Alien Domes On The Moon? Let’s Set The Controversy to Rest!

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by freakyty
I don't personally believe there are "domes" on the surface of the moon.

Yeah, I heard they used a piece of back engineered alien technology to find the "Underground Domes" (seen below).



IRM

Thas just....brilliant...you get a A+ for funny today my friend.

But really all jokes aside...

Now if were just discussing the photos that have been put the OP's post, it all depends, if the moon landing was faked, then no, there are no domes, nobody has ever photographed the moon from the surface, so those predictions would be false. Second if it wasn't faked then we can most likely blame those anomolies on the shiiiiiiteous equipment (although top of the line at the time) that was used to produce these images.

The other images posted with the spires and the D, were forgetting that NASA releases these photos along with other agencies. And if we wanna really see Nasa's intentions, have you ever looked at the track record for Soviet space craft? Not very many of them were successfull, its 2 out of a dozen if i'm not mistaken, NASA hasn't had that many problems, which kinda leads me to believe they don't want other nations looking out there for what "might" be.

In any case, if an alien prescence wanted to makethemselves known i doubt the government would be able to stop them in any way.

Ohh and i have a question about the moon mining? How does ANYONE get rights to mine the moon, when we have no humans there? Aliens have these rights, but for us to have them would kinda be like the people who bought tickets for the first flight to the moon in 1990.

I'm wondering...the people that discredit Hoagland and Lear, what are your credentials? I admit I do not agree with a lot of the theories and conclusions the two have come up with, yet I have nothing on the two. Also wondering if all of you tossing out the notions of discredibility have read through, for example, Dark Mission? I have not, but the little I have read is enough for me to establish he is at least worth hearing. Sometimes you have to wade through the swamp to find something worthwhile, and there is a lot of swamps these days, but that is the price for gaining that kernel, that little piece of truth.

In the beginning of H.P. Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine, in which the cover is inscribed with the phrase 'THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN TRUTH,' she references an old proverb: 'Error runs down an inclined plane, while Truth has to laboriously climb its way up hill.'

Lens flare, nothing more.

That's all.

reply to post by beebs


So exactly which insane idea is worth a listen? Leer and Hoagland could talk about unicorns and at least they could get a horse skeleton. Where exactly is any actual evidence of these glass domes, pyramids, bustling cities on the moon?

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
reply to post by beebs

 

So exactly which insane idea is worth a listen? Leer and Hoagland could talk about unicorns and at least they could get a horse skeleton. Where exactly is any actual evidence of these glass domes, pyramids, bustling cities on the moon?

you should visit the John Lear's Moon Pictures thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

plenty of evidence there, no doubt.

Or you can just click the shortcut in my signature.

Originally posted by depthoffield
I add that, the process of obtaining those pictures at that time,

Hasselblad 70 mm film ... the same cameras Playboy used to give us all those great centerfold shots back in the seventies

Where was the lens flare in those? Oh yeah I forgot, Playboy used the airbrush technigue too to make 'blemishes' go away.

Originally posted by beebs
I'm wondering...the people that discredit Hoagland and Lear, what are your credentials?

Let's see... With my fairly basic grasp of the world around me, current media exposure, news and internet proliferation, I'd say any real moon base(s), mining expeditions by terrestrial or non, there's be decent images of them. Not blurry pics or high contrast images where you're best guess becomes proof.

Originally posted by beebs
Sometimes you have to wade through the swamp to find something worthwhile, and there is a lot of swamps these days, but that is the price for gaining that kernel, that little piece of truth.

Yes, and after wading through that proverbial swamp for decades, looking at every mucky swirl, tripping over every tree root and listening to every bubble going 'bloop' -- how long until you finally see what you *want* to see so you justify to yourself that the lifelong swamp walkabout hasn't wasted your precious, very small, and in the scheme of the universe, very short life?

[edit on 29-12-2008 by noonebutme]

[edit on 29-12-2008 by noonebutme]

Well seeing as 2001: A Space Odesey was released in 1968, one year before Apollo 11 and the original Star Trek came out in 1966-1969 and Lunar Orbiter missions flew from 1966 - 1967

It is hardly surprising that the events coincide...

We had no pictures of the moon before that...

DOH

So here we have ex CIA operative A C Clark showing us a trip to the moon a year before we went. and Gene Roddenberry giving us shields for spacecraft based on a NASA contractor report of shields published in 1964...

Sure is a whole lot of coincidences there



Now what I REALLY want to know is why all those Alien Species find human females so attractive they want to have sex with them

Including the female lesbian lizard in V and Jaba the Hut drolling over Princess Leia... Whats up with that?



.,.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
you should visit the John Lear's Moon Pictures thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

plenty of evidence there, no doubt.

Or you can just click the shortcut in my signature.

Again? What do you expect I will see this time and believe that I missed the first time through that thread? I know, I must just be knocking these two guys because I have never looked into them right? Yeah, thanks but not thanks. I did not believe when I read that thread before and I am not sure that your presentation of it adds anything. Any other "evidence" of any of this garbage?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley Any other "evidence" of any of this garbage?

And yet... you are here

Right...looking for evidence. What are you smirking at? If I were not here, I would be guilty of not looking into it. Since I am here, what is it that you are saying? I am missing your point other than to mock me.

reply to post by Iblis Smiley


What'S the problem, noone asks you to believe. If you want to, do your own research/reading/googling and stop boring us with this "I want proof oh gimme proof!".

