alien bases disclosure

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Teabags

 

I would guess the main reason for the dark side location is secrecy. If these beings don't want us, or at least the entire race to know they are there then it makes sense to build a massive base on the spot where they know we can not easily see or get to. Plus there are some interesting gravity anomalies there. Another reason could be mineral deposits.

errr... jkrog, old buddy old friend, there is a bit of a contradiction there, not what you said, but with the theory, if they are hiding on the dark side of the moon away from us then that means that the bases are recently established, not hundreds maybe thousands of years old or as old as creation herself as another poster already put, because we have only recently had the technology to look up in to the night sky and see things a lot closer, yes granted gallileo was looking up a few hundred years ago, but he didnt have the clarity to look real close did he? so its either millenia old and they didnt build it on the dark side of the moon to hide from us or its recent and they did, not saying theres nothing there, because it might be just coincidence that they built it on the far side, and i do believe that its possible, but the logic is unsound, its a contradiction in terms!!! not your fault mate, people need to get there logic straight before they post!!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by DARREN1976]

What I want to know is, and this is just a matter for conjecture remember, if the moon was blasted from the earth billions of years ago by a collision with another huge body, and we have hardly no helium-3 on earth, then how come the moon is abundant with it? if it originally was part of the earth then why has it got more than earth, you think it would have less!! unless it was all situated in the spot that was blasted away which is highly unlikely, or ..... nah nevermind!!!


think i just answered my own question.... maybe it was seeded by comets/asteroids and meteors and the like.... but feel free to speculate people!!!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by DARREN1976]

errrrrr.... phage my friend, sorry to go off topic, but this has been bothering me for a while....is that john lithgow in your avatar? it looks like him. sorry if its not!!

please ignore last, just had the heads up from weedwhacker, thanx matey!!!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by DARREN1976]

So if there are bases on the moon.... are they really going there to bomb the bomb these bases? Do they know what these "Aliens" could be capable of? Think about it.... if they are there.... where did they come from? What kind of weaponry would they have?

Why do the Americans want to start some war with Aliens?

Of course this all revolves around the little word "IF"

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


LCROSS is planned to impact the Moon ---not 'bomb'--- near the South Pole.

They are taken great care not to disturb the tenants!!

It's like, if you lived in the Sahara desert, and a school bus was dropped from the sky and landed in Tasmania....doubt you'd notice...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well that's what they say......

Are these so-called moon bases visible on Google Earth? Or Google Moon? Whatever?

[edit on 13-7-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]

Originally posted by Ayrton

Why don`t we just call him by his name, Enki.
He certainly has a plan, he want`s to open his little gate to "hell".

Enki (Ea) was the one who created us (per the Enki Sumerian Tablets, and The Terra Papers - which disagree on where he came from but not in that he made us to be helpers and companions - not slaves which, at least according to The Terra Papers, was what his brother, Enlil (An-En), did to us).

I am inclined to believe that whatever you have been told about Enki was incorrect, and likely disinfo.

This guy never said he saw pictures.... he said that someone told breached security and blurted it out to him.

He's genuine in his understandings...

But I'd like to see where he says he actually saw photos.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

This guy never said he saw pictures...

Watch again....he said he looked.

Also, read up a few pages...zorgon and others have spotted a GLARING inconsistency in his story --- his credibility meter is hovering around 'zero' right now.

Stay tuned.....

reply to post by Amaterasu


Well, i think this was discussed at length in the "Stargates are real" thread (180 pages).

And no, neither Enki or Enlil are our friends. No disinfo for me there.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ayrton]

Originally posted by Ayrton
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Well, i think this was discussed at length in the "Stargates are real" thread (180 pages).

And no, neither Enki or Enlil are our friends. No disinfo for me there.

180 pages is a lot to plow through. Where do you gain your knowledge? From all I have seen, Enki, if not a hero, at least was angry that we were taken into slavery and took many away to teach how to survive. This angered Enlil to the point that (however it was done) he caused a flood or tidal wave of vast proportions to occur, killing many.

Thank you for any information you might provide.

It`s 180 pages but worth it, IMHO.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Ayrton
It`s 180 pages but worth it, IMHO.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That may be... But time constrains me. Have you any specific page(s) in mind? Or links...?

Thanks!

This is what's so valuable on the moon, and why there may be motivation to mine.

Wikipedia: Helium-3

reply to post by paradigm619

Plenty of speculation about the amount of He-3 that might be on the Moon.
But even if the streets are paved with it, we are a long way from being able to use it.

