificially altering a photo, especially when the original photos are not of a high enough resolution in the first place to pick out structres!
I think its laughale how people do this..they find these moon photographs, without even considering the resolution and begin to find "buildings" and "structures"

looking at rocks + pareidollia = nonsense.

2. The idea that NASA and the Military are covering up structures on the moon is nonsense in light of the fact that any amateur astronomer with a powerful enough telescope can take some good high res photos of the moon as well, not to mention the slew of huge public observatories and such.

So is the government going to begin a telescope crack down? I think not. Give me a break!

reply to post by CosmicTraveler
Do you mean this?



It can be found here.

Originally posted by NavalFC
2. The idea that NASA and the Military are covering up structures on the moon is nonsense in light of the fact that any amateur astronomer with a powerful enough telescope can take some good high res photos of the moon as well, not to mention the slew of huge public observatories and such.

So is the government going to begin a telescope crack down? I think not. Give me a break!

You do know that the moon has a side that is not visible from Earth at any time, called the far side?

If you do then maybe you can provide me with one of those telescopes that can view the far side of the moon. That would be awsome.

Originally posted by twodee

Originally posted by King neptune117

I just now realized how much solid evidence there is of lunar structures.

Hi King,

Not to crush your enthusiasm but there is no solid evidence of structures on the lunar surface. I don't think that a few blurry - colour replaced photographs satisfy even a small fraction of the 'solid evidence' test. (I did like the editing of the youtube vid!)

The moon is pretty close to earth, we have been gazing at it for 1000's of years - amateur astronomers can take pretty decent pics of the moon - Search Google - there are tons of resources and images, and even 'how-tos'!

Just keep in mind that in the last decade several countries have orbited probes and the like around the moon not just NASA and the US- so the conspiracy would have to be HUGE if it was to be kept quiet.

Isn't it curious that nobody's landed on the moon in over 30 years? I think it is. We don't even have a rover on the moon. That's odd to me.

Originally posted by NavalFC
Threads like this are a complete joke and a laughing stock to real research.

Well then stop with the same old rhetoric and show us the real research. If people like you spent just a little time presenting REAL evidence and research instead of being a broken record with 'its just rocks, paredolia, and your all nuts' it would increase the quality of the forums immensely.

Instead of trying the same old tactics over and over... show us positive examples of this real research you speak about... because we must obviously be missing it.

Seems to me that would be a lot more constructive than telling me for the thousandth time "its only rocks"



I for one will bet you don't HAVE and 'real' research that you are talking about

reply to post by Fastwalker81

Not only can telescopes on earth not see the darkside,but I don't think they are strong enough to see structures on the surface even if they are there.

I don't think the Hubble is even strong enough.(but I may be wrong)

[edit on 18-12-2008 by crowpruitt]

Originally posted by crowpruitt
I don't think the Hubble is even strong enough.(but I may be wrong)

You are not wrong... on the Hubble but there IS NO DARK SIDE

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?

No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

Hubble.org

Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon:



Big picture in PDF

Now repeat after me...

THERE IS NO DARK SIDE OF THE MOON




[edit on 18-12-2008 by zorgon]

I am no expert in this field like Zorgon And Mike Singh but the wealth of Anomolie photos out there including Mars is astonomical.

There are many worthy sites on the web including J Skpppers Mars Anomolies also Pegasus and many more.

If some of the hardened skeptics would just spend a few hours of thier precious debunking time and just do a little research thier box might expand a little.