Originally posted by amnon
reply to post by Iblis Smiley

 

What'S the problem, noone asks you to believe. If you want to, do your own research/reading/googling and stop boring us with this "I want proof oh gimme proof!".

Why is it that when someone does not believe they are told to go do their own research? What makes you think that I have not? I have and so far not one thing has convinced me that either leer or hoagland are telling any kind of truth. I thought this was a discussion board. I am interested enough to have already looked at more of that crap than you even know. I am here reading about it right? I have not been convinced yet. I see many others have. I am hoping one of them might convince me why they believe this nonsense. If you have a problem with that, you should leave the discussion board and see if you can find a "everyone just support whatever the OP says" board.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by depthoffield
I add that, the process of obtaining those pictures at that time,

Hasselblad 70 mm film ... the same cameras Playboy used to give us all those great centerfold shots back in the seventies

Where was the lens flare in those? Oh yeah I forgot, Playboy used the airbrush technigue too to make 'blemishes' go away.

have you some very little basic experience in photography? Don't you know that every lens objective is more or less prone to lens flares, depending on how complex is (how many different lens surfaces contains), how well is treated with antireflex layers and no matter that, different conditions of obtaining every particular photo? (contrast, light angle of incidence etc etc)
Then google "lens flare" or for example go to www.dpreview.com and follow some lens objective testings with sample photos... and then speak. Until then, you speak in tottally ignorance, i may conclude, sorry.
There are always pictures containing lens flares, and not containing lens flares, taken with the same camera/objective.
You can see this in your (alleged) photographs as well if you have eyes.

Originally posted by zorgon
Well seeing as 2001: A Space Odesey was released in 1968, one year before Apollo 11 and the original Star Trek came out in 1966-1969 and Lunar Orbiter missions flew from 1966 - 1967. It is hardly surprising that the events coincide...

We had no pictures of the moon before that...So here we have ex CIA operative A C Clark showing us a trip to the moon a year before we went. and Gene Roddenberry giving us shields for spacecraft based on a NASA contractor report of shields published in 1964...

Sure is a whole lot of coincidences there

Coincidence? Nope! Someone mentioned we were already mining the Moon by 1962!! And Clarke and Co were probably involved in the secret program!

Man! That Monolith is probably still on Tycho! Zorg, get your tin-can up and running on the double! There's a lot of exploring to do!!

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike or Zorgon:
What year did the Russians send their rover(s?) to the moon?

Were they looking for something to mine too?

These posts about the moon make me wonder:

1.) Is our moon possibly a once small planet from another solar system that was "knocked" out of its orbit and found its way into ours?

2.) Is it a moon that was orbiting the planet that is now the asteroid belt in our solar system? (between Mars and Jupiter)

3.) Is the moon a left over from an impact betwen a planet orbiting the supposed Sister dwarf star that orbits our sun at an odd 3500 year old loop that no one knows anything about for certain?

4.) It is easy to believe that alien structures may indeed exist on the moon and that our government is covering them up because it is proof of something about human existance and/or is technology far superior to our own....etc.

The answer to all is: Yes.

All things are possible. Believable is another story. Feel free to add more to my list.

[edit on 30-12-2008 by wdkirk]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by mikesingh

 

Mike or Zorgon:
What year did the Russians send their rover(s?) to the moon?

Were they looking for something to mine too?

Lunokhod 1 (Луноход)
Mission: Luna 17
Landed on the Moon: November 1970 (Mare Imbrium)



selena.sai.msu.ru...
www.mentallandscape.com...


Its primary mission was "the survey of sites for later manned landings and lunar bases".
Its payload also reveals that the exploration was limited to just a few assessments and besides within a very narrowed range.

Cameras (two TV & four panoramic telephotometers)

RIFMA X-ray fluorescence spectrometer

RT-1 X-ray telescope

PrOP odometer/penetrometer

RV-2N radiation detector

TL laser retroreflector

Paradoxically, much more can be done with well equipped orbiters rather than with rovers for possible mining purposes: and basically, it's what is being presently done by China, India, Japan and, soon, will be done by USA and Russia.

[edit on 30/12/2008 by internos]

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
you should visit the John Lear's Moon Pictures thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

plenty of evidence there, no doubt.

Or you can just click the shortcut in my signature.

Again? What do you expect I will see this time and believe that I missed the first time through that thread? I know, I must just be knocking these two guys because I have never looked into them right? Yeah, thanks but not thanks. I did not believe when I read that thread before and I am not sure that your presentation of it adds anything. Any other "evidence" of any of this garbage?

So...you went through all 200+ pages of that thread, and didn't find one thing that piqued your interest?

Not even the image from a crater near Tsiolkovsky:




I would be curious to hear an explanation about how there could be such a rectilinear formation as the apparent "walled compound" in the above image. BTW, that image was cropped directly from a NASA photo (as provided to me by ArMaP). No funny business, other than to increase the size of the image by doubling it, and putting a red square around it. No further filters were applied in any form.

If that isn't evidence enough, then there isn't much i can do for you. You want "proof", of which there is none. Only "evidence". The Clementine photo sets are "evidence" enough for most rational folks. Not saying you are irrational....but perhaps unable to discern between the terms "evidence" and "proof"?

I would add that using terms like "garbage" could be seen more as "trolling" than "discussing". You should really refrain from such terminology if you are looking for true discussion. Otherwise, don't be surprised that people react to you negatively.

[edit on 30-12-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]