If there is no atmosphere on the moon, then how would the aliens breath or find food or water. And if they can survive on the moon, then wouldn't they die in the earth's atmosphere? Just wondering.

reply to post by ocker


I'm a little concerned with some of your vocabulary. For instance: "Common knowledge". None of the "facts" you lay out are common knowledge. History has shown that what may be "common knowledge" at some point in time is proved entirely bogus a short time later. "Obviously" - To whom is it obvious? If you start with a certain set of assumptions (many based on no real evidence), I guess a certain thing may be obvious - and maybe in error. Also, there are a whole lot of people who claim to be naval intelligence officers, Air Force OSI agents, etc. How do you know? I want documentary evidence before accepting anybody's word. I once had a student register for an advanced electronics class who claimed to have worked for NASA. It impressed the hell out of the other students. I did a little research. He did work for NASA for three years - as a food service vendor.

reply to post by Fanatic


WOW..I looked at the carl sagan vid. It was humbling. He was a real genius, a real person. Good find and thankyou. Feels small now..

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Xtraeme Since Karl's sticking his neck out on the line, as a potential whistle-blower,

How is he sticking his neck out exactly? This video came out in what 2001? And still no more word from it? Plenty of time to have had an 'accident'

When I say "stick his neck out" I mean it in a very abstract and non-specific manner. For instance sticking ones neck out can involve:

1. Opening oneself up to ridicule, causing emotional-stress and hardship
   
2. Potentially damaging reputation
   
3. Making it harder for a person to find work
   
4. Damaging friendly relationships, because inevitably some people will want to distance themselves from the "whistleblower" and his "out there" claims.
   
5. et cetera

It's not altogether hard to see this. Just place yourself in his shoes.

For example, imagine if someone started posting disparaging comment about you, Zorgon, using your real name.

Would you be upset with me if I started digging through your old posts, found all the instances where you've been mistaken (i.e. the Onion video in the Disclosure NSA style thread) and then started to insinuate that you hadn't simply made an honest error but were instead intentionally misinforming people?

I think you would and for good reason.

Judging a person in a public manner, especially when the person optionally forgoes anonymity and exposes themselves to attack, is poor taste. The only time I think this is ever justified is when the facts (not interpretation) overwhelmingly demonstrate malfeasance.

Even then it's rare we have a 100% clear picture.

In the spirit of integrity and honesty we should express our certainty and uncertainty in correct proportions. The Internet has a very long memory. Trashing a persons name should be a method of last resort.

But besides that he has NOTHING else but what he says... How can I say that? Because he has only his word what he saw in that building. Its not like he took out a camera or smuggled out a copy...

To qualify as a whistle-blower doesn't require tangible evidence. It simply requires knowing something compromising.

Physical evidence obviously helps, but whistle-blowing is just that, alerting others to something that appears to be below-board.

whis⋅tle-blow⋅er –noun
a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.
dictionary.reference.com...

So there is no "potential whistle-blower" here. In his own words he was repairing equipment and was only there for 4 days and the incident of seeing the pictures was a brief glimpse before someone came into the room. It was a one time sighting.

I think our disagreement here is over a difference in definition of whistle-blower. Whistle-blowing does not imply the person has systemic knowledge of wrong-doing.

If you stole a paper-clip from work and another employee informed your boss. That coworker would technically qualify as a whistleblower.

No one would care , but that's besides the point.

The other thing that doesn't wash is his claim that the images were airbrushed. Because why would they be airbrushed as they were coming off the printer from the transmission from the moon? And how could he have seen a base on the moon if they were already airbrushed? Why would the secret area at Langley be looking at airbrushed images? That would be only for us later

Karl did NOT say images were airbrushed. You're thinking of Donna Hare. I checked Greer's book `Disclosure`, the video testimony, and the 2001 NPC video.

Please check your bias and verify your claims before stating things that are patently false. You not only damage someone else's reputation, Mr Wolfe's in this instance, but also your own.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Just place yourself in his shoes.

Okay...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

For example, imagine if someone started posting disparaging comment about you, Zorgon, using your real name.

Been there done that... some of it is still out there like the Henry Deacon attack at godlike That is why you get yourself a 'support group'

But the BEST way to avoid ridicule is be honest and upfront with your info. I will give you he MAY have erred in saying 1965 but since the images didn't really get to Langley for the Defense mapping agency till 1967-1968 you would think that at LEAST Greer would have corrected him before going live...

Ridicule comes quicker when your caught with false data. Its hard to recover after that

How do I know the time frame on the images?

Because they come with a date stamp

Would you be upset with me if I started digging through your old posts, found all the instances where you've been mistaken (i.e. the Onion video in the Disclosure NSA style thread) and then started to insinuate that you hadn't simply made an honest error but were instead intentionally misinforming people?

Nope not at all... I correct errors but that Onion one is a bad example if you read the post following. Sensationalism yes... error no... Sensationalism works best here at ATS... I know I proved it already with my F'ossils on Mars' thread

But that is not the worst error , the date... the worst is the use of 1994 Clementine images to make a case for 1967 Lunar Orbiter story... The average person out there would have no idea of the difference and it certainly is NOT stated in the video that these are indeed Clementine not LO images NOR is there any image source data provided

That is the 'honesty' part I was talking about. Now if that is not an 'official' film than it needs to be addressed but it is what people are seeing and forming opinions on

Judging a person in a public manner, especially when the person optionally forgoes anonymity and exposes themselves to attack, is poor taste. The only time I think this is ever justified is when the facts (not interpretation) overwhelmingly demonstrate malfeasance.

Well let them add the Clementine 1994 data with image numbers and I will agree with you. Its not judging... its determining the truth. A simple statement that they made an error on the date would help, but there is no excuse for the subterfuge of the Clementine images because even though he claims those were like what he saw... that makes no sense whatsoever

Even then it's rare we have a 100% clear picture.

The Internet has a very long memory. Trashing a persons name should be a method of last resort.

Tell the other side that, Oberg, Bad Astronomy and any of a 100 here at ATS when talking about John, Lazar etc...

When someone can prove he was actually there in 1965 (+three years 'error' margin) and they come clean and CLEARLY mark the images as CLEMENTINE so the public is aware that they are 1994 pictures... I will reconsider

My info is offered freely... I do not get ad revenue, nor sell T shirts and other merchandise at the "Disclosure Store" nor take donations. My site and my work here is free though many have told me I am stupid ATS makes a good deal of money on member content as they can support many people full time in their business here... I get paid in stars flags and points...

To qualify as a whistle-blower doesn't require tangible evidence. It simply requires knowing something compromising.

Well marvelous... but he has already said everything he knows... there is no more... period... and that little bit has serious errors which he could very easily correct. I once pointed out to Hoagland that the image number is wrong on "Data's Head" Sent them the correct one... but if you look at the site the correction has not been made.

Its hard enough to get credibility in this field... just get me Wolf's DOB and we will take it from there... because I have had no luck yet through my channels

Physical evidence obviously helps, but whistle-blowing is just that, alerting others to something that appears to be below-board.

Physical evidence is what it will take to convince people.. Blowing whistle without backup just makes noise. Out of all the whistle blowers online today... how many do you tink are truthful? Especially when many contradict each other? Just adds to the confusion.

I went through an incident with one WB... I provided hard documentation on Looking Glass direct from the actual paper at LANL archives and linked to the secure LLNL Shiva Nova site at least 6 months before it went public. I expected a "Great job... you backed me up" response... instead I was blasted for being Psysops... my motive for posting the data was questioned and the material deleted... That same file here at ATS got stuffed out of site

whis⋅tle-blow⋅er –noun
a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.
dictionary.reference.com...

2. A person who figured out a way to make a name or make money by telling a cool story people want to hear but can do so without being required to prove anything, yet people just accept their word without question

Want a list?

Ken Johnston was a major WBer press conference set, promise of pictures, credential shown... look how that turned out

I think our disagreement here is over a difference in definition of whistle-blower. Whistle-blowing does not imply the person has systemic knowledge of wrong-doing.

If you stole a paper-clip from work and another employee informed your boss. That coworker would technically qualify as a whistleblower.

No one would care

, but that's besides the point.

However in the case of WBers in THIS field people DO care As it is a good 75-80% of people in this field are charlatans out for a quick buck. It means those that are serious have to be even more diligent to have it together.

I have been asked many times why there are no conclusions or summaries of belief on my website

Very simple... I don't have any conclusions yet ....just thousands of puzzle pieces many that fit together, many more that don't

Please check your bias and verify your claims before stating things that are patently false. You not only damage someone else's reputation, Mr Wolfe's in this instance, but also your own.

I don't have any bias... I actually tokk him at his word without really looking into it more closely... even have a page on his testimony. Sometimes I just don't have time to go over everything in detail and at the beginning I was sure the Disclosure Project was going to be THE THING that broke this wide open... well still waiting aren't we?

As to reputation...

A couple points In the google video he says the NSA brought in the information from the Lunar Orbiter curious that...

But at 51.1o he says they were doing 35 mm strips of film...

Well since the LO orbiter used 70mm film and the fact that the film was developed on board the orbiters and the original film crashed on the moon, do you not find that odd that he would say 35mm film strips?

The LO data was sent to earth by video data feed and recorded on TAPE. See my McMoon thread on the missing LO tapes and the attempt at restoration, the problem being there are no machines that can read that data anymore except the one found in a garage and restored by the McMoon tape

Then from that data they made 16x20 negative... we have some of those dang hard to get printed these day... so there would not have been 35 mm strips from LO only data tapes.

The strips on the images are the video data feed lines not strips of film

One might think you have a vested interest in this, but who knows?

Tell you what get me his date of birth so we have his age in 1965 and lets get a letter from Greer or someone in the group explaining my 'concerns' and if that gets answered satisfactorily I will print a retraction

At this point I don't buy what he is saying... just too many holes in it

I think I will go jump in the pool now





[edit on 13-7-2009 by zorgon]